Sex selection and global gender justice
Sex selection and global gender justice
复制标题
性别选择和全球性别正义
DOI：
10.1111/josp.12405
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Ganguli-Mitra A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ganguli-Mitra A
本文的核心动机是将性别选择重塑为全球性别不公正的症状和促成因素，这种做法及其动机是全球妇女和女孩面临的更广泛的结构性不平等和压迫的表现，无论是在地位、关系还是获得商品和机会方面（Jagger 2014, 23）。虽然性别选择的实践显然深深植根于性别不公正，但各种论述有时都忽视了这一点。这部分是由于对学科的关注，部分是由于缺乏对歧视和压迫的更广泛方面的参与。我研究了在印度和南亚移民背景下构建性别选择的三种特殊方式，并提出，如果不了解历史和当前的特殊性，更重要的是，如果没有系统地考虑正义，这些方法都不能完全捕捉到性别选择的道德意义方面。在这里，“公正”一词是一个广义的概念，用来表达与不平等、歧视、压迫和征服有关的考虑。这个术语还提供了一个强有力的规范和理论基础，特别是在它与责任问题的关系中。我并不是说，需要有一个单一的正义概念来为之奋斗，但我认为，任何考虑到性别正义的方法都将以某种形式或其他方式旨在减少基于性别的不平等、歧视、压迫或征服。拉贾尼·巴蒂亚记录了20世纪90年代中期，关于性别选择的讨论如何以有趣而生动的方式向不同方向发展。在关注生殖健康和性健康问题的全球运动日益兴起的背景下，通过堕胎进行的性别选择被视为“对妇女的暴力行为”，即使在西方推销“家庭平衡”的性别选择技术（Bhatia 2018, 3-4），并被誉为“人们生育方式的革命”（Bhatia 2010, 267）。这种有问题的二分法（和道德双重标准）也在一定程度上激发了本文的写作动机。当然，这并不是说，所有的性别选择手段都应该被认为在道德上是平等的。然而，重点是选择的手段，或者具体的决策
A core motivation of this paper is to recast sex selection as both a symptom of, and a contributing factor to global gender injustice, where the practice and its motivation are expressions of the broader structural inequalities and oppression faced by women and girls worldwide, be it in terms of status, relationships, or access to goods and opportunities (Jagger 2014, 23). While it may appear evident that the practice of sex selection is strongly embedded in gender injustice, various discourses have, at times, lost sight of this. This is in part due to disciplinary focus, and in part due to a lack of engagement with broader aspects of discrimination and oppression. I examine three particular ways of framing sex selection in the Indian—and South Asian diasporic—contexts and suggest that without an understanding of historical and current particularities, and more significantly, without a systematic engagement with considerations of justice, each of these approaches fails to fully capture the morally significant aspects of sex selection. The term (in) justice is used here as a broad concept, to capture considerations related to inequality, discrimination, oppression, and subjugation. The term also offers a strong normative and theoretical anchor, especially in its relationship to questions of responsibility. I do not suggest that there needs to be a single conception of justice toward which to strive, but would argue that any approach embedded in consideration of gender justice will aim, in some form or other, at diminishing gender-based inequality, discrimination, oppression, or subjugation. Rajani Bhatia documents how in the mid-1990s, discussions around sex selection evolved in different directions, in interesting and telling ways. Sex selection through abortion was presented as “as act of violence against women,” in the context of rising global movements focused on issues of reproductive and sexual health, even as techniques for sex selection for “family balancing” were being marketed in the West (Bhatia 2018, 3–4), and celebrated as a “revolution in the way people have children”(Bhatia 2010, 267). Such problematic dichotomy (and moral double standard) has also, in part, motivated this paper. This is not to say, of course that all means of sex selection should be considered morally equivalent. However, focusing on the means of selection, or the decisions specifically
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Shahvisi A
通讯作者：
Shahvisi A
人口控制已成历史：国际限制人口增长运动的新视角
影响因子：
0.7
作者：
M. Connelly
通讯作者：
M. Connelly
解释亚洲“失踪妇女”的文化与生物因素：对奥斯特的回应
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
M. Gupta
通讯作者：
M. Gupta
简介：印度的性别关系、NRT 和堕胎女胎
影响因子：
2
作者：
T. Patel
通讯作者：
T. Patel
女权主义无国界：非殖民化理论，实践团结
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
C. Eschle
通讯作者：
C. Eschle