Feminism, Multiculturalism, Oppression, and the State

Abstract

Some feminists have recently charged multicultural theorists of ignoring the rights of women in their arguments to secure group rights. Too often, these feminists charge, group rights are used to subordinate women. Group rights may appear fair in the abstract but in fact they often mean giving rights to the particular leaders of these groups; when these leaders are men with a traditional view of the world, as they often are, then it is hardly surprising, though certainly disturbing, that group rights are often used to oppress women.The most persuasive part of the feminist argument is against what Ayelet Shachar calls 'strong multiculturalism,' but what I will call group autonomy; this form of multiculturalism gives groups power over its members through "strong formal and legal recognition."' This multiculturalism concentrates on justice between groups, ignoring justice within groups. Nothing is done when the group uses its rights to oppress women, even though, according to Martha Nussbaum, in the case of religion, "we should not accept the idea that denying any fundamental right of any individual is a legitimate prerogative of a religious group. "2 Since some groups discriminate against women, group autonomy often undermines women's rights and equality.Though the liberal state usually ought to support autonomy and equality, there are times when it should refrain from doing so. The * Thanks to

Secularism or Democracy? : Associational Governance of Religious Diversity

“…In cases of some isolationist religious minorities, like the Amish, the associational freedoms of religion conflict seriously with individual religious freedom of children and other basic human rights such as equal treatment of the sexes and equal opportunity for all. As the Yoder case shows (Spinner-Halev 2000), the possibilities and limits to liberal accommodation involve hard issues such as years of mandatory education, minimal curriculum, exit options of children, sex equality and basic versus best interests. Most Muslim groups in Western societies, however, only claim modest exemptions.…”

State intervention in the lives of people with disabilities: the case for a disability-neutral framework

“…As with all forms of support, matter how benign, and respect for these refusals must not require the individual to demonstrate a certain level of mental capacity. 28 For more on the need for the state to provide a 'right of exit' to people who wish to leave situations of oppression or domination, see Okin (2002);Reitman (2005);and Spinner-Halev (2001).…”

Consenting Adults? Amish Rumspringa and the Quandary of Exit in Liberalism

“…His main complaint is that under Kukathas's model, "no mainstream society" exists toward which members of cultural communities may turn. 18 For Spinner-Halev, this lack of a mainstream society in which a Hasid or a Pueblo may find room to live an alternative life makes Kukathas's argument unworkable. For only with an exit option to an alternative life, he holds, may we be satisfied that an individual has a way out of a culture she may not want to be a part of.…”