"Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors." Evelyn Cunningham
The concept of feminist-multiculturalism supposes the combination of two doctrines: feminism and multiculturalism, both fighting for rights and equality. The first one recommends the equality between genders and the defense of woman's rights and condition. The second one recognizes the existence of different cultures within a country and "promotes the value of diversity as a core principle and insists that all cultural groups be treated with respect and as equals" . The combination of both supposes the coherence of a multiculturalism which would not deny the feminist ideal. This amounts to analyze the pursuit of both feminism and multiculturalism model to a certain extent.
[...] It is true that their identity as a minority group's women is complex but in order to be able to defend her culture and claim for recognition, a woman must be able to express herself as an individual and then as a full and equal member of her group. One must be free to be or not a group's member, to quit it, to criticize it etc . Shortly, women need to be aware of opportunities, which implies to be free, and to give their opinion, which implies to be recognized as an equal human being. [...]
[...] Clearly, in this exemplary case, feminist-multiculturalism is a contradiction in term. They cannot cohabitate in the same political system, at least legally speaking. In my opinion, secularism should have the lead. First, it is the way historically chosen to preserve the state from taking part in cultural rivalries and secondly because the solution which protect people is the better even if it denies to the others a part of identity. Freedom is more important than culture. A human being can live without any culture, but he cannot once deprived of liberty. [...]
[...] Shervin solves, in a way, this dilemma and conciliates both approaches by saying that: “some communities are morally worse than others ( . A community that structures its relations in terms of domination and subordination is not worthy of moral trust ( ) so (even) feminist relativist are not obligated to tolerate, let alone respect, its standards.”[7] S. Shervin basically argues here that this should not be perceived as cultural oppression but as women, individualism, liberalism and feminism's protection. Tolerance needs to have limits in order to be meaningful, even and maybe especially concerning cultures. [...]
[...] An adult can decide freely once she is educated and when she has a real freedom and no cultural pressures. This is why a liberal country having to protect all individuals as strongly as possible cannot grant discriminative rights if they can eventually harm the interest any member. As long as it has not been proved that all members agreed, informed and free, to defend a custom and practice it, any anti-liberal claim must not be satisfied. However, in my opinion, freedom also implies to authorize surgeons to propose this operation for women, adult and willing, who want it. [...]
[...] Nonetheless, this answer, almost pro- nationalist, is a menace to diversity, respect and principles of tolerance; it will isolate and oppress this minority which resentment can in turn jeopardize the social harmony.[5] Then, it is required to acknowledge their identity, deal with and ensure its protection. S.M. Okin argues that many cultures oppress their members, especially women, in a way that does not allow them to question or refute their conditions.[6] So usually, women are not really aware of their oppression or cannot combat it. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
