U.S.A. still needs to ratify the U.N. Treaty CEDAW, too.

[MysticSang'ha]

Why, U.S.A.? Why?

The above link is a pretty good opinion piece on how special interest groups have hijacked the passing of a treaty that looks like it was initiated by American feminism transitioning between 2nd and 3rd wave.

The treaty itself is the U.N.'s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW). It expects countries who adopt the treaty to:

- to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
- to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
- to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

But from the CNN link:

Of the 194 U.N. member nations, 187 countries have ratified CEDAW. The United States is among seven countries that have not -- along with the Pacific island nations of Tonga and Palua; Iran, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan -- not the first countries that come to mind when discussing women's rights.

President Carter sent CEDAW to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent in 1980. It remains in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Senate has held hearings on CEDAW five times in the past 25 years but failed each time to bring the treaty to a vote on the floor. Why?

Conservative organizations, such as the Home School Legal Defense Association and Concerned Women for America, vehemently oppose the ratification of all human rights treaties. They insist that human rights treaties violate American sovereignty. Thirty-eight Republican senators demonstrated this last December, when they refused to join their more moderate colleagues in ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I still love it when people insist there is no war on women in the United States.

Thanks for the link, lewisnotmiller.

 

[Alceste]

That's nuts. The sovereignty to violate human rights is something nobody should want.

 

[crossfire]

The US has signed the treaty, but has not ratified it. (The US persuaded the UN to draft it.)
It seems the US still needs so work in order to comply with this provision (Article 11, section 2a) of the treaty:

2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status;

​

I'm still seeing too many news articles of single women being fired from their jobs because they get pregnant.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

To be honest though, I doubt that failing to ratify this particular treaty is indicative of anti-feminism, but rather likely to be symptomatic of this peculiar insistence america seems to have of holding everyone else accountable to international law while refusing to be subjected to the same laws themselves.

Especially given that the US would likely meet all of the conditions outlined in the treaty (at least to the standard that other members are being held to, seldom however is this truly bereft of discrimination)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To be honest though, I doubt that failing to ratify this particular treaty is indicative of anti-feminism, but rather likely to be symptomatic of this peculiar insistence america seems to have of holding everyone else accountable to international law while refusing to be subjected to the same laws themselves.

Especially given that the US would likely meet all of the conditions outlined in the treaty (at least to the standard that other members are being held to, seldom however is this truly bereft of discrimination)

(I wouldn't count myself a feminist, so feel free to boot me...)

I think that, taken alongside other legislative signs such as mentioned in the ERA thread, it sends a pretty unfortunate message. I agree that to some level this is the US not wanting to be policed and defending their own sovereignty, but this is a nation that regularly polices and makes decisions on others sovereignty.

Doesn't add up to me. I think this shows a lack of leadership on the issue (and that is putting it mildly!)

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm afraid that InformedIgnorance may have nailed it.

 

[Sunstone]

Conservative organizations, such as the Home School Legal Defense Association and Concerned Women for America, vehemently oppose the ratification of all human rights treaties. They insist that human rights treaties violate American sovereignty. Thirty-eight Republican senators demonstrated this last December, when they refused to join their more moderate colleagues in ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I seriously doubt the whole story is that the conservatives think the treaty violates American sovereignty. It seems to me, based on conservative opposition to other treaties, that there's got to be more to it than that.