Talk:Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



'Controversies'[edit]

The Convention itself is, of course, Fascist against the male race and completely against gender equality by the very fact that it is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WOMEN. Even the NAME of this convention is Feminist. - i.e sexually discriminatory. There is no such thing as a convention for equality of the sexes that only mentions and promotes one gender! Surely this is obvious?! It is VERY alarming indeed that it has been ratified. The articles within it are also Feminist. Its like having a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Non-Jews in Nazi Germany. It says only one thing. Now, as the author of this article, theres a chance that you have nothing to do with it, though that is unlikely. Whatever the case is, I would like the Controversies section to be added to with respect to what I have said. i.e "As the name suggests, the Convention itself is female-centric, even Feminist, causing alarm among some men who see this as yet another form of discrimination against men in the name of female rights"

I hope my faith in the sanity and non-fascism of this author is well placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it asssumes that women are in a weaker position politically, economically and socially, so to achieve gender equality becomes the same as helping women. You are free to disagree with that, but comparisons with Nazi Germany are quite inappropriate.

It seems odd that countries like Saudi Arabia, where the law does clearly discriminate against women, can be signatories. I think this deserves to be commented on, but there needs to be a source to refer to. 77.103.6.140 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

This is a nice picture, but how does it relate directly to CEDAW? Romarin 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Convention itself is, of course, Fascist against the male race and completely against gender equality by the very fact that it is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WOMEN. Even the NAME of this convention is Feminist. - i.e sexually discriminatory. There is no such thing as a convention for equality of the sexes that only mentions and promotes one gender! Surely this is obvious?! It is VERY alarming indeed that it has been ratified. The articles within it are also Feminist. Its like having a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Non-Jews in Nazi Germany. It says only one thing. Now, as the author of this article, theres a chance that you have nothing to do with it, though that is unlikely. Whatever the case is, I would like the Controversies section to be added to with respect to what I have said. i.e "As the name suggests, the Convention itself is female-centric, even Feminist, causing alarm among some men who see this as yet another form of discrimination against men in the name of female rights"

I hope my faith in the sanity and non-fascism of this author is well placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it asssumes that women are in a weaker position politically, economically and socially, so to achieve gender equality becomes the same as helping women. You are free to disagree with that, but comparisons with Nazi Germany are quite inappropriate.

It seems odd that countries like Saudi Arabia, where the law does clearly discriminate against women, can be signatories. I think this deserves to be commented on, but there needs to be a source to refer to. 77.103.6.140 (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

While there may be discrimination against male and other genders, if one accepts gender identity as fluid and on a continuum, this declaration recognises the historic and ongoing discrimination of the female gender, from all angles, being at a far greater level than that of the male gender. For males to claim this somehow puts them at risk, misses the point that they are already in front and this is a "catch up" in a sense and suggests a reluctance to concede to equality. In time, there may need to be amendments to this declaration or separate declarations that recognise all gender identities and not just male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradais2 (talkcontribs) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures vs. Ratification[edit]

to be fair, you should maybe say that the US has signed, but not ratified. Also, please update the states under "controversy". Not sure whether you mean they have not signed or ratified, or maybe only with reservations, but the UN lists Afghanistan as having both signed and ratified. If this gets too confusing, you could simply say that CEDAW is the conventions with the most reservations...


The United States has signed but not ratified, so in the map showing global treaty compliance, it should be light green, right? Tobinmarcus 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


The map is wrong. Saudi Arabia has ratified it, and the US has not.

The map for now is still there, but now hidden until it gets updated and corrected. That-Vela-Fella 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a corrected map; the earlier one was for CERD, not CEDAW IdiotSavant (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Now someone updated the map, but is incorrect yet again. It has South Sudan added in and coloured as yellow (signed), but that is not the case. Only Palau had recently signed it, so that should be yellow now (still has it as a red spot). Nauru should now be green too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The recent edit re Palau caused this article to show on my watchlist. I noticed the disparity between the article and the cited supporting source re South Sudan, so I brought the article into line with what I understand from the source. The map still contradicts this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason the map got updated incorrectly on Feb. 2, 2012 by Sammy pompon. It is still in need of correction. Also noticed Qatar is shown as red instead of green. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Another twist in it, only US and Iran have not ratified it[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6922749.stm

Not a twist (since USA is the only one to have signed it), but also "Iran and the US are two of only eight countries that have not joined the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw)." (+ Didn't include the other 2 states not in the UN) That-Vela-Fella 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, consensus opposes the move. Taelus (Talk) 09:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)



Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WomenConvention on the Elimination of discrimination against women — Its shorter and still describes the topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. CEDAW is already too hard to find. I'm afraid that we need to use the real title. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment there is no reason the real title could not be kept as a redirect (and in fact it should). Though maybe CEDAW would make a better title than the one I've suggested above (that currently redirects here). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Proper nouns shouldn't be replaced by common nouns. Powers T 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two quick Googles [1] [2] indicate that the longer, existing title is about ten times more common on the web than the shorter, proposed title. Those three extra words are seen by those most interested in these issues as extremely important, and so they tend to put them in. When they want a shorter name either for the Convention or the Committee (whose name, note, does both officially and commonly leave those three extra words out, see [3] and [4]), they just say CEDAW. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy to close this as an oppose per WP:SNOW. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - CEDAW may be a mouthful, but its the Convention's actual name. --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jumpinjad (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)== Men? ==

Can somebody explain why the convention doesn't include men? Is it worse to discriminate a woman than a man? Aaker (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Men are not included because it is a specific discussion about women. Women are a minority because of decades of practices that saw women as property and disenfranchised them by denying voting rights to keep them out of a political arena which might allow them to vote against their assigned station in life ... assigned by men. The convention is not geared to stop discrimination of homosexuals, or African-Americans, or Iraqi men living in France. It is a convention to eliminate all forms of discrimination against WOMEN. Cdooley17 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Response[edit]

It is necessary to devote this convention directly the the inequality of women because that is a critical focus in the United Nations. It is not that discrimination of men is okay, rather but to create a targeted convention for all UN countries to sign and ratify. Also, the politically correct terminology is either gay or GLBTQ, not 'homosexuals'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpinjad (talkcontribs) 06:40, April 23, 2013‎

See LGBT#Variants. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder also whether there could be a section relating to other human rights treaties, and their affect on countries' treatment of LGBT citizens. This would give a broader sense of the implementation of CEDAW and its overall effect. JoPickar (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Update and Additions[edit]

I plan to do some updates and revisions to this article in the next couple of weeks for a school project. I plan to fix grammatical errors, update information, and add information regarding the General Recommendations, core provisions, and reservations to the treaty. Below I have posted an outline of the changes I plan to make with justifications for doing so along with a bibliography that supports my changes. I welcome any feedback or recommendations editors of this page may have. Thank you!


Outline Plan

The Convention: Within this section, I hope to develop more of the substance of the treaty. It needs to include what CEDAW covers and what rights it protects specifically. There is a brief outline of the articles but not all of them are included. I will include the four major parts of the treaty (non-discrimination, disruption of socio-cultural patterns of sex and sex trafficking, employment health and economic/social life, and equality before the law and marriage). In addition, the articles need to have more information about them illustrating how they actually function. This information is important and will provide readers with a deeper understanding of the treaty. I will model this section off of the ICESCR treaty and have a “Summary” section followed by a “Core Provisions” section.

Members and ratification: After this section I will add a section on reservations. This will include which countries have entered reservations (or understandings and declarations), what those reservations mean, and which articles have the most reservations entered against them. I think this is particularly important since states parties have, in large numbers, reserved to many aspects of CEDAW. It seems misleading to show a state has ratified the treaty but not to show what reservations that state has made. The article would be more whole if this information were included.

General Recommendations: In this section, I will update the information that is out of date (e.g. it says there are 25 general recommendations when currently there are 32) as well as add information regarding the general recommendations. I will list each recommendation with a brief (one sentence) description of what it contains as well as the year it was made. In addition, regarding the more well-known general recommendations, I plan to provide more background and information. Specifically I plan to provide information regarding General Recommendation No. 19, which provides that violence disproportionately experienced by women falls under CEDAW because it is considered discrimination.

Members and Officers of the Committee: In this section, I plan to update the information regarding the members of the Committee. In addition, I plan to include more information on the members of the Committee who are officers.


Bibliography

Belinda Clark, The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against Women, 85 AM. J. INT’L L. 281 (1991).

Barbara Evelyn Bailey, Biographical Data, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/CVMembers/Bailey.pdf.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General recommendations (last visited on Apr. 23, 2015), available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/Recommendations.aspx.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Membership, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/Membership.aspx.

HUMAN RIGHTS: AUGUST 2012 SUPPLEMENT 77 (Louis Henkin et al. eds., 2nd ed. Found. Press 2012).

Implementing Women’s Rights: CEDAW, Violence Against Women, and Cultural Relativism, in HUMAN RIGHTS 815 (Louis Henkin et al. eds., 2nd ed. Found. Press 2009).

Leinarte Dalia, Biographical Data, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/CVMembers/DaliaLeinarte_2012.pdf.

Naela Gabr Mohamed Gabr Ali, Curriculum Vitae, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/CVMembers/CV_Gabr.pdf.

Simovic Dubravka, Global and Regional Standards on Violence Against Women: The Evolution and Synergy of the CEDAW and Istanbul Conventions, 36 HUM. RIGHTS QUART. 590 (2014).

Status of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13, available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en.

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women art. 29, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.

Yoko Hayashi, Biographical Data, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CEDAW/CVMembers/Hayashi.pdf.

Emeyer76 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emeyer76,

I found your article very helpful in providing an understanding of the main provisions of the CEDAW and I think that this is a great effort. I'd suggest that for section titled “reservations” (if there’s material available), perhaps it would be helpful to provide a broad overview of the sort of reasons that are expressed by states for having a reservation. In terms of sourcing, see if you could add more references to scholarly articles; I do understand that the UN documents are probably the most useful for this contribution but having journal sources would also provide readers further leads with research. On the 32 general recommendations that you have helpfully summarized, it would be great if you could generally provide an introduction to explain the purpose of these recommendations, how they are made, etc. I also think that the section on controversy discussing honor killings in Palestine could probably be edited a little bit (if this is part of your contribution) - some portions of it seem to reflect opinions without any source. Lastly, a general review of sections like “Recommendations for improvement” and “Controversy” would go a long way in simplifying what has been explained in each. I really enjoyed reading your article and see that you've made a good improvement to it with your contribution. Good luck for the final submission. Sm1986 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Emeyer76, Great start on improving this page! I agree with Sm1986- I think the "reservations" section could benefit from some more information about reasons given by state actors and the implications these reservations have on the ideals of CEDAW being realized in those nations, its credibility on the world stage, etc. Along the same line, I would like to see more content in the "controversies" section related to ideas of "Western" feminism being pushed on the whole world and analysis/discussions/debates on the universality of applications of the principles of CEDAW. With this kind of addition, you could connect this page to other policy areas and women's human rights issues as well as getting at some of the theoretical questions underlying a document like this. Fleshing out these controversies would also lead to a more balanced representation of the potential and limitations of CEDAW. Furthermore, I would carefully evaluate statements or adjectives that attest the value, worth, importance of CEDAW that are not directly attributed to a particular individual. It implied an activist tone in some parts of the article. I think you have added a lot of valuable thigns to this page and I am looking forward to seeing the final version! Keareid (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Keareid

Suggestions for the Future

I have finished making the changes I set out to make. However, as the two comments above suggest, there is more work to be done. I am just leaving a few potential changes for anyone who may wish to make them in the future.

1. Members and Ratification: I think it would be helpful to add a chart of all the members like you see in other treaty articles (see e.g. the Wikipedia article on ICESCR). 2. Genesis: I would like to see a section added at the beginning that gives a bit more background on the genesis of CEDAW. Again, other articles for treaties do this as well and it has worked out well. For a short history of the treaty that may help with this section, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/history.htm. 3. Reservations: While I added a section on reservations I was only able to give it a cursory summary. As Keareid and Sm1986 suggest above, a more in depth addition could be very helpful. The Belinda Clark article (list in references) has a lot of helpful information regarding the initial reaction and controversies about reservations. 4. Controversies: It appears that some of the content in this section is not as neutral as it could be. It also, as Keareid and Sm1986 suggested, could go more in depth. 5. Recommendations for improvement: As Sm1986 stated above, this section could use some more work.

Emeyer76 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

New Update Suggestions[edit]

I wonder also whether there could be a section relating to other human rights treaties, and their affect on countries' treatment of LGBT citizens. This would give a broader sense of the implementation of CEDAW and its overall effect. JoPickar (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)