Feminism Essays Flashcards
To what extent do feminists agree on the economy?
- DISAGREE to a greater extent
- not all feminists agree that ending capitalism should be the priority
- feminists are divided over the role of the state in the economy + the promotion of equality
- however, feminists agree that the economy is male dominated
Why do not all feminists agree that ending capitalism should be the priority
socialist - ending capitalism would make the biggest dent in male-dominated patriarchy
liberal - would prioritise equality before the law, and not the economy
post-mod - priority was to address the problem that different types of female benefit different from the economy
radical - express sympathy with socialist feminists but Millets views are more focused on literature and the private sphere
socialist feminists are on their own in prioritising the economy
Why do feminists agree that the economy is male-dominated?
radical - believe in equality feminism that natures of men+women are the same so distinction between sex+gender is artificial
socialist - believe in achieving equality in the public sphere through overthrowing capitalism
liberal - agree as they favour equality over the law + consequently advocate for equal pay legislation
Why are feminists divided over the promotion of equality + the role of the state in the economy
radical difference - call for women to accept + celebrate their biological differences to men; instead of aiming to be like men they should accept the unique features of womanhood which can explain why so many women are nurses rather than high paid CEOs
radical equality - if gender differences are not challenged, then the consequences will be continued female passivity leading to greater economic I oppression
liberal - focus on the public sphere and the need for universal suffrage + female representation in politics
radical - patriarchy is everywhere therefore economic intervention is insufficient to tackle all patriarchy
To what extent do feminists agree on the role of the state
AGREE to a greater extent
- most feminists agree that the state can play a role in ending inequality
- they disagree on what the state should do to end this inequality and have different priorities for the state
- common scepticism of state action and the belief that addressing the patriarchy requires more than just state action with greater emphasis placed on cultural change by women themselves
Why do feminists agree that the state can play a role in ending inequality?
radical - subscribe to radical equality feminism (state should promote the form of feminism that is biology blind and doesn’t perpetuate male-dominance)
socialist - likewise, they believe achieving equality in the economic sphere through overthrowing capitalism which would make a major dent in patriarchy
socialist - also argue that the state can facilitate capitalism which in turn oppresses women and the state must prevent that
therefore, the state must do whatever necessary to promote a culture of sexual equality
Why do feminists disagree on what the state should do to end inequality?
-not all feminists would support the states role in promoting equality since feminists disagree on the extent to which inequality between the sexes is important
-radical difference feminists + radical equality feminists disagree
(radical equality believe any state action should guard stereotypes whilst radical difference believe state action is perhaps not required)
radical feminists - patriarchy is pervasive and exists everywhere
socialist + liberal - have a more limited view of patriarchy
Why do feminists have a shared scepticism of state action?
-feminists believe that addressing patriarchy requires more than just state action with greater emphasis placed on cultural change by women themselves
liberal - public sphere is the area of greatest concern
postmod - accept that the state is male dominated
radical - cultural change supersedes the importance of anything the stand can do; as patriarchy exits everywhere the women would do a better job than the state in changing literature, concepts of beauty and sexuality
To what extent should there be further constitutional reform?
-as a country coming off a departure from the EU as well as dealing with a global pandemic in COVID-19 though it qualifies as a period of change where the constitution should be fine-tuned, there is no need to rush into further reform
Why should devolution be extended to England?
- england is the only part of the UK without its own parliament which has created resentment
- an english parliament solves the wlq
- it would clarify what is meant by ‘english only’ issues and would lead Westminster free to focus on truly national issues
- EVEL has not gone far enough as non English MPs in Westminster can still vote on English only matters after the 3rd reading
Why shouldn’t devolution be extended to England? (CP)
- if each nation of the UK including England had its own parliament, it would undermine Westminster as the English Parliament would have to be very powerful considering it represents about 50 million people
- could haste in the breakup of the UK if people question the purpose of the UK parl
- It would arguably give no more autonomy to people in different regions of the UK e.g. the people in Cornwall are less likely to feel distant from an ‘English parliament’ than they are to Westminster
- the so called wlq has arguably been addressed by EVEL and strikes the right balance between acknowledging that English MPs should have greater say on matters relating to England whilst accepting that all laws passed in England have a considerable knock on effect for the rest of the UK
Why should the HRA be replaced?
- judges in the ECHR + UK are guilty of judicial overreach (weighing into areas that should be exclusive for elected officials)
- a bill of rights would clarify convention rights and how they should be applied in the UK for e.g. the phrase in the ECHR that states ‘degrading treatment and punishment’ could be more narrowly defined
- if that can be clarified, then perhaps we can narrow the scope of what judges rule on and limit their power thus avoid judicial overreach
- entrenchment of the HRA would ensure that the govt cannot alter peoples rights when it suits them
Why shouldn’t the HRA be replaced? (CP)
- tories overstate the influence of the echr + they do so because of a wider hatred for European influence and for citizens rights more generally
- an exercise to clarifying rights could lead to rights being reduced where govt sees fit (are politicians really the right people to determine our laws)
- parliament chooses which rulings to follow despite the courts rulings on prisoner rights parliament is yet to change the law
- does that show the SCOTUK as too powerful even though some of its rulings are ignored
- if some of its rulings are ignored then the judiciary is not too powerful
- no unity on what would go into a bill of rights
- the fact that a bill or rights is attacked by the left and right shows that it strikes a balance between protecting rights and preserving parl sovereignty
Why should there be a codified constitution?
- rights would be better protected e.g. labour extended detention without trial whilst tories passed the investigatory powers act in 2016 which increased the ability of the state to obtain data from uk citizens
- a codified const would confirm the rights of citizens and the aforementioned law s could be struck down if it was found to encroach on the right to privacy for + the right to a fair hearing/trial e.g.
- could lead to greater clarity on the limits to government
Why shouldn’t there be a codified constitution? (CP)
- may undermine existing political structures that have worked well e.g. parl sovereignty
- UK could lose flexibility therefore in its constitutional arrangements
- states in the US have had sensible restrictions on gun control stuck down because of the 2nd A e.g. DC v Heller 2008
- whereas in the UK, we were able to quickly introduce restrictions on the sale of guns following the Dunblane massacre 1996
- gun crime has fallen dramatically as a result but has risen steadily in the US as a result of the difficulty in imposing gun restrictions and the const is very much responsible for it
- uncodified const allows a government to govern
- 2019 gen election gave the UK govt a clear mandate to get Brexit done and thus restore political certainty
