|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad Leo wrote this. However, opposition to CEDAW does not have to be from a politically conservative outlook. I myself oppose CEDAW from a strictly apolitical men's rights perspective.
This announcment from Men's Health America is one example of an objection to CEDAW that takes an a-political, gender-equality perspective:
CEDAW: CODE WORD FOR GENDER INEQUALITY
In 1979, the UN General Assembly approved the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW
is often described as an international bill of rights for women. CEDAW is overseen by a Committee of 23 persons, almost all women.
CEDAW consists of 30 articles that cover such areas as Sex Role Stereotyping, Education, Employment, Law, and many others. More
information about CEDAW can be found at
www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/.
The CEDAW Health Recommendations
Article 12 of CEDAW addresses Women's Health. This Article states:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to
ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning."
Twenty years later, in 1999, the CEDAW Committee approved the 24th General Recommendation on the topic of Women and Health. General Recommendation 24 states:
"special attention should be given to the health needs and rights of women belonging to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, such as migrant
women, refugee and internally displaced women, the girl child and older women, women in prostitution, indigenous women and women with physical or mental disabilities...."
Whereas Article 12 merely calls for the elimination of discrimination in order to improve access, General Recommendation 24 goes much farther: It calls for "special attention" for "women belonging to vulnerable and
disadvantaged groups."
On the surface, CEDAW sounds like a progressive and enlightened concept that all persons should enthusiastically embrace. But a careful
examination of CEDAW reveals serious problems.
Flaws with the Policy-Making Process
Following the approval of CEDAW by the UN General Assembly in 1979, the CEDAW Committee began to approve its "General Recommendations." The
stated purpose of these General Recommendations is to elaborate the Committee's view of the obligations assumed under the Convention.
Given the fact that the CEDAW Committee was given free rein to make new rules, it is not surprising that the General Recommendations have become quite extensive over the years. Whereas the original CEDAW numbered 9 pages in length, the General Recommendations are now 25 pages
long.
As it develops these General Recommendations, the Committee claims to engage in "open dialogue" with unspecified "non-governmental
organizations and others." Once the Committee finalizes its General Recommendations, however, there is no requirement of approval by the UN
General Assembly. Indeed, none of those nations that had already ratified the original CEDAW have to give any approval for the new General Recommendations.
So the Recommendations do not come into existence following any process that could be construed as democratic. There are no checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. As a result, a committee of 23 persons is essentially dictating gender policy to those nations that have ratified CEDAW.
Flaws with the Health Provisions of CEDAW
Although there are areas in which women have suffered from discrimination, healthcare generally is not one of them. To the contrary, men have lagged behind women on almost every indicator of healthcare utilization, lifestyle factors, health status, and longevity.
The problem with Article 12 of CEDAW is that is makes the faulty assumption that women have less access to health care services than men.
Whether access is defined in terms of health insurance coverage, availability of health care services, or actual utilization of services,
men have less access to health care services than women.
Indeed, in many poor countries around the world, the country's health care system revolves around their maternal and child health programs.
While services to prevent deaths from childbirth and promote the health of infants are essential, such services, by definition, exclude men.
CEDAW's General Recommendation 24 is even more deficient. The wording of the Recommendation is revealing:
"special attention should be given to the health needs and rights of women belonging to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, such as migrant
women, refugee and internally displaced women, the girl child and older women, women in prostitution, indigenous women and women with physical or mental disabilities."
First, the Recommendation is worded very broadly. The term "mental disability" is not defined, and could be construed to include a broad
range of psychological conditions. In many low income countries, virtually all women could be classified as "vulnerable and disadvantaged."
Second, the Recommendation ignores the fact that many men are also vulnerable and disadvantaged. Men can be migrants and refugees. Boys and
older men are often at higher risk of acute and chronic illnesses. Boys and men have been subjected to sexual abuse. Men have physical and
mental disabilities, as well.
The effect of Article 12 and General Recommendation 24 is to create a double-standard: a "normal" level of healthcare services for men, and a "special attention" standard for women.
Conclusion
The previous MHA Special Report on The Global Disparities of Male Longevity documented the health problems that affect men around the
world. Men are at greater risk of dying from almost all causes of death, in virtually every country, and in every age group.
Despite these well-documented facts, CEDAW aims to categorize women as "vulnerable and disadvantaged," and therefore deserving of special
attention.
Under the guise of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality, CEDAW has become a stealth strategy of promoting a double-standard of
healthcare.
CEDAW is a euphemism for gender inequality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to health issues that men suffer from around the world. [Note that very often in countries where there are supposed "men" only hospitals there is very often no medical care. The end result is very often only the rich and politically powerful obtain healthcare, reguardless of their sex.]There are two other areas where men suffer in overwhelming numbers but is overtly ignored by these "gender equity" groups: gendercide and prison rape.
While both men and women have been targeted by gender in mass executions it has been historically the case that males consitiute the vast majority of these targets. For futher information read read some of the case studies provided at this site: http://www.gendercide.org/what_is_gendercide.html
Recently a human rights organization published findings that showed rape amoung prisioners in the United States is at empidemic proportions, with estimates reaching one million rapes a year. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/]
It seems to me that any organization that claims to address GENDER issues on local, state, national, or global level must, by definition, recognize the problems MEN and women have. Unless CEDAW and other organizations modifiy their vision to include everyone men will continue to suffer silently.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Unless CEDAW and other organizations modifiy their vision to include everyone men will continue to suffer silently."
And severely.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It calls for "special attention" for "women belonging to vulnerable and
disadvantaged groups."
Believe me, there's something I don't want as a handicapped woman. All of the "special attention" given to me in my life has been of the negative variety. Even by so-called feminists and PC'ers in academia. *shudders*
Now, on to the men's-rights complaints... This is insane. Big Sister watches all of us, and if we don't look out for women, these narrow-minded idiots will bring Armageddon upon us. Besides, what's so wrong with finding Mr. Right, getting married, and starting a family? That's what I want to do, but I scare a lot of guys off...*sigh* And all the lesbians (who are mostly politically divorced straight girls, IMHO), upon hearing of the break-up b/t me and my boyfriend, basically formed a line to get in my pants and out of the "sexual slavery" of dating men. Ha. Sexual slavery is when you are forced by a group of nasty girls to conform to their unfounded beliefs...or get death threats in your e-mail theat the Dean will take no action on b/c she sides with the students!!
I like being traditional, but also ground-breaking at the same time. I support same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to get our religious and state institutions to accept it. It's their decision, not mine. Something a lot of "womynists" need to realize...keep your nose out of other people's business, especially if you aren't asked and you really know nothing of what's going on!! (quote from another real woman- my mom!)
-Rivka
Learning to Adjust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron. "
I like you.
btw, I dont know if your into this site Rivka, but its www.iwf.org the independant women's forum. And from your words I find you very independant, and also attractive so Im sure boyfriends galore are there for your taking.
As far as your handicap is concerned, you don't have one. Your mind is your greatest advantage looks like you've overcome everything else.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently wrote to my senators explaining why I wanted them to vote against CEDAW. One senator replied and in the opening sentence of his canned response stated that he also opposed CEDAW and would vote against it.
From the senator’s response: “What concerns me is yet another well-intentioned international agreement that nations around the world sign, but do little to fulfill. Such agreements have the potential to do real harm by giving countries that routinely mistreat women the cover of claiming that they are parties to the anti-discrimination Convention.” He goes on to give examples of countries that have signed on to CEDAW and still discriminate against women.
Clearly his opposition is not based on the content of CEDAW. His response seems to be further evidence that the only way someone in congress can oppose a feminist position is to claim that it really just doesn’t do enough for women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<Clearly his opposition is not based on the content of CEDAW. His response seems to be further evidence that the only way someone in congress can oppose a feminist position is to claim that it really just doesn’t do enough for women.>>
Political suicide otherwise.
To bad politicians are afraid to shot from the hip.
They have to much at stake, money career, a mortgage -whatever. They don't care what the truth is they care what the 'truth' will be percieved as. Which means they won't take the time to research the opposition, it means they will go with the loudest voice. Dangerous.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another quote from the senator's letter: "I believe that any form of discrimination is wrong and should be opposed."
This declaration may come in handy one of these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This declaration may come in handy one of these days."
I wonder if one could make a sign, tagging his statement to a great injustice of discrimination against men, maybe with a subquote of "Where's my senator now?"
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
