Sameness and Difference

Abstract

Whether one should ‘mainstream’ or adopt ‘special measures’ has been a perennial dilemma whilst devising strategies to deal with gender discrimination. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities has tried to skirt this conundrum by adopting a ‘twin track’ approach. Consequently, it has inducted the gender question in all relevant spaces, in addition to incorporating a separate article on women with disabilities. This article explores how the Convention came to adopt this approach, and what kind of interpretational and implementation efforts will be required for its promise to be realised for women with disabilities. With the acceptance of this approach, the Convention has unequivocally conceded that multiple forms and levels of discrimination require a multiplicity of rights.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Daley, G. 1988. Ideologies of Caring: Rethinking Community and Collectivism. London: Macmillan .

Davis, S. , F. Neathy , J. Regan and R. Willison . 2005. ‘ Pregnancy Discrimination at Work: A Qualitative Study ’. Working Paper 23, Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney.

Dhanda, A. 1994. ‘ Womb Removal of Women with Mental Retardation: Constitutional Constraints on State Power ’, Samadhan News, 11(1): 3–15 .

Faber, E.M. 2007. ‘ Pregnancy Discrimination in Latin America: the Exclusion of Employment Discrimination from the Definition of “Labour Laws” in the Central American Free Trade Agreement ’, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 16(1): 207 .

Finch, J. and D. Groves . 1983. A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul .

Fine, M. and A. Asch . 1988. ‘Introduction: Beyond Pedestals’, in M. Fine and A. Asch (eds), Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture and Politics, pp. 1–37. Philadelphia: Temple University Press .

Fraser, N. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. New York and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul .

Fraser, N. 2001. ‘ Recognition without Ethics ’, Theory, Culture and Society, 18(1): 21–42 .

French, C. M. 2005. ‘ Protecting the Right to Choose of Women Who are Incompetent: Ethical Doctrinal and Practical Arguments against Foetal Representation ’, Case Western Research Law Review, 56(3): 511 .

10.

Gerschick, T.J. 2000. ‘ Toward a Theory of Disability and Gender ’, Signs 25(4): 1263–68 .

11.

Ghai, A. 2003. (Dis)Embodied Form: Issues of Disabled Women. New Delhi: Shakti Books, Haranand Publications .

12.

Goldhar, J. 1991. ‘ The Sterilization of Women with an Intellectual Disability ’, University of Tasmania Law Review, 10(1): 157–96 .

13.

Hans, A. 2003. ‘Introduction’, in A. Hans and A. Patri (eds), Women, Disability and Identity, pp. 11–39. New Delhi: Sage Publications .

14.

Huckle, P. 1981. ‘ The Womb Factor: Pregnancy Policies and Employment of Women ’, Western Political Quarterly, 34(1): 114–26 .

15.

Hugemark, A. and C. Roman . 2002. ‘ Disability, Gender and Social Justice Claims for Redistribution and Recognition in the Disability Movement ’. Working Paper Series, Sweden, Uppsala University, http://www.soc.uu.se/publications/fulltext/wp2002-01.pdf, accessed 6 May 2007.

16.

Jain, D. 2005. Women, Development and the UN: A Sixty Year Quest for Equality and Justice. Hyderabad: Orient Longman .

17.

Keith, L. 1990. ‘ Caring Partnership ’, Community Care, 22 February: 5–6 .

18.

Meekosha, H. and L. Dowse . 1997. ‘ Enabling Citizenship: Gender Disability and Citizenship in Australia ’, Feminist Review, 57(1): 49–72 .

19.

Morris, M. 1993. ‘ Feminism and Disability ’, Feminist Review, 43(1): 57–70 .

20.

Nasa Begum . 1992. ‘ Disabled Women and the Feminist Agenda ’, Feminist Review, 40(1): 70–84 .

21.

Wolf, N. 1991. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used against Women. New York: William Morrow .

22.

Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press .