research paper about women's rights

Women's Rights

The rights and roles of women in society continue to evolve and vary considerably across the globe. Read the overview below to gain a balanced understanding of the issue and explore the previews of opinion articles that highlight many perspectives on feminism.

Access Through Your library >>  

Topic Home      |      Social Issues      |      Literature      |      Lifelong Learning & DIY      |      World History

Women's rights topic overview.

"Women's Rights." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Gale, 2023.

Movements for the  equal rights of women  in the United States have been shaped in response to a system of patriarchal social norms and laws that formed the basis of US cultural, political, and economic life.  Patriarchy  refers to a society in which fathers or male elders hold legal authority over dependent women and children or, more broadly, to a society in which a disproportionately large share of power is held by men. Issues related to the rights of women in the United States largely fell under three categories: economic independence, or the rights to education, work, and property ownership; bodily autonomy, or the rights to control one's own sexual and reproductive choices; and political participation, or the rights to organize, vote, and run for office.

The patriarchal concept of  coverture , which came to North America from England with colonial settlers, determined women's lesser status by forming colonial law and subsequent state laws. As a doctrine, coverture refers to the idea that women do not have legal identities but are instead "covered," first by their fathers' identities and later, ostensibly, by their husbands' identities. Through coverture's influence, men's authority was codified in law and suffused throughout everyday life. With no legal individual identity, women could not enter into business contracts by themselves, own property or inherit it in most cases, retain control of earned wages, claim rights to their children, or withhold consent to sexual intercourse.

Though the formalized US women's rights movement did not take shape until the mid-nineteenth century, a long tradition of women working for greater autonomy had begun in the Colonial and Revolutionary eras. The arguments for women's rights were shaped by the Declaration of Independence, which declared "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The US Constitution guaranteed these rights. However, the rights proclaimed to "all men" by the Constitution were limited to white, property-holding men, who were allowed to vote and participate in government. At the same time, a variety of legal and social sanctions continued to limit women's involvement in public and civic life.

The first document to emerge from an organized women's rights collective in the United States was the Declaration of Sentiments, which was drafted using the Declaration of Independence as a model and ratified at the first convention of women's rights advocates in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Historians trace the origins of the movement for US  women's suffrage  (voting rights for women) to the Seneca Falls Convention, where Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass argued in favor of granting women the right to vote. Women's suffrage was finally achieved more than seventy years later with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

Despite the achievements of women's rights activists throughout the twentieth century, feminist scholars argue that the remnants of coverture still operate in legal and social institutions in the first decades of the twenty-first century. According to the United Nations, no country in the world had achieved gender equality as of 2022, and no countries were on track to achieve it by 2030. Beginning in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected women, reviving debates about the value of unpaid and underpaid domestic and caretaking work performed predominantly by women. The pandemic widened pre-existing social inequalities, including health disparities among women based on race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and disability.

Many advocates consider the June 2022 US Supreme Court ruling in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization  a significant setback for women's rights.  Dobbs  eliminated the federally protected right to abortion and gave state legislature broad authority to determine abortion law. In the decision, the conservative majority in the court overturned  Roe v. Wade  (1973), which had prohibited states from intervening in people's reproductive health care choices through the first trimester of pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, as of August 2022, 58 percent of US girls and women ages thirteen to forty-four lived in states that were either hostile or extremely hostile to abortion.

• Women's rights issues in the United States primarily fall under three broad categories: economic independence, bodily and sexual autonomy, and political participation.
• Patriarchy  refers to a society in which men hold a disproportionately large share of power. Laws and norms are considered to be patriarchal when they perpetuate this gendered imbalance of power.
• Coverture , which shaped how women's lesser status was written into law, is the concept that female persons do not have legal identities but are instead "covered" by their fathers' or husbands' identities.
• Consent is central to women's rights, especially in the contexts of marriage and relationships, reproductive autonomy, health care, sexual harassment and assault, and rape.
• Concerns over consent and women's rights have extended into the workplace, where sexual harassment remains prevalent across industries, as amplified by the #MeToo movement.
• Pursuing greater and more diverse political representation has been a primary strategy for achieving women's rights. Research suggests responses to COVID-19 were more effective in places where women held leadership positions.
• Many advocates believe that the Supreme Court's overturning of  Roe v. Wade , the landmark ruling that legalized abortion at the federal level, in 2022 represents a major setback for women's rights and may lead to the erosion of other achievements by the women's movement.

ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE

Stemming from coverture, the  doctrine of separate spheres  defined the gendered divisions of US society from before industrialization until the latter half of the twentieth century. Women and men were relegated to separate, largely segregated roles and social spaces. While it was seen as both appropriate and proper for men to participate in the economic, political, and social life of the  public sphere , women were consigned to domestic and family-oriented roles in the  private sphere . The doctrine of separate spheres primarily governed white women of the middle and upper classes, as women of color and poor and working-class white women often had no choice but to seek employment outside the home. These women were often employed as domestic workers in wealthy white households or in factories, where employers could legally pay women lower wages than men for the same job.

Married women argued for property rights, which could provide a measure of economic security if a woman was widowed or abandoned by her husband. Connecticut passed a law allowing women to write wills as early as 1809, but more comprehensive legislation intended to undo coverture's most strict provisions did not come until 1848 when New York state enacted the Married Women's Property Act. In the following decade other states passed similar laws, often modeled upon the New York statute. These early laws ranged from allowing women to retain separate ownership of property to extending widows' rights to defining the circumstances in which a woman could bring a lawsuit. Through the slow acquisition of married women's property rights, more women, both married and unmarried, gained the ability to survive independently from men.

The undoing of coverture persisted well into the twentieth century, with federal laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 continuing the work of expanding women's capacity to secure financial independence. The former act prohibited financial institutions from discriminating against women in credit and loan approvals, and the latter prohibited employers from discriminating against employees who become pregnant. In 1969 California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorce, which removed the legal requirement of providing evidence of wrongdoing (such as adultery or abuse) before being granted a divorce, a system that had often functioned to keep women in unwanted or unsafe marriages. New York became the last state to legalize no-fault divorce in 2010.

Activists in the 1970s also revived the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was first proposed in the 1920s and would have amended the US Constitution to guarantee women's equal rights. The ERA passed Congress in 1972, but only thirty-five of the necessary thirty-eight states had ratified it by the extended 1982 deadline. The ratification effort was renewed in the wake of the 2016 US presidential election. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia ratified the ERA in 2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively, bringing the total to thirty-eight states. Lawmakers have made efforts to remove the 1982 deadline for state ratification and to restart the state-by-state ratification process. As of July 2022, however, their attempts remained stalled in the US Senate.

BODILY AND SEXUAL AUTONOMY

The economic circumstances of women have always influenced their health and safety, and women's legal status has historically limited their sexual agency and bodily autonomy. The status of enslaved Black women in the antebellum period enabled white people to commit a range of physical, sexual, and psychological abuses against them with impunity. Women working in factories during the Industrial and Progressive Eras risked injury and death under the same unsafe working conditions as men yet did so at significantly lower wages. Predominantly Latina farmworkers in the 1960s and onward became ill from pesticide contamination that also made it likelier their children would be born with congenital birth defects.

Consent is central to bodily autonomy. Under coverture, marital rape was legally impossible, underscoring how patriarchal understandings of sex and gender have deprived girls and women of  agency , or the capacity to act or exert power. Because a woman was absorbed into her husband's identity, she did not have the capacity to withhold or grant consent to sex. By 1993 marital rape had become illegal in every state, but the beliefs that marriage implies consent and that nonconsensual sex cannot exist within marriage persist.

The idea that women are property has arguably extended into women's professional worlds where sexual harassment is prevalent. The #MeToo movement, referring to a social media hashtag introduced by social activist Tarana Burke in 2006, emerged as an influential anti-harassment campaign in late 2017. Women from all walks of life took to social media to share their stories of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. These stories brought wide public acknowledgment to the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault in workplaces, homes, and public spaces.

Access to health care and  reproductive autonomy , or the freedom to control one's own reproductive future, remain pillars of the movement for women's rights. Reproductive autonomy relies on access to knowledge and tools for preventing and terminating pregnancy as well as freedom from coercive or forced sterilization. The US Supreme Court ruling in  Griswold v. Connecticut  (1965) prohibits the state from banning contraceptives on the basis that decisions regarding pregnancy and parenthood are private matters. Historians and activists, however, cite sterilization programs that existed in several states during the twentieth century to illustrate how marginalized women have been deprived of these decisions. Such programs attempted to control the reproduction of populations considered "less desirable" by sterilizing incarcerated women, Black women, Latinas, immigrants, and women with disabilities without their knowledge or consent.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization  (2022), which challenged a Mississippi law prohibiting nearly all abortions beyond fifteen weeks of pregnancy, was the first case regarding pre-viability gestational age the Supreme Court had agreed to hear since  Roe v. Wade . In its decision, the court rejected the reasoning of  Roe v. Wade , denying any constitutional right to abortion, and returning the authority to legislate abortion to state lawmakers. The  Dobbs  ruling intensified advocates' concerns the conservative majority on the court will target other rulings that serve as cornerstones of women's reproductive autonomy, such as  Griswold v. Connecticut  (1965).

The  Dobbs  decision was the culmination of a decades-long project by antiabortion activists; politicians, lawyers and judges, and reproductive rights advocates had had been preparing for the overturning of  Roe v. Wade . Before the court released its decision in  Dobbs , some states had moved to protect access to abortion, many others had moved to ban or severely restrict access in the event  Roe  was overturned, and yet others were poised to revert to pre-1973 abortion law. In 2010 the Guttmacher Institute classified ten states as "hostile" and zero states as "very hostile" to abortion rights. By 2021 it had classified fifteen states as "hostile" and six states as "very hostile." As of August 2022, legal abortions were nearly impossible to obtain in twelve states.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

• What is the doctrine of separate spheres, and how does it affect gender norms and roles in the United States in the twenty-first century?
• Why do you think increased women's representation in Congress has not resulted in federal legislation to protect abortion and reproductive rights nationwide? Explain your answer.
• What steps, if any, should your state government take to compensate women for unpaid or underpaid domestic labor? Explain your reasoning.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP

Commentators noted a marked rise in women's political and social activism in the wake of the 2016 election of US president Donald Trump. Many women's rights supporters credit opposition to Trump and his administration with fueling historic results of the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to the November 2018 election, eighty-four women were serving in the House and twenty-three women were serving in the Senate. In January 2019, nearly a century after women gained the right to vote, more than one hundred seats in the US House of Representatives (out of a total of 435) and twenty-five seats in the Senate (out of a total of one hundred) were occupied by women for the first time. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)—the first woman elected to serve as Speaker of the House, serving in the post from 2007 to 2011—reclaimed the speakership in 2019. With the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in 2021 and Pelosi continuing to serve as Speaker, women held the second and third positions in the line of presidential succession. As of August 2022, 122 women served in the House of Representatives and twenty-four women served in the Senate. Women held twelve cabinet-level positions in the Biden administration and four of nine seats on the Supreme Court. Despite these gains, women filled only about 27 percent of all national congressional seats, about 30 percent of all state legislative seats, and 18 percent of state governorships.

Because women lack equity in political representation and continue to face societal hurdles, they have been hit harder economically and socially by the COVID-19 pandemic than men. Women in the United States have taken on a greater share of unpaid child and elder care responsibilities, suffered greater job losses, and left the workforce at rates higher than men. According to a 2021 Pew analysis, Black women and Latinas represented 46 percent of all women who had left the workforce despite representing less than 33 percent of the total female US labor force. Nevertheless, the presence of women in decision-making roles, both in government and other sectors, is associated with more effective pandemic responses. A 2020 analysis published in the  Journal of Applied Psychology , for instance, found lower COVID-19 fatality rates during the first several months of the pandemic in US states where women were serving as governors than in states with male governors.

With the majority of Americans opposed to the reversal of  Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court's decision in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization  sparked immediate and widespread protest. Girls, women, and supporters of women's and reproductive rights demonstrated across the country. Advocates outside the United States staged marches in solidarity with American women. Many Democratic lawmakers and leaders including President Biden, Vice President Harris, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the ruling. However, efforts to pass a law protecting abortion access nationwide failed in the Senate. Women's and reproductive rights advocates have predicted the court's overturning of  Roe v. Wade  will motivate record voter turnout among young voters in the 2022 midterm elections.

More Articles

Women's rights should be enshrined in the us constitution.

"What's more, political fallout from the current administration, as well as the #MeToo and #SheShouldRun movements, have created momentum and transformed a long-languishing Amendment effort into a new, pressing matter."

Tina Rodia is a freelance writer and editor based in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In the following viewpoint, she discusses the revived efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was first proposed nearly a century ago. The ERA would enshrine the equal rights of women into the United States Constitution, Rodia argues, and would offer greater protections and recourse to women than the constellation of federal equal rights laws that currently bar sex and gender discrimination. Although Congress passed the ERA in 1972, only thirty-five states ratified it—three short of the number needed for enactment—before the 1982 deadline. However, the author contends, a renewed focus on women's rights following the 2016 US presidential election may be enough to see a new iteration of the ERA enacted.

The Equal Rights Amendment is dead. It should stay that way

"[C]an a legislative cadaver be ratified?"

George F. Will is a political columnist for the Washington Post .

In the following viewpoint, Will criticizes the repeated attempts by legislators to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the US Constitution, which would guarantee equal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. The author faults Congress for passing the ERA in 1972 without understanding the implications of its passage, for granting states a seven-year time limit for ratification, and for extending that time limit when the required numbers of states had not yet ratified. Comparing the time allotted for the ERA's ratification to other amendments, Will asserts that the proposed amendment's inability to secure ratification within the ample time provided by Congress demonstrates its irrelevance.

Excluding Transwomen from Feminism Is Transphobic

“It must be hard to be called a bigot when you have fought against male supremacy in your actions and in your heart throughout your life.”

Josephine Livingstone is a staff writer at the New Republic .

In the following viewpoint, Livingstone responds to an essay about feminism and transgender women published in The American Conservative . The essay’s author, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, suggests that the needs of transgender women do not belong as part of the collective feminist platform. Livingstone takes issue with Vargas-Cooper’s assertions that the certain demands of transgender rights activists are unrealistic and that women’s rights are not tied to transgender women’s rights. Livingstone argues that conflict between feminists and transgender activists serves to strengthen the control of the patriarchy.

“Marketplace Feminism” and the Commodification of Empowerment

“The various media and pop culture industries whose bread and butter has rested on making women hate themselves are now not only not insulting them but even celebrating their strength and smarts.”

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan. She is the author of several books, including Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media and Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done .

In the following viewpoint, Douglas argues that advertising that promotes female empowerment advances a superficial and depoliticized version of feminism. The author cites recent examples in both advertising and more general pop culture that use feminism as a marketing ploy, depicting the political movement as an identity that can be achieved by purchasing certain products. While others have identified the popularity of feminist tropes as an indication of widespread acceptance of feminist ideals, the author worries that celebrating feminism’s current status as a trendy accessory can distract society from the need to address to systemic gender inequality.

Looking for information on other topics?

Access Through Your Library >>

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator

Contributed equally to this work with: Paola Belingheri, Filippo Chiarello, Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, Paola Rovelli

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Energia, dei Sistemi, del Territorio e delle Costruzioni, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Largo L. Lazzarino, Pisa, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy, Department of Management, Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Economics and Management, Centre for Family Business Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

• Paola Belingheri, 
• Filippo Chiarello, 
• Andrea Fronzetti Colladon, 
• Paola Rovelli

• Published: September 21, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474
• Reader Comments

9 Nov 2021: The PLOS ONE Staff (2021) Correction: Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLOS ONE 16(11): e0259930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259930 View correction

Gender equality is a major problem that places women at a disadvantage thereby stymieing economic growth and societal advancement. In the last two decades, extensive research has been conducted on gender related issues, studying both their antecedents and consequences. However, existing literature reviews fail to provide a comprehensive and clear picture of what has been studied so far, which could guide scholars in their future research. Our paper offers a scoping review of a large portion of the research that has been published over the last 22 years, on gender equality and related issues, with a specific focus on business and economics studies. Combining innovative methods drawn from both network analysis and text mining, we provide a synthesis of 15,465 scientific articles. We identify 27 main research topics, we measure their relevance from a semantic point of view and the relationships among them, highlighting the importance of each topic in the overall gender discourse. We find that prominent research topics mostly relate to women in the workforce–e.g., concerning compensation, role, education, decision-making and career progression. However, some of them are losing momentum, and some other research trends–for example related to female entrepreneurship, leadership and participation in the board of directors–are on the rise. Besides introducing a novel methodology to review broad literature streams, our paper offers a map of the main gender-research trends and presents the most popular and the emerging themes, as well as their intersections, outlining important avenues for future research.

Citation: Belingheri P, Chiarello F, Fronzetti Colladon A, Rovelli P (2021) Twenty years of gender equality research: A scoping review based on a new semantic indicator. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0256474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474

Editor: Elisa Ughetto, Politecnico di Torino, ITALY

Received: June 25, 2021; Accepted: August 6, 2021; Published: September 21, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Belingheri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files. The only exception is the text of the abstracts (over 15,000) that we have downloaded from Scopus. These abstracts can be retrieved from Scopus, but we do not have permission to redistribute them.

Funding: P.B and F.C.: Grant of the Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction of the University of Pisa (DESTEC) for the project “Measuring Gender Bias with Semantic Analysis: The Development of an Assessment Tool and its Application in the European Space Industry. P.B., F.C., A.F.C., P.R.: Grant of the Italian Association of Management Engineering (AiIG), “Misure di sostegno ai soci giovani AiIG” 2020, for the project “Gender Equality Through Data Intelligence (GEDI)”. F.C.: EU project ASSETs+ Project (Alliance for Strategic Skills addressing Emerging Technologies in Defence) EAC/A03/2018 - Erasmus+ programme, Sector Skills Alliances, Lot 3: Sector Skills Alliance for implementing a new strategic approach (Blueprint) to sectoral cooperation on skills G.A. NUMBER: 612678-EPP-1-2019-1-IT-EPPKA2-SSA-B.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The persistent gender inequalities that currently exist across the developed and developing world are receiving increasing attention from economists, policymakers, and the general public [e.g., 1 – 3 ]. Economic studies have indicated that women’s education and entry into the workforce contributes to social and economic well-being [e.g., 4 , 5 ], while their exclusion from the labor market and from managerial positions has an impact on overall labor productivity and income per capita [ 6 , 7 ]. The United Nations selected gender equality, with an emphasis on female education, as part of the Millennium Development Goals [ 8 ], and gender equality at-large as one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030 [ 9 ]. These latter objectives involve not only developing nations, but rather all countries, to achieve economic, social and environmental well-being.

As is the case with many SDGs, gender equality is still far from being achieved and persists across education, access to opportunities, or presence in decision-making positions [ 7 , 10 , 11 ]. As we enter the last decade for the SDGs’ implementation, and while we are battling a global health pandemic, effective and efficient action becomes paramount to reach this ambitious goal.

Scholars have dedicated a massive effort towards understanding gender equality, its determinants, its consequences for women and society, and the appropriate actions and policies to advance women’s equality. Many topics have been covered, ranging from women’s education and human capital [ 12 , 13 ] and their role in society [e.g., 14 , 15 ], to their appointment in firms’ top ranked positions [e.g., 16 , 17 ] and performance implications [e.g., 18 , 19 ]. Despite some attempts, extant literature reviews provide a narrow view on these issues, restricted to specific topics–e.g., female students’ presence in STEM fields [ 20 ], educational gender inequality [ 5 ], the gender pay gap [ 21 ], the glass ceiling effect [ 22 ], leadership [ 23 ], entrepreneurship [ 24 ], women’s presence on the board of directors [ 25 , 26 ], diversity management [ 27 ], gender stereotypes in advertisement [ 28 ], or specific professions [ 29 ]. A comprehensive view on gender-related research, taking stock of key findings and under-studied topics is thus lacking.

Extant literature has also highlighted that gender issues, and their economic and social ramifications, are complex topics that involve a large number of possible antecedents and outcomes [ 7 ]. Indeed, gender equality actions are most effective when implemented in unison with other SDGs (e.g., with SDG 8, see [ 30 ]) in a synergetic perspective [ 10 ]. Many bodies of literature (e.g., business, economics, development studies, sociology and psychology) approach the problem of achieving gender equality from different perspectives–often addressing specific and narrow aspects. This sometimes leads to a lack of clarity about how different issues, circumstances, and solutions may be related in precipitating or mitigating gender inequality or its effects. As the number of papers grows at an increasing pace, this issue is exacerbated and there is a need to step back and survey the body of gender equality literature as a whole. There is also a need to examine synergies between different topics and approaches, as well as gaps in our understanding of how different problems and solutions work together. Considering the important topic of women’s economic and social empowerment, this paper aims to fill this gap by answering the following research question: what are the most relevant findings in the literature on gender equality and how do they relate to each other ?

To do so, we conduct a scoping review [ 31 ], providing a synthesis of 15,465 articles dealing with gender equity related issues published in the last twenty-two years, covering both the periods of the MDGs and the SDGs (i.e., 2000 to mid 2021) in all the journals indexed in the Academic Journal Guide’s 2018 ranking of business and economics journals. Given the huge amount of research conducted on the topic, we adopt an innovative methodology, which relies on social network analysis and text mining. These techniques are increasingly adopted when surveying large bodies of text. Recently, they were applied to perform analysis of online gender communication differences [ 32 ] and gender behaviors in online technology communities [ 33 ], to identify and classify sexual harassment instances in academia [ 34 ], and to evaluate the gender inclusivity of disaster management policies [ 35 ].

Applied to the title, abstracts and keywords of the articles in our sample, this methodology allows us to identify a set of 27 recurrent topics within which we automatically classify the papers. Introducing additional novelty, by means of the Semantic Brand Score (SBS) indicator [ 36 ] and the SBS BI app [ 37 ], we assess the importance of each topic in the overall gender equality discourse and its relationships with the other topics, as well as trends over time, with a more accurate description than that offered by traditional literature reviews relying solely on the number of papers presented in each topic.

This methodology, applied to gender equality research spanning the past twenty-two years, enables two key contributions. First, we extract the main message that each document is conveying and how this is connected to other themes in literature, providing a rich picture of the topics that are at the center of the discourse, as well as of the emerging topics. Second, by examining the semantic relationship between topics and how tightly their discourses are linked, we can identify the key relationships and connections between different topics. This semi-automatic methodology is also highly reproducible with minimum effort.

This literature review is organized as follows. In the next section, we present how we selected relevant papers and how we analyzed them through text mining and social network analysis. We then illustrate the importance of 27 selected research topics, measured by means of the SBS indicator. In the results section, we present an overview of the literature based on the SBS results–followed by an in-depth narrative analysis of the top 10 topics (i.e., those with the highest SBS) and their connections. Subsequently, we highlight a series of under-studied connections between the topics where there is potential for future research. Through this analysis, we build a map of the main gender-research trends in the last twenty-two years–presenting the most popular themes. We conclude by highlighting key areas on which research should focused in the future.

Our aim is to map a broad topic, gender equality research, that has been approached through a host of different angles and through different disciplines. Scoping reviews are the most appropriate as they provide the freedom to map different themes and identify literature gaps, thereby guiding the recommendation of new research agendas [ 38 ].

Several practical approaches have been proposed to identify and assess the underlying topics of a specific field using big data [ 39 – 41 ], but many of them fail without proper paper retrieval and text preprocessing. This is specifically true for a research field such as the gender-related one, which comprises the work of scholars from different backgrounds. In this section, we illustrate a novel approach for the analysis of scientific (gender-related) papers that relies on methods and tools of social network analysis and text mining. Our procedure has four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) text preprocessing, (3) keywords extraction and classification, and (4) evaluation of semantic importance and image.

Data collection

In this study, we analyze 22 years of literature on gender-related research. Following established practice for scoping reviews [ 42 ], our data collection consisted of two main steps, which we summarize here below.

Firstly, we retrieved from the Scopus database all the articles written in English that contained the term “gender” in their title, abstract or keywords and were published in a journal listed in the Academic Journal Guide 2018 ranking of the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) ( https://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AJG2018-Methodology.pdf ), considering the time period from Jan 2000 to May 2021. We used this information considering that abstracts, titles and keywords represent the most informative part of a paper, while using the full-text would increase the signal-to-noise ratio for information extraction. Indeed, these textual elements already demonstrated to be reliable sources of information for the task of domain lexicon extraction [ 43 , 44 ]. We chose Scopus as source of literature because of its popularity, its update rate, and because it offers an API to ease the querying process. Indeed, while it does not allow to retrieve the full text of scientific articles, the Scopus API offers access to titles, abstracts, citation information and metadata for all its indexed scholarly journals. Moreover, we decided to focus on the journals listed in the AJG 2018 ranking because we were interested in reviewing business and economics related gender studies only. The AJG is indeed widely used by universities and business schools as a reference point for journal and research rigor and quality. This first step, executed in June 2021, returned more than 55,000 papers.

In the second step–because a look at the papers showed very sparse results, many of which were not in line with the topic of this literature review (e.g., papers dealing with health care or medical issues, where the word gender indicates the gender of the patients)–we applied further inclusion criteria to make the sample more focused on the topic of this literature review (i.e., women’s gender equality issues). Specifically, we only retained those papers mentioning, in their title and/or abstract, both gender-related keywords (e.g., daughter, female, mother) and keywords referring to bias and equality issues (e.g., equality, bias, diversity, inclusion). After text pre-processing (see next section), keywords were first identified from a frequency-weighted list of words found in the titles, abstracts and keywords in the initial list of papers, extracted through text mining (following the same approach as [ 43 ]). They were selected by two of the co-authors independently, following respectively a bottom up and a top-down approach. The bottom-up approach consisted of examining the words found in the frequency-weighted list and classifying those related to gender and equality. The top-down approach consisted in searching in the word list for notable gender and equality-related words. Table 1 reports the sets of keywords we considered, together with some examples of words that were used to search for their presence in the dataset (a full list is provided in the S1 Text ). At end of this second step, we obtained a final sample of 15,465 relevant papers.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t001

Text processing and keyword extraction

Text preprocessing aims at structuring text into a form that can be analyzed by statistical models. In the present section, we describe the preprocessing steps we applied to paper titles and abstracts, which, as explained below, partially follow a standard text preprocessing pipeline [ 45 ]. These activities have been performed using the R package udpipe [ 46 ].

The first step is n-gram extraction (i.e., a sequence of words from a given text sample) to identify which n-grams are important in the analysis, since domain-specific lexicons are often composed by bi-grams and tri-grams [ 47 ]. Multi-word extraction is usually implemented with statistics and linguistic rules, thus using the statistical properties of n-grams or machine learning approaches [ 48 ]. However, for the present paper, we used Scopus metadata in order to have a more effective and efficient n-grams collection approach [ 49 ]. We used the keywords of each paper in order to tag n-grams with their associated keywords automatically. Using this greedy approach, it was possible to collect all the keywords listed by the authors of the papers. From this list, we extracted only keywords composed by two, three and four words, we removed all the acronyms and rare keywords (i.e., appearing in less than 1% of papers), and we clustered keywords showing a high orthographic similarity–measured using a Levenshtein distance [ 50 ] lower than 2, considering these groups of keywords as representing same concepts, but expressed with different spelling. After tagging the n-grams in the abstracts, we followed a common data preparation pipeline that consists of the following steps: (i) tokenization, that splits the text into tokens (i.e., single words and previously tagged multi-words); (ii) removal of stop-words (i.e. those words that add little meaning to the text, usually being very common and short functional words–such as “and”, “or”, or “of”); (iii) parts-of-speech tagging, that is providing information concerning the morphological role of a word and its morphosyntactic context (e.g., if the token is a determiner, the next token is a noun or an adjective with very high confidence, [ 51 ]); and (iv) lemmatization, which consists in substituting each word with its dictionary form (or lemma). The output of the latter step allows grouping together the inflected forms of a word. For example, the verbs “am”, “are”, and “is” have the shared lemma “be”, or the nouns “cat” and “cats” both share the lemma “cat”. We preferred lemmatization over stemming [ 52 ] in order to obtain more interpretable results.

In addition, we identified a further set of keywords (with respect to those listed in the “keywords” field) by applying a series of automatic words unification and removal steps, as suggested in past research [ 53 , 54 ]. We removed: sparse terms (i.e., occurring in less than 0.1% of all documents), common terms (i.e., occurring in more than 10% of all documents) and retained only nouns and adjectives. It is relevant to notice that no document was lost due to these steps. We then used the TF-IDF function [ 55 ] to produce a new list of keywords. We additionally tested other approaches for the identification and clustering of keywords–such as TextRank [ 56 ] or Latent Dirichlet Allocation [ 57 ]–without obtaining more informative results.

Classification of research topics

To guide the literature analysis, two experts met regularly to examine the sample of collected papers and to identify the main topics and trends in gender research. Initially, they conducted brainstorming sessions on the topics they expected to find, due to their knowledge of the literature. This led to an initial list of topics. Subsequently, the experts worked independently, also supported by the keywords in paper titles and abstracts extracted with the procedure described above.

Considering all this information, each expert identified and clustered relevant keywords into topics. At the end of the process, the two assignments were compared and exhibited a 92% agreement. Another meeting was held to discuss discordant cases and reach a consensus. This resulted in a list of 27 topics, briefly introduced in Table 2 and subsequently detailed in the following sections.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t002

Evaluation of semantic importance

Working on the lemmatized corpus of the 15,465 papers included in our sample, we proceeded with the evaluation of semantic importance trends for each topic and with the analysis of their connections and prevalent textual associations. To this aim, we used the Semantic Brand Score indicator [ 36 ], calculated through the SBS BI webapp [ 37 ] that also produced a brand image report for each topic. For this study we relied on the computing resources of the ENEA/CRESCO infrastructure [ 58 ].

The Semantic Brand Score (SBS) is a measure of semantic importance that combines methods of social network analysis and text mining. It is usually applied for the analysis of (big) textual data to evaluate the importance of one or more brands, names, words, or sets of keywords [ 36 ]. Indeed, the concept of “brand” is intended in a flexible way and goes beyond products or commercial brands. In this study, we evaluate the SBS time-trends of the keywords defining the research topics discussed in the previous section. Semantic importance comprises the three dimensions of topic prevalence, diversity and connectivity. Prevalence measures how frequently a research topic is used in the discourse. The more a topic is mentioned by scientific articles, the more the research community will be aware of it, with possible increase of future studies; this construct is partly related to that of brand awareness [ 59 ]. This effect is even stronger, considering that we are analyzing the title, abstract and keywords of the papers, i.e. the parts that have the highest visibility. A very important characteristic of the SBS is that it considers the relationships among words in a text. Topic importance is not just a matter of how frequently a topic is mentioned, but also of the associations a topic has in the text. Specifically, texts are transformed into networks of co-occurring words, and relationships are studied through social network analysis [ 60 ]. This step is necessary to calculate the other two dimensions of our semantic importance indicator. Accordingly, a social network of words is generated for each time period considered in the analysis–i.e., a graph made of n nodes (words) and E edges weighted by co-occurrence frequency, with W being the set of edge weights. The keywords representing each topic were clustered into single nodes.

The construct of diversity relates to that of brand image [ 59 ], in the sense that it considers the richness and distinctiveness of textual (topic) associations. Considering the above-mentioned networks, we calculated diversity using the distinctiveness centrality metric–as in the formula presented by Fronzetti Colladon and Naldi [ 61 ].

Lastly, connectivity was measured as the weighted betweenness centrality [ 62 , 63 ] of each research topic node. We used the formula presented by Wasserman and Faust [ 60 ]. The dimension of connectivity represents the “brokerage power” of each research topic–i.e., how much it can serve as a bridge to connect other terms (and ultimately topics) in the discourse [ 36 ].

The SBS is the final composite indicator obtained by summing the standardized scores of prevalence, diversity and connectivity. Standardization was carried out considering all the words in the corpus, for each specific timeframe.

This methodology, applied to a large and heterogeneous body of text, enables to automatically identify two important sets of information that add value to the literature review. Firstly, the relevance of each topic in literature is measured through a composite indicator of semantic importance, rather than simply looking at word frequencies. This provides a much richer picture of the topics that are at the center of the discourse, as well as of the topics that are emerging in the literature. Secondly, it enables to examine the extent of the semantic relationship between topics, looking at how tightly their discourses are linked. In a field such as gender equality, where many topics are closely linked to each other and present overlaps in issues and solutions, this methodology offers a novel perspective with respect to traditional literature reviews. In addition, it ensures reproducibility over time and the possibility to semi-automatically update the analysis, as new papers become available.

Overview of main topics

In terms of descriptive textual statistics, our corpus is made of 15,465 text documents, consisting of a total of 2,685,893 lemmatized tokens (words) and 32,279 types. As a result, the type-token ratio is 1.2%. The number of hapaxes is 12,141, with a hapax-token ratio of 37.61%.

Fig 1 shows the list of 27 topics by decreasing SBS. The most researched topic is compensation , exceeding all others in prevalence, diversity, and connectivity. This means it is not only mentioned more often than other topics, but it is also connected to a greater number of other topics and is central to the discourse on gender equality. The next four topics are, in order of SBS, role , education , decision-making , and career progression . These topics, except for education , all concern women in the workforce. Between these first five topics and the following ones there is a clear drop in SBS scores. In particular, the topics that follow have a lower connectivity than the first five. They are hiring , performance , behavior , organization , and human capital . Again, except for behavior and human capital , the other three topics are purely related to women in the workforce. After another drop-off, the following topics deal prevalently with women in society. This trend highlights that research on gender in business journals has so far mainly paid attention to the conditions that women experience in business contexts, while also devoting some attention to women in society.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g001

Fig 2 shows the SBS time series of the top 10 topics. While there has been a general increase in the number of Scopus-indexed publications in the last decade, we notice that some SBS trends remain steady, or even decrease. In particular, we observe that the main topic of the last twenty-two years, compensation , is losing momentum. Since 2016, it has been surpassed by decision-making , education and role , which may indicate that literature is increasingly attempting to identify root causes of compensation inequalities. Moreover, in the last two years, the topics of hiring , performance , and organization are experiencing the largest importance increase.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g002

Fig 3 shows the SBS time trends of the remaining 17 topics (i.e., those not in the top 10). As we can see from the graph, there are some that maintain a steady trend–such as reputation , management , networks and governance , which also seem to have little importance. More relevant topics with average stationary trends (except for the last two years) are culture , family , and parenting . The feminine topic is among the most important here, and one of those that exhibit the larger variations over time (similarly to leadership ). On the other hand, the are some topics that, even if not among the most important, show increasing SBS trends; therefore, they could be considered as emerging topics and could become popular in the near future. These are entrepreneurship , leadership , board of directors , and sustainability . These emerging topics are also interesting to anticipate future trends in gender equality research that are conducive to overall equality in society.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g003

In addition to the SBS score of the different topics, the network of terms they are associated to enables to gauge the extent to which their images (textual associations) overlap or differ ( Fig 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.g004

There is a central cluster of topics with high similarity, which are all connected with women in the workforce. The cluster includes topics such as organization , decision-making , performance , hiring , human capital , education and compensation . In addition, the topic of well-being is found within this cluster, suggesting that women’s equality in the workforce is associated to well-being considerations. The emerging topics of entrepreneurship and leadership are also closely connected with each other, possibly implying that leadership is a much-researched quality in female entrepreneurship. Topics that are relatively more distant include personality , politics , feminine , empowerment , management , board of directors , reputation , governance , parenting , masculine and network .

The following sections describe the top 10 topics and their main associations in literature (see Table 3 ), while providing a brief overview of the emerging topics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.t003

Compensation.

The topic of compensation is related to the topics of role , hiring , education and career progression , however, also sees a very high association with the words gap and inequality . Indeed, a well-known debate in degrowth economics centers around whether and how to adequately compensate women for their childbearing, childrearing, caregiver and household work [e.g., 30 ].

Even in paid work, women continue being offered lower compensations than their male counterparts who have the same job or cover the same role [ 64 – 67 ]. This severe inequality has been widely studied by scholars over the last twenty-two years. Dealing with this topic, some specific roles have been addressed. Specifically, research highlighted differences in compensation between female and male CEOs [e.g., 68 ], top executives [e.g., 69 ], and boards’ directors [e.g., 70 ]. Scholars investigated the determinants of these gaps, such as the gender composition of the board [e.g., 71 – 73 ] or women’s individual characteristics [e.g., 71 , 74 ].

Among these individual characteristics, education plays a relevant role [ 75 ]. Education is indeed presented as the solution for women, not only to achieve top executive roles, but also to reduce wage inequality [e.g., 76 , 77 ]. Past research has highlighted education influences on gender wage gaps, specifically referring to gender differences in skills [e.g., 78 ], college majors [e.g., 79 ], and college selectivity [e.g., 80 ].

Finally, the wage gap issue is strictly interrelated with hiring –e.g., looking at whether being a mother affects hiring and compensation [e.g., 65 , 81 ] or relating compensation to unemployment [e.g., 82 ]–and career progression –for instance looking at meritocracy [ 83 , 84 ] or the characteristics of the boss for whom women work [e.g., 85 ].

The roles covered by women have been deeply investigated. Scholars have focused on the role of women in their families and the society as a whole [e.g., 14 , 15 ], and, more widely, in business contexts [e.g., 18 , 81 ]. Indeed, despite still lagging behind their male counterparts [e.g., 86 , 87 ], in the last decade there has been an increase in top ranked positions achieved by women [e.g., 88 , 89 ]. Following this phenomenon, scholars have posed greater attention towards the presence of women in the board of directors [e.g., 16 , 18 , 90 , 91 ], given the increasing pressure to appoint female directors that firms, especially listed ones, have experienced. Other scholars have focused on the presence of women covering the role of CEO [e.g., 17 , 92 ] or being part of the top management team [e.g., 93 ]. Irrespectively of the level of analysis, all these studies tried to uncover the antecedents of women’s presence among top managers [e.g., 92 , 94 ] and the consequences of having a them involved in the firm’s decision-making –e.g., on performance [e.g., 19 , 95 , 96 ], risk [e.g., 97 , 98 ], and corporate social responsibility [e.g., 99 , 100 ].

Besides studying the difficulties and discriminations faced by women in getting a job [ 81 , 101 ], and, more specifically in the hiring , appointment, or career progression to these apical roles [e.g., 70 , 83 ], the majority of research of women’s roles dealt with compensation issues. Specifically, scholars highlight the pay-gap that still exists between women and men, both in general [e.g., 64 , 65 ], as well as referring to boards’ directors [e.g., 70 , 102 ], CEOs and executives [e.g., 69 , 103 , 104 ].

Finally, other scholars focused on the behavior of women when dealing with business. In this sense, particular attention has been paid to leadership and entrepreneurial behaviors. The former quite overlaps with dealing with the roles mentioned above, but also includes aspects such as leaders being stereotyped as masculine [e.g., 105 ], the need for greater exposure to female leaders to reduce biases [e.g., 106 ], or female leaders acting as queen bees [e.g., 107 ]. Regarding entrepreneurship , scholars mainly investigated women’s entrepreneurial entry [e.g., 108 , 109 ], differences between female and male entrepreneurs in the evaluations and funding received from investors [e.g., 110 , 111 ], and their performance gap [e.g., 112 , 113 ].

Education has long been recognized as key to social advancement and economic stability [ 114 ], for job progression and also a barrier to gender equality, especially in STEM-related fields. Research on education and gender equality is mostly linked with the topics of compensation , human capital , career progression , hiring , parenting and decision-making .

Education contributes to a higher human capital [ 115 ] and constitutes an investment on the part of women towards their future. In this context, literature points to the gender gap in educational attainment, and the consequences for women from a social, economic, personal and professional standpoint. Women are found to have less access to formal education and information, especially in emerging countries, which in turn may cause them to lose social and economic opportunities [e.g., 12 , 116 – 119 ]. Education in local and rural communities is also paramount to communicate the benefits of female empowerment , contributing to overall societal well-being [e.g., 120 ].

Once women access education, the image they have of the world and their place in society (i.e., habitus) affects their education performance [ 13 ] and is passed on to their children. These situations reinforce gender stereotypes, which become self-fulfilling prophecies that may negatively affect female students’ performance by lowering their confidence and heightening their anxiety [ 121 , 122 ]. Besides formal education, also the information that women are exposed to on a daily basis contributes to their human capital . Digital inequalities, for instance, stems from men spending more time online and acquiring higher digital skills than women [ 123 ].

Education is also a factor that should boost employability of candidates and thus hiring , career progression and compensation , however the relationship between these factors is not straightforward [ 115 ]. First, educational choices ( decision-making ) are influenced by variables such as self-efficacy and the presence of barriers, irrespectively of the career opportunities they offer, especially in STEM [ 124 ]. This brings additional difficulties to women’s enrollment and persistence in scientific and technical fields of study due to stereotypes and biases [ 125 , 126 ]. Moreover, access to education does not automatically translate into job opportunities for women and minority groups [ 127 , 128 ] or into female access to managerial positions [ 129 ].

Finally, parenting is reported as an antecedent of education [e.g., 130 ], with much of the literature focusing on the role of parents’ education on the opportunities afforded to children to enroll in education [ 131 – 134 ] and the role of parenting in their offspring’s perception of study fields and attitudes towards learning [ 135 – 138 ]. Parental education is also a predictor of the other related topics, namely human capital and compensation [ 139 ].

Decision-making.

This literature mainly points to the fact that women are thought to make decisions differently than men. Women have indeed different priorities, such as they care more about people’s well-being, working with people or helping others, rather than maximizing their personal (or their firm’s) gain [ 140 ]. In other words, women typically present more communal than agentic behaviors, which are instead more frequent among men [ 141 ]. These different attitude, behavior and preferences in turn affect the decisions they make [e.g., 142 ] and the decision-making of the firm in which they work [e.g., 143 ].

At the individual level, gender affects, for instance, career aspirations [e.g., 144 ] and choices [e.g., 142 , 145 ], or the decision of creating a venture [e.g., 108 , 109 , 146 ]. Moreover, in everyday life, women and men make different decisions regarding partners [e.g., 147 ], childcare [e.g., 148 ], education [e.g., 149 ], attention to the environment [e.g., 150 ] and politics [e.g., 151 ].

At the firm level, scholars highlighted, for example, how the presence of women in the board affects corporate decisions [e.g., 152 , 153 ], that female CEOs are more conservative in accounting decisions [e.g., 154 ], or that female CFOs tend to make more conservative decisions regarding the firm’s financial reporting [e.g., 155 ]. Nevertheless, firm level research also investigated decisions that, influenced by gender bias, affect women, such as those pertaining hiring [e.g., 156 , 157 ], compensation [e.g., 73 , 158 ], or the empowerment of women once appointed [ 159 ].

Career progression.

Once women have entered the workforce, the key aspect to achieve gender equality becomes career progression , including efforts toward overcoming the glass ceiling. Indeed, according to the SBS analysis, career progression is highly related to words such as work, social issues and equality. The topic with which it has the highest semantic overlap is role , followed by decision-making , hiring , education , compensation , leadership , human capital , and family .

Career progression implies an advancement in the hierarchical ladder of the firm, assigning managerial roles to women. Coherently, much of the literature has focused on identifying rationales for a greater female participation in the top management team and board of directors [e.g., 95 ] as well as the best criteria to ensure that the decision-makers promote the most valuable employees irrespectively of their individual characteristics, such as gender [e.g., 84 ]. The link between career progression , role and compensation is often provided in practice by performance appraisal exercises, frequently rooted in a culture of meritocracy that guides bonuses, salary increases and promotions. However, performance appraisals can actually mask gender-biased decisions where women are held to higher standards than their male colleagues [e.g., 83 , 84 , 95 , 160 , 161 ]. Women often have less opportunities to gain leadership experience and are less visible than their male colleagues, which constitute barriers to career advancement [e.g., 162 ]. Therefore, transparency and accountability, together with procedures that discourage discretionary choices, are paramount to achieve a fair career progression [e.g., 84 ], together with the relaxation of strict job boundaries in favor of cross-functional and self-directed tasks [e.g., 163 ].

In addition, a series of stereotypes about the type of leadership characteristics that are required for top management positions, which fit better with typical male and agentic attributes, are another key barrier to career advancement for women [e.g., 92 , 160 ].

Hiring is the entrance gateway for women into the workforce. Therefore, it is related to other workforce topics such as compensation , role , career progression , decision-making , human capital , performance , organization and education .

A first stream of literature focuses on the process leading up to candidates’ job applications, demonstrating that bias exists before positions are even opened, and it is perpetuated both by men and women through networking and gatekeeping practices [e.g., 164 , 165 ].

The hiring process itself is also subject to biases [ 166 ], for example gender-congruity bias that leads to men being preferred candidates in male-dominated sectors [e.g., 167 ], women being hired in positions with higher risk of failure [e.g., 168 ] and limited transparency and accountability afforded by written processes and procedures [e.g., 164 ] that all contribute to ascriptive inequality. In addition, providing incentives for evaluators to hire women may actually work to this end; however, this is not the case when supporting female candidates endangers higher-ranking male ones [ 169 ].

Another interesting perspective, instead, looks at top management teams’ composition and the effects on hiring practices, indicating that firms with more women in top management are less likely to lay off staff [e.g., 152 ].

Performance.

Several scholars posed their attention towards women’s performance, its consequences [e.g., 170 , 171 ] and the implications of having women in decision-making positions [e.g., 18 , 19 ].

At the individual level, research focused on differences in educational and academic performance between women and men, especially referring to the gender gap in STEM fields [e.g., 171 ]. The presence of stereotype threats–that is the expectation that the members of a social group (e.g., women) “must deal with the possibility of being judged or treated stereotypically, or of doing something that would confirm the stereotype” [ 172 ]–affects women’s interested in STEM [e.g., 173 ], as well as their cognitive ability tests, penalizing them [e.g., 174 ]. A stronger gender identification enhances this gap [e.g., 175 ], whereas mentoring and role models can be used as solutions to this problem [e.g., 121 ]. Despite the negative effect of stereotype threats on girls’ performance [ 176 ], female and male students perform equally in mathematics and related subjects [e.g., 177 ]. Moreover, while individuals’ performance at school and university generally affects their achievements and the field in which they end up working, evidence reveals that performance in math or other scientific subjects does not explain why fewer women enter STEM working fields; rather this gap depends on other aspects, such as culture, past working experiences, or self-efficacy [e.g., 170 ]. Finally, scholars have highlighted the penalization that women face for their positive performance, for instance when they succeed in traditionally male areas [e.g., 178 ]. This penalization is explained by the violation of gender-stereotypic prescriptions [e.g., 179 , 180 ], that is having women well performing in agentic areas, which are typical associated to men. Performance penalization can thus be overcome by clearly conveying communal characteristics and behaviors [ 178 ].

Evidence has been provided on how the involvement of women in boards of directors and decision-making positions affects firms’ performance. Nevertheless, results are mixed, with some studies showing positive effects on financial [ 19 , 181 , 182 ] and corporate social performance [ 99 , 182 , 183 ]. Other studies maintain a negative association [e.g., 18 ], and other again mixed [e.g., 184 ] or non-significant association [e.g., 185 ]. Also with respect to the presence of a female CEO, mixed results emerged so far, with some researches demonstrating a positive effect on firm’s performance [e.g., 96 , 186 ], while other obtaining only a limited evidence of this relationship [e.g., 103 ] or a negative one [e.g., 187 ].

Finally, some studies have investigated whether and how women’s performance affects their hiring [e.g., 101 ] and career progression [e.g., 83 , 160 ]. For instance, academic performance leads to different returns in hiring for women and men. Specifically, high-achieving men are called back significantly more often than high-achieving women, which are penalized when they have a major in mathematics; this result depends on employers’ gendered standards for applicants [e.g., 101 ]. Once appointed, performance ratings are more strongly related to promotions for women than men, and promoted women typically show higher past performance ratings than those of promoted men. This suggesting that women are subject to stricter standards for promotion [e.g., 160 ].

Behavioral aspects related to gender follow two main streams of literature. The first examines female personality and behavior in the workplace, and their alignment with cultural expectations or stereotypes [e.g., 188 ] as well as their impacts on equality. There is a common bias that depicts women as less agentic than males. Certain characteristics, such as those more congruent with male behaviors–e.g., self-promotion [e.g., 189 ], negotiation skills [e.g., 190 ] and general agentic behavior [e.g., 191 ]–, are less accepted in women. However, characteristics such as individualism in women have been found to promote greater gender equality in society [ 192 ]. In addition, behaviors such as display of emotions [e.g., 193 ], which are stereotypically female, work against women’s acceptance in the workplace, requiring women to carefully moderate their behavior to avoid exclusion. A counter-intuitive result is that women and minorities, which are more marginalized in the workplace, tend to be better problem-solvers in innovation competitions due to their different knowledge bases [ 194 ].

The other side of the coin is examined in a parallel literature stream on behavior towards women in the workplace. As a result of biases, prejudices and stereotypes, women may experience adverse behavior from their colleagues, such as incivility and harassment, which undermine their well-being [e.g., 195 , 196 ]. Biases that go beyond gender, such as for overweight people, are also more strongly applied to women [ 197 ].

Organization.

The role of women and gender bias in organizations has been studied from different perspectives, which mirror those presented in detail in the following sections. Specifically, most research highlighted the stereotypical view of leaders [e.g., 105 ] and the roles played by women within firms, for instance referring to presence in the board of directors [e.g., 18 , 90 , 91 ], appointment as CEOs [e.g., 16 ], or top executives [e.g., 93 ].

Scholars have investigated antecedents and consequences of the presence of women in these apical roles. On the one side they looked at hiring and career progression [e.g., 83 , 92 , 160 , 168 , 198 ], finding women typically disadvantaged with respect to their male counterparts. On the other side, they studied women’s leadership styles and influence on the firm’s decision-making [e.g., 152 , 154 , 155 , 199 ], with implications for performance [e.g., 18 , 19 , 96 ].

Human capital.

Human capital is a transverse topic that touches upon many different aspects of female gender equality. As such, it has the most associations with other topics, starting with education as mentioned above, with career-related topics such as role , decision-making , hiring , career progression , performance , compensation , leadership and organization . Another topic with which there is a close connection is behavior . In general, human capital is approached both from the education standpoint but also from the perspective of social capital.

The behavioral aspect in human capital comprises research related to gender differences for example in cultural and religious beliefs that influence women’s attitudes and perceptions towards STEM subjects [ 142 , 200 – 202 ], towards employment [ 203 ] or towards environmental issues [ 150 , 204 ]. These cultural differences also emerge in the context of globalization which may accelerate gender equality in the workforce [ 205 , 206 ]. Gender differences also appear in behaviors such as motivation [ 207 ], and in negotiation [ 190 ], and have repercussions on women’s decision-making related to their careers. The so-called gender equality paradox sees women in countries with lower gender equality more likely to pursue studies and careers in STEM fields, whereas the gap in STEM enrollment widens as countries achieve greater equality in society [ 171 ].

Career progression is modeled by literature as a choice-process where personal preferences, culture and decision-making affect the chosen path and the outcomes. Some literature highlights how women tend to self-select into different professions than men, often due to stereotypes rather than actual ability to perform in these professions [ 142 , 144 ]. These stereotypes also affect the perceptions of female performance or the amount of human capital required to equal male performance [ 110 , 193 , 208 ], particularly for mothers [ 81 ]. It is therefore often assumed that women are better suited to less visible and less leadership -oriented roles [ 209 ]. Women also express differing preferences towards work-family balance, which affect whether and how they pursue human capital gains [ 210 ], and ultimately their career progression and salary .

On the other hand, men are often unaware of gendered processes and behaviors that they carry forward in their interactions and decision-making [ 211 , 212 ]. Therefore, initiatives aimed at increasing managers’ human capital –by raising awareness of gender disparities in their organizations and engaging them in diversity promotion–are essential steps to counter gender bias and segregation [ 213 ].

Emerging topics: Leadership and entrepreneurship

Among the emerging topics, the most pervasive one is women reaching leadership positions in the workforce and in society. This is still a rare occurrence for two main types of factors, on the one hand, bias and discrimination make it harder for women to access leadership positions [e.g., 214 – 216 ], on the other hand, the competitive nature and high pressure associated with leadership positions, coupled with the lack of women currently represented, reduce women’s desire to achieve them [e.g., 209 , 217 ]. Women are more effective leaders when they have access to education, resources and a diverse environment with representation [e.g., 218 , 219 ].

One sector where there is potential for women to carve out a leadership role is entrepreneurship . Although at the start of the millennium the discourse on entrepreneurship was found to be “discriminatory, gender-biased, ethnocentrically determined and ideologically controlled” [ 220 ], an increasing body of literature is studying how to stimulate female entrepreneurship as an alternative pathway to wealth, leadership and empowerment [e.g., 221 ]. Many barriers exist for women to access entrepreneurship, including the institutional and legal environment, social and cultural factors, access to knowledge and resources, and individual behavior [e.g., 222 , 223 ]. Education has been found to raise women’s entrepreneurial intentions [e.g., 224 ], although this effect is smaller than for men [e.g., 109 ]. In addition, increasing self-efficacy and risk-taking behavior constitute important success factors [e.g., 225 ].

Finally, the topic of sustainability is worth mentioning, as it is the primary objective of the SDGs and is closely associated with societal well-being. As society grapples with the effects of climate change and increasing depletion of natural resources, a narrative has emerged on women and their greater link to the environment [ 226 ]. Studies in developed countries have found some support for women leaders’ attention to sustainability issues in firms [e.g., 227 – 229 ], and smaller resource consumption by women [ 230 ]. At the same time, women will likely be more affected by the consequences of climate change [e.g., 230 ] but often lack the decision-making power to influence local decision-making on resource management and environmental policies [e.g., 231 ].

Research gaps and conclusions

Research on gender equality has advanced rapidly in the past decades, with a steady increase in publications, both in mainstream topics related to women in education and the workforce, and in emerging topics. Through a novel approach combining methods of text mining and social network analysis, we examined a comprehensive body of literature comprising 15,465 papers published between 2000 and mid 2021 on topics related to gender equality. We identified a set of 27 topics addressed by the literature and examined their connections.

At the highest level of abstraction, it is worth noting that papers abound on the identification of issues related to gender inequalities and imbalances in the workforce and in society. Literature has thoroughly examined the (unconscious) biases, barriers, stereotypes, and discriminatory behaviors that women are facing as a result of their gender. Instead, there are much fewer papers that discuss or demonstrate effective solutions to overcome gender bias [e.g., 121 , 143 , 145 , 163 , 194 , 213 , 232 ]. This is partly due to the relative ease in studying the status quo, as opposed to studying changes in the status quo. However, we observed a shift in the more recent years towards solution seeking in this domain, which we strongly encourage future researchers to focus on. In the future, we may focus on collecting and mapping pro-active contributions to gender studies, using additional Natural Language Processing techniques, able to measure the sentiment of scientific papers [ 43 ].

All of the mainstream topics identified in our literature review are closely related, and there is a wealth of insights looking at the intersection between issues such as education and career progression or human capital and role . However, emerging topics are worthy of being furtherly explored. It would be interesting to see more work on the topic of female entrepreneurship , exploring aspects such as education , personality , governance , management and leadership . For instance, how can education support female entrepreneurship? How can self-efficacy and risk-taking behaviors be taught or enhanced? What are the differences in managerial and governance styles of female entrepreneurs? Which personality traits are associated with successful entrepreneurs? Which traits are preferred by venture capitalists and funding bodies?

The emerging topic of sustainability also deserves further attention, as our society struggles with climate change and its consequences. It would be interesting to see more research on the intersection between sustainability and entrepreneurship , looking at how female entrepreneurs are tackling sustainability issues, examining both their business models and their company governance . In addition, scholars are suggested to dig deeper into the relationship between family values and behaviors.

Moreover, it would be relevant to understand how women’s networks (social capital), or the composition and structure of social networks involving both women and men, enable them to increase their remuneration and reach top corporate positions, participate in key decision-making bodies, and have a voice in communities. Furthermore, the achievement of gender equality might significantly change firm networks and ecosystems, with important implications for their performance and survival.

Similarly, research at the nexus of (corporate) governance , career progression , compensation and female empowerment could yield useful insights–for example discussing how enterprises, institutions and countries are managed and the impact for women and other minorities. Are there specific governance structures that favor diversity and inclusion?

Lastly, we foresee an emerging stream of research pertaining how the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged women, especially in the workforce, by making gender biases more evident.

For our analysis, we considered a set of 15,465 articles downloaded from the Scopus database (which is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature). As we were interested in reviewing business and economics related gender studies, we only considered those papers published in journals listed in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2018 ranking of the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS). All the journals listed in this ranking are also indexed by Scopus. Therefore, looking at a single database (i.e., Scopus) should not be considered a limitation of our study. However, future research could consider different databases and inclusion criteria.

With our literature review, we offer researchers a comprehensive map of major gender-related research trends over the past twenty-two years. This can serve as a lens to look to the future, contributing to the achievement of SDG5. Researchers may use our study as a starting point to identify key themes addressed in the literature. In addition, our methodological approach–based on the use of the Semantic Brand Score and its webapp–could support scholars interested in reviewing other areas of research.

Supporting information

S1 text. keywords used for paper selection..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256474.s001

Acknowledgments

The computing resources and the related technical support used for this work have been provided by CRESCO/ENEAGRID High Performance Computing infrastructure and its staff. CRESCO/ENEAGRID High Performance Computing infrastructure is funded by ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development and by Italian and European research programmes (see http://www.cresco.enea.it/english for information).

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. UN. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembley 70 Session; 2015.
• 11. Nature. Get the Sustainable Development Goals back on track. Nature. 2020;577(January 2):7–8
• 37. Fronzetti Colladon A, Grippa F. Brand intelligence analytics. In: Przegalinska A, Grippa F, Gloor PA, editors. Digital Transformation of Collaboration. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2020. p. 125–41. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233276 pmid:32442196
• 39. Griffiths TL, Steyvers M, editors. Finding scientific topics. National academy of Sciences; 2004.
• 40. Mimno D, Wallach H, Talley E, Leenders M, McCallum A, editors. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; 2011.
• 41. Wang C, Blei DM, editors. Collaborative topic modeling for recommending scientific articles. 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining 2011.
• 46. Straka M, Straková J, editors. Tokenizing, pos tagging, lemmatizing and parsing ud 2.0 with udpipe. CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies; 2017.
• 49. Lu Y, Li, R., Wen K, Lu Z, editors. Automatic keyword extraction for scientific literatures using references. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Innovative Design and Manufacturing (ICIDM); 2014.
• 55. Roelleke T, Wang J, editors. TF-IDF uncovered. 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval—SIGIR ‘08; 2008.
• 56. Mihalcea R, Tarau P, editors. TextRank: Bringing order into text. 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing; 2004.
• 58. Iannone F, Ambrosino F, Bracco G, De Rosa M, Funel A, Guarnieri G, et al., editors. CRESCO ENEA HPC clusters: A working example of a multifabric GPFS Spectrum Scale layout. 2019 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS); 2019.
• 60. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
• 141. Williams JE, Best DL. Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study, Rev: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990.
• 172. Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African Americans. In: Jencks C, Phillips M, editors. The Black–White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings; 1998. p. 401–27

Women, Human Rights, and Gender Equality

• Published: 22 December 2023
• Volume 8 , pages 359–360, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Cathryne L. Schmitz 1 &
• Shirley Gatenio Gabel 2  

1430 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The rights of women are fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948 ) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (United Nations General Assembly, 1979 ). Since then, there have been concerted global efforts to create change to improve equality for women and girls. For instance, the number of women and girls completing school at all levels has surpassed men and boys (UN Women & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023 ); participation of women in the workforce increased from 1980 to 2020 (Our World in Data, 2023 ); and from 2000 to 2020 there was a 33% decrease in maternal mortality (UN Women & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023 ). And despite the 16% increase in the number of women elected to political offices from 2015 to 2023, women only represent 26.5% of parliamentary members (United Nations, 2023 ).

Most people are surprised to learn that even as the United Nations Development Program invests in decreasing the gender gap, gender inequality has increased (UN Women & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023 ). Across the globe, women and girls face underlying institutional structures that create systemic vulnerabilities (Jaggar, 2014 ). The disproportional violations of the rights of women and girls are well documented but often neglected or ignored (Amnesty International, 2022 ). As Runyan and Peterson ( 2018 ) have noted, we face a “global crisis rooted in the power of gender ” (p. 2). Gender disparities maintain “global power structures and crises that prevent or militate against meaningful advances in social equality and justice” (Runyan & Peterson, 2018 , p. 2).

“Differences in power, treatment, access to resources, and opportunities affect life pathways and affect how people live together” (Gatenio Gabel, 2024 , p. 61). Women face gendered oppression that results in widespread discrimination, marginalization, exploitation, aggression, and ongoing rights’ violations. Gendered oppression is complex and situated at the intersections of multiple junctures, including race, gender identity and expression, ability/disability, nationality, socio-economic status, geography, age, religion, culture, and politics. Women experience higher rates of poverty and are underrepresented in politics and policymaking (Jagger, 2014 ; Sloan et al., 2018 ). They are too often used as pawns politically, culturally, and physically while simultaneously treated as if their abuse and oppression are natural (Jaggar, 2014 ).

Addressing the complexity of gendered oppression requires a multi-systemic approach at the interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels (Livingstone, 2018 ). Worldwide, we have been changing the social infrastructure, but progress is stalled and even sliding backward in some countries. COVID left us with setbacks in employment and education affecting women and girls. Conflicts across the globe have led to increasing violence against women and restrictions on the movement of women and girls. While in some countries, women are making progress in bodily autonomy, in others, they are losing those rights (Amnesty International, 2022 ). Global calls for change were the basis of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted in 1995, which has been at the forefront of rallying change (Global Fund for Women, 2023 ). However, the World’s Women 2020 report found that gender equality has not been achieved by any country (United Nations, 2020 ).

In adopting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, member states reaffirmed that “gender equality is central to the achievement of sustainable development for all by 2030” (United Nations, 2020 , para 1). In addition, the world’s financial, development, and security organizations have long made the link between improving the status of women and developing democracies with the reduction of global poverty and armed conflict (Runyan & Peterson, 2018 ). Attaining rights for women and girls must be inclusive of not only individual opportunities, but also changing communities and countries—the personal and the political (Global Fund for Women, 2023 ). Gender equality will not exist until women and girls have rights to equal pay, education, citizenship, land ownership, body autonomy, maternal health rights, freedom from violence, peacebuilding voice, and political leadership roles (Global Fund for Women, 2023 ).

The complexity of gendered oppression is represented in this issue. Many of the articles implicitly or explicitly cover the local and global impacts of gendered oppression. Complexity at the intersections is embedded with positional junctures that impact women, and by extension, children. The lives of women and children are framed by the need for economic, political, social, safety, and cultural access. This oppression plays out through the defining of who has citizenship, voice, rights, and power.

Respectfully,

Cathryne L. Schmitz and Shirley Gatenio Gabel, Co-Editors

Amnesty International. (2022, March 7). https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/international-womens-day-dramatic-deterioration-in-respect-for-womens-rights-and-gender-equality-must-be-decisively-reversed/

Gatenio Gabel, S. (2024). A human rights-based approach to justice in social work practice . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Global Fund for Women. (2023). https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/womens-human-rights/#:~:text=These%20rights%20include%20the%20right,to%20all%20of%20these%20rights

Jaggar, A. M. (2014). Transnational cycles of gendered vulnerability: A prologue to a theory of global gender justice. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Gender and global justice (pp. 18–39). Polity Press.

Google Scholar  

Livingstone, A. (2018). Privilege, oppression, and the intersections: The many faces of gender and identity. In S. Butler-Mokoro & L. Grant (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social work practice: The intersecting lives of women in the 21st century (pp. 59–83). Oxford University Press.

Our World in Data. (2023). Women’s employment . https://ourworldindata.org/female-labor-supply

Runyan, A. S., & Peterson, V. S. (2018). Global gender issues in the new millennium (4th ed.). Routledge.

Sloan, L. M., Joyner, M. C., Stakeman, C. J., & Schmitz, C. L. (2018). Critical multiculturalism and intersectionality in a complex world . Oxford University Press.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights . https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations. (2020). The world’s women 2020: Trends and statistics . https://worlds-women-2020-data-undesa.hub.arcgis.com/

United Nations. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report: Special edition . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf

United Nations General Assembly. (1979). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).  https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm#intro

UN Women & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2023). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot.  https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2023/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2023

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, 27402, USA

Cathryne L. Schmitz

Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, Bronx, NY, 10458, USA

Shirley Gatenio Gabel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathryne L. Schmitz .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schmitz, C.L., Gabel, S.G. Women, Human Rights, and Gender Equality. J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work 8 , 359–360 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-023-00288-7

Download citation

Published : 22 December 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-023-00288-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Economics of Women's Rights

Two centuries ago, in most countries around the world, women were unable to vote, had no say over their own children or property, and could not obtain a divorce. Women have gradually gained rights in many areas of life, and this legal expansion has been closely intertwined with economic development. We aim to understand the drivers behind these reforms. To this end, we distinguish between four types of women’s rights—economic, political, labor, and body—and document their evolution over the past 50 years across countries. We summarize the political-economy mechanisms that link economic development to changes in women's rights and show empirically that these mechanisms account for a large share of the variation in women's rights across countries and over time.

Manuscript in preparation for the Marshall Lecture to be published in the Journal of the European Economic Association. We thank Elizabeth Boyle and Irem Ebetürk for kindly sharing their data. Our gratitude goes to Ursula Behresheim and Yasar Ceylan for excellent research assistance. We thank Graziella Bertocchi, Alice Evans, Rohini Pande, Todd Schoellman, and the editor Romain Wacziarg for helpful comments. Financial support from the German Research Foundation (through the CRC-TR-224 project A3 and Leibniz prize TE966/2-1) is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Published Versions

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Feminist perspectives on human rights.

• Laura Parisi Laura Parisi Department of Women's Studies, University of Victoria
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.48
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 30 November 2017

Feminism has provided some new perspectives to the discourse on human rights over the years. Contemporary feminist scholarship has sought to critique the liberalism on which the conception of formal “equality” in the international human rights laws has been derived on a number of grounds. Two of the most pertinent critiques for this discussion are: the androcentric construction of human rights; and the perpetuation of the false dichotomy between the public and private spheres. This exploration of the relationship between liberalism and women’s human rights constitutes a significant shift in which many feminists had realized that the emphasis on “sameness” with men was limited in its utility. This shift rejected the “sameness” principle of the liberal feminists and brought gender-specific abuses into the mainstream of human rights theory and practice. By gender mainstreaming international institutions and future human rights treaties, specific women’s rights could be defined as human rights more generally. Feminists have since extended their critique of androcentrism and the public–private dichotomy to the study of gender inequalities and economic globalization, which is an important systemic component of structural indivisibility. In particular, the broader women’s human rights movement has come to realize that civil-political liberties and socioeconomic rights are inextricable, though there is disagreement over the exact nature of this relationship.

• human rights
• women’s rights
• international human rights laws
• androcentrism
• public–private dichotomy
• economic globalization
• civil-political liberties
• democratization

Introduction

Feminist critiques of human rights seek to dismantle several hierarchies present in the human rights regime. By critiquing the basic assumptions of human rights as they were formulated in 1945–8 , feminists have revealed that these definitions are inadequate, that men and women have different relationships with the state, and that rights are not fixed and immutable. Rather, they are historically, socially, culturally, and economically contingent. This essay explores feminist contributions to the human rights discourse in several ways. The first half of the essay chronicles and analyzes the evolution of the “women’s rights are human rights” discourse as well as the development of the notion of the indivisibility of rights. The second half of the essay looks the feminist debates with regards to women’s human rights in three issue areas or contexts: globalization, democratization, and culture. The essay concludes with a discussion of the current challenges with regards to data collection in measuring the achievement of women’s human rights.

Although there are multiple feminisms, the terms feminist and feminism are used in a broad sense in this essay to connote a shared goal of seeking to re-articulate human rights in an effort to achieve gender equality, even though theoretical entry points into the discourse and resulting strategies may vary widely among feminists (Tong 2008 ). Similarly, the concept of human rights has been contested in many ways, but it is beyond the scope of this essay to delve into these debates. Rather, the focus will be on what feminists have understood human rights to be in theory and in practice.

Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: Evolution of the Discourse

During the “first wave” of feminism (loosely defined as late nineteenth century to early twentieth century ), theorists and activists paid particular attention to the gendered construction of citizenship that was employed to deny civil and political liberties to women and other minority groups. Writings by theorists and activists such as Mary Wollstonecraft , John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor , Lucretia Mott , Elizabeth Cady Stanton , and Susan B. Anthony dominated early feminism. However, many of the debates that took place during the first wave also spilled over to the immediate post–World War II era, particularly during the process of creating the United Nations (UN) as well as the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The central liberal feminist tenet that carried over to the post–World War II period is that men and women are the same in rational ability and capacity for individual autonomy and self-determination and therefore should be afforded full citizenship and its attendant rights, protections, and opportunities.

Yet, there were others who argued that women should be conceptualized as a group marked by sexual difference and that special protection was needed to “level the playing field”; only in this way could women advance individual self-determination and self-governance (Rupp 1997 :105; Lake 2001 :255). For many first wave liberal feminists, the primary way to achieve sexual equality (or parity) was through legislative means, i.e., suffrage, education, labor rights, etc. The liberal feminist ideal of “sameness” laid the groundwork for the future of women’s international human rights in the institutional arrangements in the United Nations as well as the drafting of the UDHR in 1948 . However, as we shall see, the theoretical tension between the competing feminist agendas of nondiscrimination and special protections had long-lasting effects in the women’s human rights movement.

The UDHR does not specifically address women’s rights but it does briefly address the idea of sexual equality in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Those who insisted on the inclusion of “sex” in Article 2 hoped that it would address the inequality of women by putting them on an “equal footing” with men (Johnson 1998 :61). There were, of course, others who felt the inclusion of the word “sex” was unnecessary given that the UDHR explicitly states the rights delineated in the document apply to “everyone.”

Although these may seem like minor occurrences and debates, they laid the theoretical groundwork for policy making within the UN Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCHR) for many decades. In the years that followed the creation of CSW and the ratification of the International Bill of Rights, liberal feminists paid particular attention to securing civil and political liberties for women. It is important to note that the emphasis on civil and political liberties was pervasive throughout the UN system, particularly by Western powers and those countries allied with the United States during the Cold War. Consequently, given the power of the United States in the international system during the 1950s and 1960s, it is not surprising that several other human rights conventions which specifically addressed the status of women, such as the Convention on the Political Rights of Women ( 1952 ), emphasized civil and political liberties as the way to achieve sexual equality. Like the UDHR, these covenants emphasized “sameness” and did not take into account men’s and women’s qualitatively different experiences in the public sphere nor did they tackle structures that perpetuated gender hierarchies.

Contemporary feminist scholarship has sought to critique the liberalism on which the conception of formal “equality” in the UDHR and other international human rights laws has been derived on a number of grounds. Two of the most pertinent critiques for this discussion are: the androcentric construction of human rights; and the perpetuation of the false dichotomy between the public and private spheres. The public–private split “refers to the (artificial) distinction between home (private or reproductive sphere) to which women are assigned, and the workplace (the public or productive sphere) to which men are assigned” (Peterson and Runyan 1999 :259). These concepts are connected with both the radical feminism and the socialist feminism of the 1970s that was a response to the perceived inadequacies of liberal feminism. The issue of the relationship between gender and the public and private spheres is briefly touched upon in the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was developed during the UN Decade for Women ( 1975–85 ) in order to have a “single, comprehensive and internationally binding instrument to eliminate discrimination against women” (UNDAW n.d. ). However, it was not until the late 1980s that this relationship was fully theorized in terms of women’s human rights, development, and international law. The end result has been a major theoretical shift in both theory and practice.

Both androcentrism and the public–private split are embedded in patriarchy (another core theoretical concept of radical and socialist feminisms), understood here to mean the degree to which society is “male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centered” (Johnson 1997 :5). Many contemporary feminist analyses of human rights laws, institutions and practice are grounded in critiques of the broader construct of patriarchy. Since rights themselves are socially constructed in that they reflect a “distinctive, historically unusual set of social values and practices,” the context in which human rights were/are developed is an important analytical tool (Donnelly 1999 :81). For example, Charlesworth ( 1995 :103) suggests that

because the law-making institutions of the international legal order have always been, and continue to be, dominated by men, international human rights law has developed to reflect the experiences of men and largely to exclude those of women, rendering suspect the claim of objectivity and universality in human rights law.

The claim of androcentrism in the development of human rights is predicated on two issues that are raised by Charlesworth. The first surrounds the issue of the position of the speaker; it is important to evaluate who is making rights claims and on whose behalf (Rao 1995 ). In the case of human rights discourse, the historical record reflects that mainstream human rights has largely been influenced by masculinist liberal ideology, which reflects what is desirable or ideal, such as individual autonomy, in the social construction of human rights. Hence, the claim of objectivity must be questioned.

The second issue revolves around the liberal ideological foundations of human rights, inalienability and universality. These concepts are largely derived from John Locke ’s Second Treatise on Government ( 1690 ), in which he argues for the natural and inalienable rights of human beings – rights one has simply by virtue of being human. Cast in this light, rights of individual humans appear to be universal and should take precedence above all else (Locke 1980 ). State governance should not be guided by the “greater good” principle because it encroaches upon individual “opportunity to make fundamental choices about what constitutes the good life (for them), who they associate with, and how” (Donnelly 1999 :80). Embedded in this notion of the individual is the idea that individuals are rational enough to exercise these rights. During Locke’s era the “criteria” for rationality was ownership of private property, which excluded women, low-wage workers, and slaves from exercising rights, thereby severely undermining the notion of universality. Furthermore, since the principles of inalienability and universality were theorized in the context of elite male experience, the current traditional construction of human rights excludes the experiences of women and other marginalized groups. The male experience with, and definition of, human rights came to be accepted as the “norm,” and it is this social construction of human rights that feminists have sought to challenge and rearticulate.

The individualism and egalitarianism that are crucial to Locke’s liberalism may at first seem contradictory to patriarchy, which is predicated on gender hierarchies that presume that the subordination of women to men is based on “natural” characteristics. However, as Pateman ( 1989 :33–57) observes, Locke also provides a theoretical basis for the exclusion of women from individualist arguments. Locke makes a distinction between the political power of the public sphere and paternal power in the private sphere of the family. This move is grounded in his view that women’s subordination to their husbands in the private sphere is natural and non-political, and perhaps also “pre-political” (Rao 1996 :445). This “natural” subordination of women, which is condoned and supported by the state, suggests that they cannot at the same time be free and equal individuals. Therefore, Locke’s separation between public and paternal power effectively relegates women to the private sphere (Pateman 1989 :33–57), where they have little ability to claim rights in the public sphere (Romany 1994 ). In this way, the state is able to protect both the public and private interests of men (Peterson and Parisi 1998 :147).

The public–private distinction also rests on fundamentally different conceptions of citizenship for men and women that date back to the time of the ancient Greek polis and continue to be firmly embedded in liberal thought (Grant 1991 :12–13). As a result, “human rights law was gendered male: it protected a male subject, who experienced violations primarily directed at men, in largely male spaces” (Friedman 2006 :480–1). Since the public sphere is associated with masculinity, “the duties and activities of citizenship have strongly depended on manliness” (Voet 1998 :7). As citizens, men are/were accorded certain rights that women, relegated to the private sphere, are/were not. The association of the feminine with the private sphere has historically identified and still continues to identify women as non-citizens, and, hence, as less than fully autonomous beings. For example, laws governing the nationality of children in countries such as Kenya, which deem that the citizenship of children is determined by the father’s citizenship (and not the mother’s), reinforce the concept of citizen as male. The association of the feminine with the private sphere identifies women as non-citizens, and hence, as less than fully autonomous beings unable to make claims to rights (Romany 1994 ).

The emphasis on the public sphere as the proper realm of human rights depoliticizes women’s experiences in the private and reinforces androcentric constructions of human rights. The artificial distinction between the public and the private spheres also allows for the appearance of the state as non-gendered, and masks how formal legal equality in the public sphere contributes to states’ complicity in facilitating gender hierarchies in the private sphere. In general, states are discouraged by international law from intervening in the private sphere given the primacy placed on the sanctity of the family and the right to privacy (Sullivan 1995 :127). The result is that states are held accountable only for the human rights abuses they perpetrate and not for the conduct of individuals in the private sphere, where most gender-based violence occurs. Hence, gender-based violence in the home, until recently, was not considered to be a human rights abuse (Bunch 1990 ).

For example, marital rape has historically often not been considered a criminal act by the state, and this idea is still prevalent in many countries, such as the Bahamas and Zambia, where marital rape has yet to be criminalized. Although the International Bill of Rights guarantees the right of everyone to be free from torture and enslavement by the state, and explicitly prohibits rape of and assault against women in times of conflict, it does not guarantee women freedom from domestic abuse, which for many women is a form of torture and/or enslavement (Copelon 1994 ). The subordination of women in the private sphere is justified and naturalized as the patriarchal state, in accordance with the liberal maxim of individual freedom and the protection of private property, protects the private, individual interests of men. Under international human rights laws, states have often not been held accountable for their inaction (or inadequate action) that has enabled gender-based violence in the private sphere.

Due to feminist activism and scholarship in this area, gender-specific violence is now considered a legitimate human rights issue (Bunch 1990 ; Copelon 1994 ; Keck and Sikkink 1998 ; Joachim 2003 ; Merry 2006 ). As a result, there is now the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women ( 1993 ), a UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, and the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has further codified violence against women as a punishable offense. Although these are all very positive developments, many feminists, such as Ratna Kapur ( 2005 ), worry about the implications of the framing of women as primarily victims of violence. Kapur ( 2005 :99) argues that while “the victim subject […] provides a shared location from which women from different cultural and social contexts can speak” and also “provides women with a subject that repudiates the atomized, decontextualized and ahistorical subject of liberal rights discourse, while at the same time furnishing a unitary subject that enables women to makes claims based on a commonality of experience,” the end result is a conceptualization of “women” that falls prey to gender essentialism, producing another type of “universal” subject that “resembles the uncomplicated subject of the liberal discourse, which cannot account for multi-layered existences and experiences” (Kapur 2005 :99). Kapur, and others such as Mohanty ( 1991 ) and Narayan ( 1997 ), also argue that the focus on the victim subject results in cultural essentialism, which will be explored in more detail at the end of this essay.

Another implication of the feminist critique of the public–private dichotomy is the presumed heterosexuality of the family unit in the private sphere (Rao 1996 ; Peterson and Parisi 1998 ). The UDHR’s Article 16 protects the right of adult men and women to freely and consensually marry, and the right to found a family, “without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion” (UDHR 1948 ). Article 16.3 locates the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and [it] is entitled to protection by society and the state.” Although the UDHR does not specify that marriage must be between a man and a woman or that families must be heterosexual units, Article 16 specifies nondiscrimination only on the basis of race, nationality, and religion and excludes sexuality. The exclusion of sexuality as the basis for nondiscrimination in marriage reveals a hidden (or presumed) heterosexist bias, and also raises the question of what types of families should be protected. However, the Western, liberal construction of the heterosexual family has prevailed as the dominant interpretation of Article 16 because it maps neatly onto the gendered dichotomy of the public–private split, and the “family is viewed normatively as an arena for something other than rights” since it is “pre-political,” “sentimental,” and “noncontractual” (Rao 1996 :245). As a result, heterosexism has become naturalized and normalized in many mainstream international human rights documents, and this interpretation precludes protection of any other sexual identities by rendering them outside the “fundamental group unit of society” (Peterson and Parisi 1998 ). This positioning outside the protection of the human rights framework, as is well known, has had deleterious effects on sexual minorities in not only asserting their right to sexualities, but also in making claims to other individual and group rights (LaViolette and Whitworth 1994 ; Dorf and Perez 1995 ; Peterson and Parisi 1998 ).

At the Beijing conference, the issues of gender, sexual orientation, and the definition of family were hotly contested. The use of gender came under fire by conservative groups and states who rejected a social constructivist approach to the term in order to exclude sexual orientation from being read into the definition (Chappell 2007 :515). Instead, “gender” in the Platform For Action (PFA), and other international documents since then, is now understood to mean “the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society” (ibid.). While there are numerous problems with this definition of gender, for the purposes of this discussion, it is important to highlight that the intense wrangling had two significant and related impacts on the PFA. First, all explicit references to sexual orientation in the document were dropped. Second, the use of the term family, rather than families, stayed intact. Thus, the naturalized, patriarchal, heterosexual family delineated in the UDHR is preserved. It was feared that the inclusion of specific rights for sexual minorities would result in not passing the PFA at all. Although the PFA claims the right of women to freely determine their sexuality and recognizes the family in “various forms,” for many this wording is too ambiguous and hollow given that it also acknowledges that cultural, religious, national, and regional particularities must be considered in the implementation of these rights (Steans and Ahmadi 2005 :241). By invisibilizing sexualities, the PFA precluded the delineation of more explicit rights for sexual minorities with regards to property rights, children, and so forth.

Yet, at the same time, there has been considerable discussion about whether or not advancing of the agenda of sexual minorities in a rights based framework is useful and desirable (LaViolette and Whitworth 1994 ; Morgan 2001 ; Mertus 2007 ). Mertus ( 2007 ), in her study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy in the US, demonstrates the reluctance of many groups to adopt a rights based approach since it may require them to accept set identity categories. LaViolette and Whitworth ( 1994 ) identify a similar tension more globally. Finally, Morgan ( 2001 ) also asks whether or not it is at all desirable to fight for inclusion in a decidedly heteronormative system in the first place. This response parallels the concerns of radical feminists working to achieve women’s rights in a system that is inherently patriarchal and not worthy of being retained in their point of view (Brems 1997 ). Instead, it might be more productive to disrupt patriarchal and heteronormative systems rather than focusing on inclusion in them (Morgan 2001 ).

Ultimately, however, the exploration of the relationship between liberalism and women’s human rights constituted a significant shift in which many feminists (especially cultural feminists) realized that the emphasis on “sameness” with men was limited in its utility. The shift entailed focusing on gender relations as a category of analysis, a valuing of difference, and delineating gender-specific experiences (Brems 1997 ). This tactic rejected the “sameness” principle of the liberal feminists and brought gender-specific abuses into the mainstream of human rights theory and practice. By gender mainstreaming international institutions and future human rights treaties, specific women’s rights could be defined as human rights more generally (Bunch 1990 ).

The Structural Indivisibility of Rights

By the 1970s the limitations of the emphasis on civil and political liberties for women became increasingly clear as the UN struggled with the issues of poverty, malnutrition, and population as it began its preparations for the World Food Conference ( 1974 ) and the World Population Conference ( 1974 ). The failure of the liberal feminist assumption that the achievement of political and civil liberties would translate into economic opportunity for women prompted a re-articulation of the relationship between civil and political liberties and socioeconomic rights for women. The argument shifted to the idea that women who lack food, shelter, education, property, health services, etc. cannot fully enjoy and exercise their civil and political liberties (Parisi 2002 ). In addition, the publication of Ester Boserup’s ( 1970 ) Woman’s Role in Economic Development , in which she documented the negative consequences of modernization programs on women’s lives, influenced liberal feminists to expand their focus on rights to include economic and labor issues. This approach eventually became known as “Women in Development” (WID) and it marked the beginning of the UN Decade for Women ( 1975–85 ).

Yet, the WID approach was roundly criticized by socialist-Marxist feminists and third world feminists for its adherence to the liberal framework of “sameness” discussed earlier by promoting an “add women and stir” model of development aimed at achieving gender equality. This approach fails to examine the structures that caused and perpetuated this inequality in the first place. In response to this critique and to the lack of a more cohesive vision for women’s rights and well-being, the fledgling “global” women’s movement began to develop an explicit vision of the indivisibility of human rights. This vision was ultimately reflected in the theme of the UN Decade for Women: “Equality – Development – Peace” (FLS 1985 : paragraphs 11–13). The three objectives formed a more sophisticated basis for women’s human rights and were, and still are, viewed as “internally interrelated and mutually reinforcing, so that the advancement of one contributes to the advancement of the others” (Pietilä and Vickers 1996 :49). The first attempt at encapsulating these ideals resulted in the World Plan of Action (WPA) that in turn provided an impetus and basis for the drafting of CEDAW, which passed in the UN in 1979 , and entered into force in 1981 . (For a comprehensive history of the events leading up to the UN Decade for Women and of the drafting of CEDAW, see Fraser 1999 .)

CEDAW extends women’s rights provisions in the International Bill of Human Rights in that it created an “international bill of women’s rights” that defines and addresses all forms of discrimination against women and is guided by the principle of what Otto ( 2001 :54) calls “structural indivisibility.” Structural indivisibility stresses “interconnections between the political, economic, environmental, and security priorities of the international order and violations of human rights” (ibid.). This vision is somewhat different than Bunch’s ( 1990 ) emphasis on the necessary interconnectedness between political, civil, socioeconomic and cultural rights in that it takes into account the systemic factors which link and influence the achievement of these rights.

The majority of the 30 articles of CEDAW are concerned with social, economic, and cultural rights embedded in the liberal feminist WID and non-discrimination framework that relies heavily on the principle of equality before the law; only four articles deal explicitly with the political and civil liberties of women. However, the preamble and some of the articles of CEDAW address additional concerns important to third world feminists, Marxist feminists, and radical feminists. For example, it reiterates the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) to tackle global economic inequality and demands the right to cultural self-determination and the end of imperialism, colonization, and racism. CEDAW also affirms the right of women to space their children – a victory for radical feminists involved in reproductive rights movements. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it acknowledges the contributions to society that women make in the home, thus breaking down the distinction between the public and private spheres (the personal is political) and highlighting how traditional gender roles can be a source of women’s oppression.

The mission behind CEDAW is to recast women as subjects rather than objects of development, recognizing them as fully autonomous beings entitled to human rights widely enjoyed by men, yet at the same time recognizing that there are indeed differences between men and women, such as the ability to bear children, that have historically served as justification for discrimination against women. CEDAW is thus cast in a seemingly paradoxical framework that uses both the “measure of man” as a benchmark for equal rights and correctives to move the discourse from being gender-neutral to being gender-specific (Kaufman and Lindquist 1995 ; Friedman 2006 ; Arat 2008 ). As a result, feminists challenged the patriarchal and androcentric way in which mainstream human rights treaties had been conceptualized, which largely ignored the experiences of women and other marginalized groups, but also reaffirmed some of the androcentric conceptualizations of human rights. However, in acknowledging the contributions to society that women make in the home, CEDAW breaks down the artificial distinction between the public and private spheres (the personal is political) and highlights how traditional gender roles can be a source of women’s oppression. This important claim in CEDAW has been crucial in the CEDAW committee’s ability to identify and broaden the scope of violations of women’s human rights and to redress them through their general recommendations (Arat 2008 )

Gender and Human Rights in the Context of Globalization

One important systemic component of structural indivisibility is economic globalization. Feminists have extended their critique of androcentrism and the public–private dichotomy so pervasive in the human rights discourse to the study of gender inequalities and economic globalization (Youngs 2000 ). Although there are many issues that fall under this area of study, this section will focus exclusively on the topic of the relationship between gender inequality in socioeconomic rights and economic globalization. The next section deals with democratization and will make the link between socioeconomic and civil and political rights. Feminist human rights scholars have been concerned with how the deepening of capitalism affects the state and the state’s ability to fulfill its human rights obligations. However, the crucial point of departure in this literature is its explicit focus on how this transformation is gendered and has gendered consequences (Lothian 1996 ; Sen 1997 ; Sassen 1998 ; Peratis et al. 1999 ; Bayes et al. 2001 ; Rittich 2001 ; Elson 2002 ). More explicitly, economic globalization not only produces gender inequalities, but also maintains and relies upon these inequalities in a variety of contexts in order to deepen capitalism, as well as to rearticulate the state.

As Rittich ( 2001 :96–7) notes, there are several concerns to address when assessing the relationship between the state and the achievement of women’s human rights. One issue is the recognition that the women’s rights discourse and movement was and still is deeply embedded in and reliant upon the state-centered model of human rights. Even though feminist critiques of both the human rights regime and the state have revealed both their androcentrism and their complicity in preserving the public–private split which is profoundly gendered, the solutions posed by many feminists depend on the state to change its perspective, and consequently its behavior. As such, Chappell ( 2000 :245) suggests that feminists have moved to a middle ground with regards to the state, viewing it neither as “inherently patriarchal and oppressive” nor as “gender neutral,” but rather the emphasis is now on the “interaction between the state and gender,” in which each shapes the other. For example, Weldon’s ( 2002 ) research on cross-national variations of state policy responsiveness with regards to violence against women issues shows that strong, autonomous women’s movements have significant influence on state policy change.

Regardless, the state becomes the primary agent in promoting and implementing effective strategies to eradicate gender inequalities. Yet, implicit in this design is the assumption of an economically prosperous, democratic state or, at the very least, an effectual one that subscribes to a neoliberal economic agenda. Although the international covenants on human rights allow for “progressive realization” of human rights, this concept also hinges on the notion that states will consistently and persistently search for ways to reallocate resources to further the enjoyment of human rights. For feminists, this means taking seriously the ways in which the state contributes to gender inequality through its social policies, and relying on the state to correct itself.

This perspective, of course, is not unproblematic. As Sassen ( 1998 :94) suggests, the state is still viewed as the legitimate representative of the population in the international law arena, diminishing the contributions and limiting the participation of other nonstate actors. Furthermore, access to and influence over state policies is not uniform among women’s rights and human rights groups, and states are also subject to lobbying from other special interest groups, which may or may not be supportive of human rights based initiatives (Rittich 2001 :97). In addition to these problems, as Chappell ( 2000 :246–7) notes, there is a historic disjuncture among women’s rights activists in the first and third worlds, who have quite different views regarding the utility of achieving rights through the state, given the wide variation of states with regards to resources, effectiveness, and openness/repressiveness. However, given that the Beijing PFA ( 1995 ), which now operates as the dominant referent in international women’s rights law, places responsibility with states to realize and protect women’s rights in the face of potential negative consequences of globalization (rather than challenging globalization itself), and the increasingly “economistic turn” in the gender and development literature that conceptualizes “empowerment” as economic empowerment (Marchand 1996 :580), it appears that the “national-management framework” (Bergeron 2001 :993) is the primary one in place in both the first and third worlds, as an interactive site of resource allocation and resistance.

It is important to note, however, the framework utilized by the PFA has been challenged on many fronts, most notably by indigenous women, who, in their response to the PFA, roundly criticized globalization as recolonization and responsible for environmental degradation and continued poverty in indigenous lands and nations (Vinding 1998 ). They are explicit in their rejection of the strategy of trying to mitigate the negative effects of globalization, which is embedded in the interlocking systems of oppression of capitalism, patriarchy, and colonization (Kuokkanen 2008 ). Rather, for many indigenous women, there needs to be not only recognition of the structural violence that globalization perpetuates and sustains, but also a recognition of how the PFA and the contemporary discourses on women’s rights are complicit in maintaining this system.

A second, highly interrelated issue is markets. As Elson ( 2002 :80–1) suggests, the traditional neoliberal orthodoxy that began in the 1970s and prevailed in the 1980s, “presumes that the best way to give substance to human rights is to reduce the role of the state, liberate entrepreneurial energy, achieve economic efficiency, and promote faster economic growth.” The neoliberal emphasis on the retrenchment of the state as the best way to ensure the fulfillment of human rights seems contradictory to the human rights regime’s insistence of proactive state involvement in meeting its human rights obligations. Yet, as Bayes et al. ( 2001 :3) note, both economics and politics are linked through the rhetoric if not the practice of neoliberalism, which defines the current period. They argue that in theory, neoliberal economics assumes a separation between states and markets, in which markets operate with little intervention from the state. Brodie ( 1996 :384) suggests further that this theoretical relationship between states and markets is actually one of the public and private, in which the private is made up of two realms that are presumed to be out of the “natural” purview of the state: the capitalist economy and the patriarchal family.

However, as discussed earlier, the notion of a rigid public–private divide in the human rights regime has largely been deconstructed by feminists, and in using a similar line of reasoning, feminists suggest that the globalizing neoliberal capitalist world economy rests not on a division between the state (public) and the markets (private) but rather that economic globalization, in its current form, requires an interconnection between states and markets to further its goals. That is, economic globalization requires governments to “provide for the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods, unrestricted labor markets, responsible banking systems, stable monetary policies, limited fiscal policies, attractive investment opportunities, and political stability” (Bayes et al. 2001 :3). Through these practices, the “family and other aspects of private life [are subjected to] new forms of state scrutiny, regulation, and assistance” (Brodie 1996 :385). Thus, the “boundaries” of the public–private are renegotiated, rearticulated, and blurred through the interaction of states (especially liberal democratic ones) and markets.

Although state entrenchment with regards to the economy may be a conscious and pro/re-active strategy on the part of governments as a route to economic prosperity that in theory promotes the progressive realization of socioeconomic rights through more resource allocation, the neoliberal ideology effectively shifts the responsibility away from states to markets as the guarantors of rights. Markets have little accountability and regulation in the human rights regime, insofar as multinational corporations, a major force behind globalization, have little oversight in international law and, in many cases, national law. This development poses particular challenges for feminists, who argue that the neoliberal democratic state, coupled with international human rights law, represents the best hope for the redistribution of resources guided by prioritizing the goal of gender equality. This is not to imply that feminists view the neoliberal democratic state as “gender neutral” or unproblematic. Rather, as the earlier discussion of the human rights discourse reveals, many feminists find the liberal democratic state profoundly gendered.

Another major point of feminist theorizing about globalization is that economic globalization not only produces gender inequality but also requires gender inequality to flourish and to sustain itself. Indeed, there appears to be a general consensus that globalization exacerbates gender inequality, and thus the fulfillment of women’s socioeconomic rights in relation to men’s, in important ways. There are numerous other areas in which feminists have examined globalization’s impact on gender inequality and rights, such as household relations (Kromhout 2000 ; Gonzalez 2001 ; Sircar and Kelly 2001 ; Soni-Sinha 2001 ), migrants/migration (Anderson 2000 ; Chang and Ling 2000 ; Kofman 2000 ), sex work/trafficking (Pettman 1996 ; Hanochi 2001 ), informal labor (Prügl 1999 ; Benería 2003 ), resistance (Runyan 1996 ; Karam 2000 ; Lind 2000 ; Rowbotham and Linkogle 2001 ; Naples and Desai 2002 ) and identity (Peterson 1996 ; Kuokkanen 2008 ). However, these topics are beyond the scope of this project and, as such, will not be discussed in depth here.

As noted earlier, in order for states to remain economically competitive, they adopt strategies that increase the power of the private sector at the expense of the public sector. The result is the weakening of “many institutions that in the past have assumed responsibility for human welfare – while passing on to others burdens they cannot be expected to bear” (UNRISD 1995 :128). For many women, this situation is especially problematic because in order for states to uphold their obligations under CEDAW and the Beijing PFA, they must allocate resources for social welfare programs.

There have been two major responses by states facing the choice of economic competitiveness or guaranteeing socioeconomic rights. Industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have deregulated the labor market and wages and cut social welfare programs in order to stimulate economic growth and employment (UNRISD 1995 :131). Developing countries have often adopted structural adjustment programs that implement severe economic austerity measures with the aim of jump-starting the economy at the expense of “non-profitable” public service programs. Feminist economists have shown that structural adjustment programs (SAP) have a differential impact on men and women in that women tend to absorb most of the shock of SAPs by increasing their domestic labor (through caregiving, altering the household consumption habits, subsistence farming, informal economic activities) and by entering the labor force to provide more income for the family (Elson 1991 ; Bakker 1994 ; Benería 2003 ; Çagatay 2003 ). As a result, there has been an increase in women’s poverty and economic inequality, and this constitutes a violation of women’s socioeconomic rights (Sadasivam 1997 ).

A second, interrelated issue is how economic globalization depends on a gendered sexual division of labor. The international sexual division of labor is predicated on the public–private split in which men’s work is considered to be “human” or real work, and women’s work is determined by their “nature” (Mies 1999 :46). Work is defined as a public masculine activity and women’s work (or non-work) is defined as a private sphere activity. However, women’s work in the private sphere is extremely important to the functioning of the capitalist system, yet despite this important role, women are undervalued in both the public and private spheres because of their identification as housewives, rather than as “workers” (Mies 1999 :116). Indeed, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimates that “the non-monetized invisible contribution of women is $11 trillion a year” (UNDP 1995 :6). This identification with the home as a site of “non-work” for women is also complicit in the violation of the rights of women who do work in the home for monetary gain, such as piecework. Because it is conducted in the “private sphere,” there is little international labor regulation around home based work, with the exception of the 1996 International Labor Organization Convention on Homework (Prügl 1999 ). However, only five countries have ratified it, which underscores the pervasiveness of the masculinized ideal of real, productive work that takes place only in the public sphere.

The sexual division of labor and its resulting sexism also helps maintain capitalism as system (Wichterich 2000 ; Campillo 2003 ). This has important consequences for women, because even when they do work outside the home they are usually cast in unequal terms. The implication is that capitalism necessarily depends on a certain amount of low-wage and unpaid labor to keep it functioning (Peterson 2003 ), as the “labor input in non-wage work ‘compensates’ the lowness of the wage-income and therefore in fact represents an indirect subsidy to the employers of wage laborers in those households” (Wallerstein 1988 :8). The identification of women with the private sphere helps keep capitalism’s costs low and at the same time provides a justification for this strategy.

The end result is limited economic opportunity for women since their labor is in the form of underpaid or unpaid labor in the capitalist system of profits and capital accumulation. Many labor sectors have become feminized, particularly the garment and electronics industries. Women are the preferred “workers” because they do not have to be paid as much as men. This is due in part to the devaluation of women’s labor (or the seeing of their paid labor as a natural extension of the private sphere) and the assumption that their wages are used for “extras” rather than to support the family (Mies 1999 :116). The state is complicit in perpetuating this sexism because of its need to stay competitive in global markets. Many women have their basic economic rights, such as the right to safe labor conditions and pay equity, denied because states would find it too costly to provide these opportunities to women. If the cost of production of goods increases, products would be less competitive on the international market. States are reluctant to hold multinational corporations accountable for their labor practices because the pressure for revenue is too great and the threat of relocation by multinational corporations (MNC) is real (Sen 1997 ).

The bottom line for many feminists is that economic globalization, operating within a neoliberal frame, both produces and exacerbates some forms of gender inequality. States are responding to globalization by shifting the burden onto women (and other marginalized sectors of society) to create their own social safety net. However, because women’s work is usually undervalued or unpaid given their identification with the private sphere, meeting basic needs requirements of food, shelter, health care, and clothing becomes especially challenging. In light of these gendered inequities, some feminist scholars, such as Elson ( 2006 :3) have suggested applying a gendered and rights based approach to the analysis of government budgets in order to “identify gender inequalities in budget processes, allocations and outcomes; and assess what States are obliged to do to address these inequalities” as a way to keep states accountable and responsive to women in the context of globalization.

Democratization

While the broader women’s human rights movement is in tacit agreement that civil-political liberties and socioeconomic rights are inextricable, there is disagreement over the exact nature of this relationship. Furthermore, if one takes the notion of structural indivisibility seriously, a rather complex picture of the relationship between the liberal democratic state, democratization processes, globalization, socioeconomic rights, and gender emerges. Utilizing Huntington ( 1991 ), some feminist analyses of democracies and democratization reveal that one important factor to consider with regards to gender equality is whether or not the state in question is in a period of democratic transition or of democratic consolidation (Jaquette and Wolchik 1998 ; Bystydzienski and Sekhon 1999 ; Hawkesworth 2001 ; Yoon 2001 ; Goetz and Hassim 2002 ). Many, but not all, of these studies show that women fare better in the transition phase (shifting from a nondemocratic type of government to a democratic one) than in the consolidation phase, which involves the establishment of rules, institutions, and political culture. However, there are also cases, such as in the post-communist states, where women have lost considerable economic and political power during the democratic transition phase (see, for example, Wolchik 1998 ).

Hawkesworth ( 2001 :223–6) suggests that the democratic consolidation phase in conjunction with liberal capitalist development has deleterious effects on gender equality, and thus the achievement of women’s rights, for two main reasons. First, developing countries, through modernization programs, are pressured to adopt a neoliberal capitalist model of development. This connects to the earlier discussion of economic development in the sense that modernization theory presumes that the adoption of capitalism will in turn produce a liberal democratic state, partially because liberal democracies are necessary to guarantee the private property rights that are crucial to global capitalism. A further assumption is that the combination of the deepening of capitalism and the consolidation of a liberal democracy will in fact elevate human rights fulfillment for the citizenry.

However, and this is Hawkesworth’s second point, the dominant model of Western liberal democracy that many countries seek to emulate has a weak record in achieving gender equality. With the exception of the Scandinavian countries, which Hawkesworth argues are more properly thought of as “social” democracies rather than liberal, women in advanced industrialized countries are still vastly underrepresented in the upper echelons of the public sphere. Although the advanced industrialized democracies guarantee equal rights for women and minorities, in reality the consolidation process has worked to produce and institutionalize a patriarchal elite class that undermines the principle of government for the people by the people. As the democratic consolidation process is coupled with the deepening of capitalism, political participation becomes the privilege of those who are economically empowered.

In her analysis, Hawkesworth ( 2001 :224) concludes that “democratization produces gendered redistribution of resources and responsibilities that make women worse off.” Given this scenario, it is not surprising that some feminists have linked the twin processes of globalization and democratization as detrimental to the achievement of human rights for women. Although one consequence of globalization is that more women are in the paid labor force, women have not been able to translate this into political empowerment because these economic “opportunities” are the result of having to make up for states’ inabilities to provide for basic needs. And, as noted earlier, gendered notions around work preclude the idea that more women in the labor force is a sign of increasing gender equality (Elson 2002 ). In short, globalization disempowers women economically, which in turn disempowers them politically by leaving little time, money, or energy to fully exercise civil and political rights.

Why, then, the insistence by the broader women’s human rights regime that the liberal democratic state remains the best hope for the achievement of gender equality in human rights? There are several answers to this conundrum that shed light on the further complexity of globalization, democratization, and women’s human rights achievement. First, no country has completed the process of democratic consolidation, and given that many of the countries do in fact guarantee civil and political rights, there are potential avenues to reshape the consolidation process to demand accountability. For example, feminist scholars have tracked the global diffusion of two notable policies: (1) the adoption of gender quotas in electoral processes, which more than fifty countries have done as a way to increase women’s participation in public life (Bauer 2008 ; Dahlerup 2008 ; Krook 2008 ; Sacchet 2008 ); and (2) the development of women’s policy agencies within the state (also known as “state feminism”) in over 165 countries (True and Mintrom 2001 ; Lovenduski 2005 ). While there are significant disagreements among feminists about the quality of women’s representation in these spheres as well as about the utility of both of these developments for the achievement of gender equality and women’s rights, they are cautiously viewed as positive developments nonetheless.

Second, and closely related to the first point, although globalization has had negative consequences, it also opens up spaces for women’s informal and formal political empowerment (Sassen 1998 ; Moghadam 1999 ; Bayes et al. 2001 ). Sassen ( 1998 :94) suggests that “globalization is creating new operational and formal openings for the participation of non-state actors and subjects,” which in turn provides for the possibility of reshaping ideas about representation, power, and authority. Third, although the role of the state appears to be diminishing or transforming in the wake of globalization, the unevenness of globalization has also ensured that human rights are a part of the permanent global agenda, and thus states are still crucial actors in this regard.

Fourth, and finally, as Rittich ( 2001 :96) observes, “human rights are now often mentioned in the same breath as market reform and development.” Some feminists have recognized this linking of human rights and markets as an opportunity to press for a refined state-management approach coupled with collective global governance to mitigate the negative effects of the global economy. However, others, such as Bergeron ( 2001 ), are skeptical of this approach because of the way feminist appeals to the state for “protection” frame the subjectivities and agency of women. Bergeron ( 2001 :995) suggests that when women are depicted as victims of globalization, an unintended consequence can be that the state will move to adopt “the traditional masculine role of protecting women and families.” This result is ultimately contrary to many feminist goals in achieving rights, and further points out the limitations of “victimization” rhetoric, as mentioned earlier, in accomplishing such goals.

Feminists have utilized the idea of indivisibility to challenge embedded gender hierarchies in the human rights regime to greatly expand the inclusiveness and, therefore, universality of rights (Otto 2001 :54–5). In particular, feminists have shown how the private and public spheres are interconnected, suggesting that economic, social, and political rights are necessarily linked – each one is key to the enjoyment of the other. Feminists have also identified international structures, such as security regimes and the global economy, as key variables to be examined, understood, and accounted for in relation to gender inequality in human rights. The “structural indivisibility” framework easily extends to all contemporary human rights regimes in that it provides an analytic tool for evaluating the impacts of globalization on gender inequality and socioeconomic rights.

The Question of Culture

The topic of cultural practice, traditions, and customary laws has occupied a central place of importance in feminist critiques and understandings of human rights. A central, well-known tension is between universal and cultural relativist positions on human rights. The universal position decrees human rights as inalienable and held by all members of the “human family,” whereas the cultural relativist position argues that “members of one society may not legitimately condemn the practices of societies with different traditions, denying that there can be valid external critiques of culturally-based practices and that no legitimate cross-cultural standards for the evaluating the treatment of rights exist” (Mayer 1995 :176). Many justifications for the denial of women’s human rights are framed in cultural relativist terms, and often positioned as an anti-Western, anti-imperialist response (Rao 1995 ; Brems 1997 ; Narayan 1998 ; Shacher 2001 ; Kapur 2005 ; Winter 2006 ; Bovarnick 2007 ). This paradoxical position frequently results in conflict between women’s individual rights and group cultural rights. Women may agree with the right of their cultural group to practice their culture, while at the same time disagreeing with how these cultural practices affect their personal autonomy and agency. Winter ( 2006 :385) notes that cultural relativist arguments are disproportionately deployed on the question of women’s rights, in that “those articles in UN treaties in favor of religious and cultural rights and the elimination of race discrimination do not appear to be as problematically ‘Western’ as those which defend women’s rights.” The literature on the topic of culture is vast and complex, and due to space constraints, there will be only a cursory and oversimplified overview of it here.

An important contribution of the feminist literature in this area is a deconstruction of the term “culture” itself. Rao ( 1995 :173) argues that culture is “a series of constantly contested and negotiated social practices whose meanings are influenced by the power and status of their interpreters and participants.” By identifying culture as a dynamic, political practice, it allows for a move away from cultural essentialism, or the idea that culture is somehow a homogeneous, static, internally consistent, natural, prediscursive given. Cultural essentialism, as such, is a form of cultural relativism in that it often positions itself as “traditional” and “authentic” and therefore not subject to critical examination. Furthermore, cultural essentialism can also mask “synecdochic substitutions” in which “‘parts’ of a practice come to come to stand in for a whole” and obscure the harmful nature of these “traditional” practices (Narayan 1998 :95). By defining culture as an ongoing process, feminist human rights scholars have revealed the gendered power dynamics embedded in the construction and perpetuation of cultural and religious practices. As Rao ( 1995 :168) notes, by understanding culture in this way, one can ask to what degree members of a cultural group are able to participate in the defining of culture as well as who benefits from a particular version of culture.

There is also considerable emphasis on the tension between universalism and cultural relativism (Brems 1997 ; Okin 1998 ; Bovarnick 2007 ; Freedman 2007 ; Steans 2007 ). Some feminist scholars suggest that the application of universal human rights has had little applicability in non-Western contexts. Bovarnick’s ( 2007 ) study of rape in Mexico and Pakistan reveals important insights into the question of cultural context and particularity when assessing whether or not universal human rights are useful in addressing violence against women. Positioning Mexico and Pakistan as non-Western countries in this study, her analysis reveals that while discourses around violence against women in both of these countries are in fact quite particularized, there are transcultural connections that can be made through the commonalities of “how traditional social mechanisms legitimize and reproduce violence against women” (Bovarnick 2007 :61). Despite their vast cultural differences, the two countries appropriate and regulate women’s bodies and sexuality in a similar fashion, highlighting the importance of addressing the global mechanism of which these different manifestations of violence against women are a part (Bovarnick 2007 ). Bovarnick seems to be suggesting that there are other transcultural universals emerging out of non-Western contexts that need to be taken into account in order to render a potentially different understanding and potential acceptance of universal rights.

Narayan ( 1998 ), however, suggests that for feminists to even use categories such as “Western” and “non-Western” is a culturally essentialist move in itself that can play right into the hands of third world fundamentalists, who often use cultural relativist and anti-imperialist justifications to deny women’s human rights, as well as of “Western cultural supremacists,” who support the idea that the West is morally and politically superior to all “Others” (Narayan 1998 :97). Furthermore, she takes issue with the notion that “equality” and “human rights” are inherently “Western values” to begin with. Narayan (ibid.) argues that “as a result of political struggles by […] various excluded groups in both Western and non-Western contexts […] doctrines of equality and rights have slowly come to be perceived as applicable to them, too.” For Narayan (ibid.), conceptualizations of rights and equality are not just products of Western imperialism but can be considered as products of struggles against internal and external forms of Western imperialism.

Many other feminist scholars are also currently engaged with trying to reconcile universalism with cultural particularism as a way to move past this polarizing dichotomy and to advance the goals of women’s human rights and gender equality. Nussbaum ( 2000 :100) argues for the capabilities approach which focuses on “what people are actually able to do and to be” rather than on what rights or resources individuals have, as one way to traverse this dichotomy. She builds a very complex argument that is oversimplified here due to space constraints, but at the crux of her work is development of the capabilities model, which is informed by the work of Amartya Sen , Marx , and Aristotle and others. Nussbaum argues that her list of basic human functional capabilities (life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; control over one’s environment) are cross-culturally recognizable and desirable as well as necessary to the flourishing of human life ( 2000 :78–80). She suggests that by using capabilities, rather than rights, as the goals to be achieved, we will have the tools for developing a cross-cultural consensus for “determining a decent social minimum in a variety of areas” (Nussbaum 2000 :75). In her view, the capabilities approach is universal but not ethnocentric, for “ideas about activity and ability are everywhere, and there is no culture in which people do not ask themselves what they are able to do, what opportunities they have for functioning” ( 2000 :100). She further buttresses her claims by applying the capabilities criteria to the lives of two Indian women, and concludes they are already thinking, speaking, and acting in accordance with the language of capabilities ( 2000 :106–10). She also argues that capabilities can be realized in multiple ways according to context, etc., and that by positioning capabilities as the goal, the choice is left open whether or not to pursue the accompanying function ( 2000 :105). Nussbaum does not reject human rights discourse altogether, which she also suggests is not exclusively Western, even though it is often thought to be. Rather, she sees human rights frameworks as an important way to achieve capabilities because rights discourses can recognize and justify human capabilities, make claims of entitlement vis-à-vis the democratic state, and emphasize individual choice and autonomy.

To be sure, there have been many critiques of Nussbaum’s work, and I will address only a few critiques in cursory way here. Phillips ( 2001 ) worries that the capabilities approach takes us too far from an agenda of equality, which has been a central preoccupation for many feminists working in the human rights arena. Phillips warns that the capability approach is too focused on the question of freedom of choice, and this can result in unequal outcomes between the sexes. Phillips concludes as well that that there would be little redress for gendered inequalities that the capabilities approach might produce, if in fact a minimum standard of capabilities was in place for everyone. This does not imply equal capabilities but rather relational ones that could be fundamentally premised on sustaining gender inequalities.

Others, such as Quillen ( 2001 ) and Charusheela ( 2008 ), trouble Nussbaum’s attempts at developing a non-ethnocentric universal ethic by which to conceptualize the “human” in the capabilities model. Quillen ( 2001 :89) argues that Nussbaum’s adherence to liberal humanism actually undermines her project because it is an inadequate framework for understanding the intersections and sources of structural oppressions as well as for analyzing the self (see Nussbaum 2001 for her response to Quillen’s critiques). Charusheela ( 2008 ) argues that Nussbaum’s arguments for universality are in fact ethnocentric, due to their location in modernism, which posits a normative ideal based on Western liberal conceptualizations of the democratic state and capitalist system, and their attendant institutions, as the best way to deliver on capabilities. For Charusheela ( 2008 :13) the capabilities approach therefore rests on “an underlying set of assumptions about human nature that masquerades as universal – cognition expressed in particular ways, decisions made in specific ways, reason and voice deployed in ways appropriate to these institutions ” (emphasis in the original). Both Charusheela and Quillen suggest that we should be utilizing postcolonial feminist theories as the way to build a more collective response to social inequalities.

Some feminist human rights theorists are looking to social activism as a way to resolve the tensions between the particular and the universal. Ackerly ( 2001 ) argues that women’s human rights activists generate a cross-cultural theory of human rights that both invokes and contributes to the universal human rights project while at the same time being able to advocate these ideals in locally appropriate ways. Steans ( 2007 ) makes a similar point in her analysis, highlighting the role that conflict, contestation, and reflection play in feminist transnational advocacy networks in forging new understandings about the basis of collective identities and “shared” interests. She suggests that rather than challenging the notion of universal human rights for women, the conflict generated over cultural differences in feminist transnational advocacy networks serves to buttress universality as these conflicts potentially lead to resolutions that are “both more inclusive and better reflect the actual diversity of women” (Steans 2007 :17).

Reilly ( 2007 ) approaches this question through the lens of cosmopolitan feminism and argues that this theoretical perspective rejects the notion that women are united by a common identity or common experience, and can serve as a transformative political framework. Offering up the ICC NGO Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice and PeaceWomen Project focused on the passage and implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (which gender mainstreams security issues) as examples, Reilly suggests that cosmopolitan feminism is a “process-oriented framework wherein the direction and content of feminist practice is determined in cross-boundaries dialogue within and across women’s movements” ( 2007 :182). Reilly suggests that through this framework, a global feminist consciousness can be developed that challenges “false universalisms” predicated on false, but powerful, binaries that construct and maintain gender, race, and class inequalities ( 2007 :187). In challenging these binaries through an intersectional framework, cosmopolitan feminism can “critically [reinterpret] universal values such as the rule of law, human rights, and secular democratic politics” ( 2007 :193).

The feminist cosmopolitan approach is not without its critics, however. Both Kaplan ( 2001 ) and Grewal ( 2005 ) argue that the global feminism envisioned by feminist cosmopolitanism produces a new type of Orientalism that is heavily predicated on rescue discourses, which serve to maintain, rather than transform, existing power inequalities. For example, Kaplan ( 2000 :222) suggests that the “cross-cultural dialogues” central to feminist cosmopolitanism are predicated on the view that “patriarchy and other forms of oppression are […] largely overcome in the metropolitan centers of the West,” necessitating a shift “to the spaces of ‘tradition’ and ‘barbarism’ in the margins – the ‘orient’ or the Third World.” Using Hillary Rodham Clinton ’s appearance at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women as a focal point of her analysis, Kaplan illustrates how cosmopolitan feminism and its attendant discourses on human rights (which Kaplan argues are still primarily liberal in theoretical orientation) “travel” (literally and figuratively) to “other” parts of the world to facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, which ultimately feminizes and positions the third world as space that needs to be saved, or rescued (Grewal 2005 ).

As a result, “the ‘West’ is uncritically assumed to embody ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, and ‘freedom’ despite its serious involvement and investments in […] systems of oppression and power” (Russo 2006 :573). These critiques are amply demonstrated in two case studies of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s (FMF) work in relation to Afghani women’s rights, in which the FMF relied on rescuing and saving discourses while simultaneously highlighting its work with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) as a project of global (cosmopolitan) feminism throughout its Campaign to End Gender Apartheid (Farrell and McDermott 2005 ; Russo 2006 ).

Grewal’s ( 2005 ) and Kaplan’s ( 2001 ) contention that the cosmopolitan feminist women’s human rights framework constructs difference and produces particular discourses of power and subjects in ways that exempt the West from critical interrogation of their roots in creating and maintaining interlocking systems of oppression are important points to consider in light of Reilly’s arguments, above, in terms of intersectional frameworks. How is difference in terms of intersecting identities as well as agency understood? And, does this approach enable the transcendence of binaries, or recast them, (re)producing both old and new inequalities? Finally, assuming these binaries are contested and transformed, whose “universal” values will be reinterpreted, by whom, and for what ends?

Feminist Futures: Measuring the Achievement of Women’s Human Rights

This essay points to a number of controversies, such as issues regarding culture, sexuality, and neo-imperialism, which need further consideration by feminists. However, the essay has not addressed methodological issues, which are also important for the study and achievement of women’s human rights. Data collection is an important component for a variety of methodological approaches and, as such, deserves further scrutiny here.

During the UN Decade for Women, feminist transnational networks argued for the need to collect sex-disaggregated data. Although heralded by many feminists at the time as a major breakthrough, this has increasingly come under scrutiny. First, there are many provisions in both women’s rights and human rights documents that guarantee a wide range of civil and political liberties and socioeconomic rights but there are actually few data to measure these particular rights. As argued in this essay, feminists conceptualize human rights as something far more complex than the equitable distribution of the presumed benefits and resources of economic development, globalization, and democratization, such as individual empowerment and capacity building, which are difficult to quantify.

Second, because human rights data are often outcomes based and reflect the performance of states, they are actually defined by the public sphere (as are data focused on legally based indicators). As noted earlier in this essay, one of the key insights of feminist human rights scholarship on gender inequality has been its insistence on the interaction of the public and private spheres, and the rejection of this binary as mutually exclusive. That is to say, what happens in the public sphere has ramifications for gender ideology and roles in the private sphere. As such, these measures simply cannot capture the gendered dynamics of the private sphere, which have ideological, physical, and material consequences for the achievement of rights. Because of their inability to capture gendered interactions between the public and private spheres as well as gendered relations within those spheres, the data are at best capturing sex discrimination within the confines of the neoliberal global order rather than the structural feature of gender oppression. In this case, sex is operationalized as an empirical category and gender is an analytical one; yet the sex-disaggregated data are being used as a substitute for “gender.”

Many human rights indicators (though not all) use male experience as the norm, and the achievement of women’s human rights is seen as relative to the rights that men have already achieved. Thus, the typical human rights data show that women are discriminated against in so far as they have not achieved the same rights as men, despite the efforts put forth by many feminists to expand and reframe notions of rights that take into account the difference of women’s and men’s lived realities. Barriteau ( 2006 ), in her study of the Commonwealth Caribbean, argues that composite human rights indicators, such as the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), place too much emphasis on the material relations of power (and empowerment) to the exclusion of the social and ideological relations of power. Thus, the high score of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries on both the GDI and GEM masks the daily realities of gender based oppression in many women’s lives. Because of this, it looks as if women’s human rights have been achieved, and therefore it is very difficult to mount a critical challenge against the indicators. Many feminists are concerned that this type of outcome creates “an impression that women no longer require assistance and that men are now much more needy beneficiaries” and as a result, there will be a “re-masculinization” of both the development and human rights discourses (McIlwaine and Datta 2003 :375).

Adding to these concerns about the type of data used to measure the success or failure of gender mainstreaming human rights, Wood ( 2005 ) raises the important point that the overall ideology of gender mainstreaming human rights in fact homogenizes both men and women and that this homogenization is often mistaken for commonality. Wood argues that the cost of the homogenization of gender in the policy process, even though it is an efficient and expedient way to gender mainstream human rights and development, is the neglect of “difference” within these homogenized categories of men and women. This is a crucial point because the rationale around gender mainstreaming is to understand how certain social and economic policies impact men and women differently, and the data constructed to evaluate this difference reflect this focus. Wood argues that in order for gender mainstreaming to be more effective, more attention must be paid to the differences among women (and by extension among men) in terms of class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. By this logic, data collection would have to be transformed. For example, it is not enough to point to the increased numbers of women in parliaments and call it gender mainstreaming human rights success. Additional data need to be known about which women are in these positions, which women are not, and why. This would also tell us something about how patriarchal systems can accommodate a certain amount or type of women seeking power while excluding others (hooks 2000 ).

Gender inequality is not separate from class, race, ethnicity, age, and sexual inequalities. Yet, given the current construction of data, we are forced to construct and evaluate gender equality and the achievement of human rights in very narrow and rigid ways. Though this is already happening to some degree, a future task for feminist scholars and activists is to conceptualize and advocate for human rights data that can capture gender inequality in multidimensional and intersectional ways.

• Ackerly, B. (2001) Women’s Human Rights Activists as Cross-cultural Theorists. International Journal of Feminist Politics 3 (3), 311–46.
• Anderson, B. (2000) Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labor . London: Zed Books.
• Arat, Z.F.K. (2008) Women’s Rights as Human Rights. UN Chronicle 45 (2/3) (Special double issue), 9–13.
• Bakker, I. (1994) Introduction: Engendering Macro-economic Policy Reform in the Era of Global Restructuring and Adjustment. In I. Bakker (ed.) The Strategic Silence: Gender and Economic Policy . London: Zed Books, pp. 1–29.
• Barriteau, V.E. (2006) Engendering Development or Gender Mainstreaming? A Critical Assessment from the Commonwealth Caribbean. In E. Kuiper and D.K. Barker (eds.) Feminist Economics and the World Bank: History, Theory, and Policy . London: Routledge, pp. 176–98.
• Bauer, G. (2008) Fifty/Fifty by 2020: Electoral Gender Quotas for Parliament in East and Southern Africa. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 348–68.
• Bayes, J.H. , Hawkesworth, M.E. , and Kelly, R.M. (2001) Globalization, Democratization, and Gender Regimes. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1–14.
• Benería, L. (2003) Gender, Development, and Globalization: Economics as if All People Mattered . New York: Routledge.
• Bergeron, S. (2001) Political Economy Discourses of Globalization and Feminist Politics. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 26 (42), 983–1006.
• Boserup, E. (1970) Woman’s Role in Economic Development . London: Allen and Unwin.
• Bovarnick, S. (2007) Universal Human Rights and Non-Western Normative Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Violence against Women in Mexico and Pakistan. Review of International Studies 33, 59–74.
• Brems, E. (1997) Enemies or Allies? Feminism and Cultural Relativism as Dissident Voices in Human Rights Discourse. Human Rights Quarterly 19 (1), 136–64.
• Brodie, J. (1996) New State Forms, New Political Spaces. In R. Boyer and D. Drache (eds.) States against Markets: The Limits of Globalization . London: Routledge, pp. 383–98.
• Bunch, C. (1990) Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Revision of Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 12, 486–500.
• Bystydzienski, J.M. , and Sekhon, J. (1999) Introduction. In J.M. Bystydzienski and J. Sekhon (eds.) Democratization and Women’s Grassroots Movements . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–24.
• Çagatay, N. (2003) Engendering Macro-Economics. In M. Gutiérrez (ed.) Macro-Economics: Making Gender Matter . London: Zed Books, pp. 22–41.
• Campillo, F. (2003) Unpaid Household Labor: A Conceptual Approach. In M. Gutiérrez (ed.) Macro-Economics: Making Gender Matter . London: Zed Books, pp. 106–21.
• Chang, K.A. , and Ling, L.H.M. (2000) Globalization and Its Intimate Other: Filipina Domestic Workers in Hong Kong. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 27–43.
• Chappell, L. (2000) Interacting with the State: Feminist Strategies and Political Opportunities. International Feminist Journal of Politics 2 (2), 244–75.
• Chappell, L. (2007) Contesting Women’s Rights: Charting the Emergence of a Transnational Conservative Counter-Network. Global Society 20 (4), 491–520.
• Charlesworth, H. (1995) Human Rights as Men’s Rights. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 103–13.
• Charusheela, S. (2008) Social Analysis and the Capabilities Approach: A Limit to Martha Nussbaum’s Universalist Ethics. Cambridge Journal of Economics (Sep.), 1–18.
• Copelon, R. (1994) Intimate Terror: Understanding Domestic Violence as Torture. In R. Cook (ed.) Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 116–54.
• Dahlerup, D. (2008) Gender Quotas – Controversial but Trendy. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 322–8.
• Donnelly, J. (1999) The Social Construction of International Human Rights. In T. Dunne and N. Wheeler (eds.) Human Rights in Global Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–102.
• Dorf, J. , and Perez, G.C. (1995) Discrimination and the Tolerance of Difference: International Lesbian Human Rights. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 324–34.
• Elson, D. (1991) Male Bias in the Development Process: The Case of Structural Adjustment. In D. Elson (ed.) Male Bias in the Development Process . Manchester: University of Manchester Press, pp. 1–28.
• Elson, D. (2002) Gender Justice, Human Rights, and Neo-liberal Economic Policies. In M. Molyneux and S. Razavi (eds.) Gender Justice, Development, and Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–114.
• Elson, D. (2006) Budgeting for Women’s Rights: Monitoring Government Budgets for Compliance with CEDAW . New York: UNIFEM.
• Farrell, A. , and McDermottt, P. (2005) Claiming Afghan Women: The Challenge of Human Rights Discourse for Transnational Feminism. In W.S. Hesford and W. Kozol (eds.) Just Advocacy? Women’s Human Rights, Transnational Feminisms, and the Politics of Representation . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 33–55.
• Forward Looking Strategies (FLS) (1985) Website at www.un.org/womenwatch/confer/nfls/Nairobi1985report.txt , accessed Sep. 2008.
• Fraser, A. (1999) Becoming Human: The Origins and Development of Women’s Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 21, 853–906.
• Freedman, J. (2007) Women, Islam and Rights in Europe: Beyond a Universalist/Culturalist Dichotomy. Review of International Studies 33, 29–44.
• Friedman, E. (2006) Bringing Women to International Human Rights. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 18, 479–84.
• Goetz, A.M. , and Hassim, S. (2002) In and Against the Party: Women’s Representation and Constituency-building in Uganda and South Africa. In M. Molyneux and S. Razavi (eds.) Gender Justice, Development, and Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 306–46.
• Gonzalez, L. (2001) Mexico/U.S. Migration and Gender Relations: The Guanajuatense Community in Mexico and the United States. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 75–94.
• Grant, R. (1991) Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory. In R. Grant and K. Newland (eds.) Gender and International Relations . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 8–26.
• Grewal, I. (2005) Transnational America: Feminism, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms . Durham: Duke University Press.
• Hanochi, S. (2001) Japan and the Global Sex Industry. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 137–48.
• Hawkesworth, M.E. (2001) Democratization: Reflections on Gendered Dislocations in the Public Sphere. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 223–36.
• hooks, b. (2000) Feminist Theory from Margin to Center , 2nd edn. Cambridge: South End.
• Huntington, S. (1991) The Third Wave . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Jaquette, J.S. , and Wolchik, S.L. (1998) Women and Democratization in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe: A Comparative Introduction. In J.S. Jaquette and S.L. Wolchik (eds.) Women and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–28.
• Joachim, J. (2003) Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women’s Rights. International Studies Quarterly 47 (2), 247–74.
• Johnson, A. (1997) The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Johnson, M. (1998) A Magna Carta for Mankind: Writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In M. Johnson and J. Symonides (eds.) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A History of its Creation and Implementation, 1948–1998 . Paris: UNESCO, pp. 19–75.
• Kaplan, C. (2001) Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Orient: Cosmopolitan Travel and Global Feminist Subjects. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 2 (1), 219–40.
• Kapur, R. (2005) Erotic Justice: Law and the Politics of Postcolonialism . London: Glasshouse.
• Karam, A.K. (2000) Feminisms and Islamisms in Egypt: Between Globalization and Postmodernism in Egypt. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 194–208.
• Kaufman, N.H. , and Lindquist, S. (1995) Critiquing Gender Neutral Language: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 114–25.
• Keck, M.E. , and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Kofman, E. (2000) Beyond a Reductionist Analysis of Female Migrants in Global European Cities: The Unskilled, the Deskilled, and Professional. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 129–39.
• Kromhout, M. (2000) Women and Livelihood Strategies: A Case Study of Coping with Economic Crisis through Household Management in Paramaribo, Suriname. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 140–56.
• Krook, M.L. (2008) Quota Laws for Women in Politics: Implications for Feminist Practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 15, 345–68.
• Kuokkanen, R. (2008) Globalization as Racialized, Sexualized Violence: The Case of Indigenous Women. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (2), 216–33.
• Lake, M. (2001) From Self-Determination via Protection to Equality via Non-Discrimination: Defining Women’s Rights at the League of Nations and the United Nations. In P. Grimshaw , K. Holmes , and M. Lake (eds.) Women’s Rights and Human Rights: International Historical Perspectives . New York: Palgrave, pp. 254–71.
• LaViolette, N. , and Whitworth, S. (1994) No Safe Haven: Sexuality as a Universal Human Right and Gay and Lesbian Activism in International Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23, 563–88.
• Lind, A. (2000) Negotiating Boundaries: Women’s Organizations and the Politics of Restructuring in Ecuador. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 161–75.
• Locke, J. (1980) Second Treatise of Government , ed. C.B. Macpherson . Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Lothian, T. (1996) Women’s Rights and Political Economy. Connecticut Journal of International Law 12 (1), 67–75.
• Lovenduski, J. (ed.) (2005) State Feminism and Political Representation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McIlwaine, C. , and Datta, K. (2003) From Feminising to Engendering Development. Gender, Place, and Culture 10 (4), 369–82.
• Marchand, M. (1996) Reconceptualising “Gender and Development” in an Era of “Globalisation.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (3), 577–603.
• Mayer, A.E. (1995) Cultural Particularism as a Bar to Women’s Rights: Reflections on the Middle Eastern Experience. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 176–88.
• Merry, S.E. (2006) Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mertus, J. (2007) The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US. Human Rights Quarterly 29, 1036–64.
• Mies, M. (1999) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale , 2nd edn. London: Zed Books.
• Moghadam, V.M. (1999) Gender and the Global Economy. In M. Max Ferree , J. Lorber , and B. Hess (eds.) Revisioning Gender . Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 128–60.
• Mohanty, C. (1991) Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. In C. Mohanty , A. Russo , and L. Torres (eds.) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism . Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, pp. 51–80.
• Morgan, W. (2001) Queering International Human Rights Law. In C. Stychin and D. Herman (eds.) Law and Sexuality: The Global Arena . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 208–25.
• Naples, N.A. , and Desai, M. (eds.) (2002) Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Transnational Politics . New York: Routledge.
• Narayan, U. (1997) Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminism . New York: Routledge.
• Narayan, U. (1998) Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique of Cultural Essentialism. Hypatia 13 (2), 86–106.
• Nussbaum, M.C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbuam, M.C. (2001) Comment on Quillen’s “Feminist Theory, Justice, and the Lure of the Human.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 27 (1), 123–34.
• Okin, S.M. (1998) Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences. Hypatia 13 (2), 32–51.
• Otto, D. (2001) Defending Women’s Economic and Social Rights: Some Thoughts on Indivisibility and a New Standard of Equality. In I. Merali and V. Oosterveld (eds.) Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 52–70.
• Parisi, L. (2002) Feminist Praxis and Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights 1 (4), 571–85.
• Pateman, C. (1989) The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Peratis, K. , Kerr, J. , Schneider, E.M. , and Vandenberg, M. (1999) Markets and Women’s International Human Rights. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 25 (1), 141–60.
• Peterson, V.S. (1996) The Politics of Identification in the Context of Globalization. Women’s Studies International Forum 19 (1/2), 5–15.
• Peterson, V.S. (2003) A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies . New York: Routledge.
• Peterson, V.S. , and Parisi, L. (1998) Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question. In T. Evans (ed.) Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal . Manchester: University of Manchester Press, pp. 132–60.
• Peterson, V.S. , and Runyan, A.S. (1999) Global Gender Issues , 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview.
• Pettman, J.J. (1996) An International Political Economy of Sex? In E. Kofman and G. Youngs (eds.) Globalization: Theory and Practice . London: Pinter, pp. 191–208.
• Phillips, A. (2001) Feminism and Liberalism Revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum Got It Right? Constellations 8 (2), 249–66.
• Pietilä, H. , and Vickers, J. (1996) Making Women Matter: The Role of the United Nations , 3rd edn. London: Zed Books.
• Prügl, E. (1999) What Is a Worker? Gender, Global Restructuring, and the ILO Convention on Homework. In M.K. Meyer and E. Prügl (eds.) Gender Politics in Global Governance . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 197–209.
• Quillen, C. (2001) Feminist Theory, Justice, and the Lure of the Human. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 27 (1), 87–122.
• Rao, A. (1995) The Politics of Gender and Culture in International Human Rights Discourse. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 167–75.
• Rao, A. (1996) Home-Word Bound; Women’s Place in the Family of International Human Rights. Global Governance 2, 241–60.
• Reilly, N. (2007) Cosmopolitan Feminism and Human Rights. Hypatia 22 (4), 180–98.
• Rittich, K. (2001) Feminism after the State: The Rise of the Market and the Future of Women’s Rights. In I. Merali and V. Oosterveld (eds.) Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 95–108.
• Romany, C. (1994) State Responsibility Goes Private: A Feminist Critique of the Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law. In R. Cook (ed.) Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 85–115.
• Rowbotham, S. , and Linkogle, S. (eds.) (2001) Women Resist Globalization: Mobilizing for Livelihood and Rights . London: Zed Books.
• Runyan, A.S. (1996) The Places of Women in Trading Places: Gendered Global/Regional Regimes and Internationalized Resistance. In E. Kofman and G. Youngs (eds.) Globalization: Theory and Practice . London: Pinter, pp. 139–56.
• Rupp, L. (1997) Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women’s Movement . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russo, A. (2006) The Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid. International Feminist Journal of Politics 8 (4), 557–80.
• Sacchet, T. (2008) Beyond Numbers: The Impact of Gender Quotas in Latin America. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 369–86.
• Sadasivam, B. (1997) The Impact of Structural Adjustment on Women: A Governance and Human Rights Agenda. Human Rights Quarterly 19 (3), 630–65.
• Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents . New York: New Press.
• Sen, G. (1997) Globalization, Justice and Equity: A Gender Perspective. Development 40 (2), 21–6.
• Shacher, A. (2001) Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sircar, A. , and Kelly, R.M. (2001) Globalization and Asian Indian Immigrant Women in the United States. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 95–120.
• Soni-Sinha, U. (2001) Income Control and Household Work-sharing. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 121–36.
• Steans, J. (2007) Debating Women’s Human Rights as a Universal Feminist Project: Defending Women’s Human Rights as a Political Tool. Review of International Studies 33, 11–27.
• Steans, J. , and Ahmadi, V. (2005) Negotiating the Politics of Gender and Rights: Some Reflections on the Status of Women’s Human Rights at “Beijing Plus Ten.” Global Society 19 (3), 227–45.
• Sullivan, D. (1995) The Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 126–34.
• Tong, R.P. (2008) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction , 3rd edn. Boulder: Westview.
• True, J. , and Mintrom, M. (2001) Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45, 27–57.
• UNDAW (n.d.) Short History of CEDAW. At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/history.htm , accessed Feb. 2009.
• UDHR (1948) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At www.un.org/Overview/rights.html , accessed Mar. 2009.
• UNDP (1995) Human Development Report . New York: Oxford University Press.
• UNRISD (1995) States of Disarray: The Social Effects of Globalization . London: UNRISD.
• Vinding, D. (1998) Indigenous Women: The Right to a Voice , IWGIA Document no. 88. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
• Voet, R. (1998) Feminism and Citizenship . London: Sage.
• Wallerstein, I. (1988) The Ideological Tensions of Capitalism: Universalism Versus Racism and Sexism. In J. Smith , J. Collins , T.K. Hopkins , and A. Muhammed (eds.) Racism, Sexism, and the World-System . New York: Greenwood, pp. 3–10.
• Weldon, S.L. (2002) Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence against Women: A Cross-National Comparison . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Winter, B. (2006) Religion, Culture and Women’s Human Rights: Some General Political and Theoretical Considerations. Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (4), 381–93.
• Wichterich, C. (2000) The Globalized Woman: Reports from a Future of Inequality , trans. P. Camiller . London: Zed Books.
• Wolchik, S.L. (1998) Gender and the Politics of Transition in Czech Republic and Slovakia. In J.S. Jaquette and S.L. Wolchik (eds.) Women and Democracy: Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 153–84.
• Wood, C. (2005) Different Commonalities: Gender Mainstreaming and the Marginalization of Difference in Economic Development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 26, 593–603.
• Yoon, B.L. (2001) Democratization and Gender Politics in South Korea. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 171–95.
• Youngs, G. (2000) Breaking Patriarchal Bonds: Demythologizing the Public/Private. In M.H. Marchand and A.S. Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 44–58.

Links to Digital Materials

Association for Women’s Rights in Development. At www.awid.org , accessed May 11, 2009. Women’s Rights NGO which provides up-to-date news about women’s human rights worldwide, resources, research reports and analysis, and job listings in the field.

Center for Reproductive Law. At www.reproductiverights.org/ , accessed May 11, 2009. A non-profit legal advocacy organization for the protection of reproductive rights worldwide. Provides information on current events related to reproductive rights laws globally, in-depth analyses by region, country, and issue information about litigation, and assessments of the UN and other international organizations.

Human Rights Watch, Women’s Rights page. At www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women%E2%80%99s-rights , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides news updates and in-depth reports on a range of women’s human rights issues, such as domestic and sexual violence, HIV/AIDS, labor, security, and migration.

MADRE. At www.madre.org , accessed May 11, 2009. A women’s human rights NGO. Provides resource information and information on current campaigns.

UN Beijing Platform for Action (1995). At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides the full text to the PFA. Includes links to information about the Beijing Conference on Women, country statements, Beijing +5, and Beijing +10.

UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides the full text of the convention in all of the official UN languages. Includes a list of states, parties, and reservations to the convention, and country reports. Access to the text of the CEDAW Optional Protocol.

UN GenderInfo Database. At www.devinfo.info/genderinfo/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Searchable database of sex disaggregated statistics related to the following sectors: education, families, health and nutrition, population, public life, and work.

UN Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women Gender Mainstreaming Page. At www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/gendermainstreaming.htm , accessed May 11, 2009. This page provides information on the concepts and definitions used to guide the practice of gender mainstreaming of women’s human rights in the UN system. Provides examples of good practices.

UN WomenWatch. At www.un.org/womenwatch/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Inter-agency information center on all women’s issues at the UN. Provides links to news and highlights, events, current campaigns, publications, websites and videos, statistical data, and all agencies working on issues related to women’s rights, development, and gender mainstreaming.

Women, Environment, and Development Organization (WEDO). At www.wedo.org/ , accessed May 11, 2009. A women’s human rights and development NGO which features an extensive online library on a variety of topics ranging from climate change to trade and their impact on achieving gender equality. Also provides in-depth reports and fact-sheets.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to: Brooke Ackerly , the editor of the FTGS section’s contribution to the compendium, and Andrea Gerlak , Managing Editor of the ISA compendium, for their encouragement and support; Zehra Arat, for her helpful suggestions and coordination of the reviewers’ comments; the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped sharpen and deepen this essay; Shannon Mcleod , for her editorial and research assistance; and Mindy McGarrah Sharp , for her administrative assistance. All remaining errors and inaccuracies are, of course, attributable solely to the author.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

Women’s Rights

By: Bastian Herre , Veronika Samborska , Pablo Arriagada , Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser

Women’s rights are human rights that all women have. But in practice, these rights are often not protected to the same extent as the rights of men.

Among others, women’s rights include: physical integrity rights, such as being free from violence and making choices over their own body; social rights, such as going to school and participating in public life; economic rights, such as owning property, working a job of their choice, and being paid equally for it; and political rights, such as voting for and holding public office.

The protection of these rights allows women to live the lives they want and to thrive in them.

On this page, you can find data and visualizations on how the protection of women’s rights has changed over time, and how it differs across countries.

Research & Writing

Women have made major advances in politics — but the world is still far from equal

Women have gained the right to vote and sit in parliament almost everywhere. But they remain underrepresented, especially in the highest offices.

Bastian Herre

If we can make maternal deaths as rare as they are in the healthiest countries, we can save almost 300,000 mothers each year

Maternal mortality was much more common in the past. Today, it is much lower — but there are still large inequalities across the world.

Hannah Ritchie

Interactive Charts on Women’s Rights

Cite this work.

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• A Century After Women Gained the Right To Vote, Majority of Americans See Work To Do on Gender Equality

About three-in-ten men say women’s gains have come at the expense of men

Table of contents.

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of the current state of gender equality and the advancement of women around the 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,143 U.S. adults in March and April 2020, including an oversample of Black and Hispanic respondents. The adults surveyed are members of the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel, an online survey panel that is recruited through national random sampling of residential addresses and landline and cellphone numbers. KnowledgePanel provides internet access for those who do not have it and, if needed, a device to access the internet when they join the panel. To ensure that the results of this survey reflect a balanced cross section of the nation, the data are weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish.

Here are the  questions used for this report , along with responses, and the report’s methodology .

References to white and Black adults include only those who are non-Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and independents who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and independents who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor’s degree or more. “Some college” includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree.

A hundred years after the 19th Amendment was ratified, about half of Americans say granting women the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the country. Still, a majority of U.S. adults say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, even as a large share thinks there has been progress in the last decade, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Among those who think the country still has work to do in achieving gender equality, 77% point to sexual harassment as a major obstacle to women having equal rights with men. Fewer, but still majorities, point to women not having the same legal rights as men (67%), different societal expectations for men and women (66%) and not enough women in positions of power (64%) as major obstacles to gender equality. Women are more likely than men to see each of these as a major obstacle.

Many of those who say it is important for men and women to have equal rights point to aspects of the workplace when asked about what gender equality would look like. Fully 45% volunteer that a society where women have equal rights with men would include equal pay. An additional 19% say there would be no discrimination in hiring, promotion or educational opportunities. About one-in-ten say women would be more equally represented in business or political leadership.

In terms of the groups and institutions that have done the most to advance the rights of women in the U.S., 70% say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount in this regard. The Democratic Party is viewed as having contributed more to the cause of women’s rights than the Republican Party: 59% say the Democratic Party has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights, while 37% say the same about the GOP. About three-in-ten (29%) say President Donald Trump has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights, while 69% say Trump has not done much or has done nothing at all. These views vary considerably by party, with Republicans and Republican leaners at least five times as likely as Democrats and those who lean Democratic to say the GOP and Trump have done at least a fair amount and Democrats far more likely than Republicans to say the same about the Democratic Party.

Views of the role the feminist movement has played in advancing gender equality are positive overall, though fewer than half of women say the movement has been beneficial to them personally. About four-in-ten (41%) say feminism has helped them at least a little, while half say it has neither helped nor hurt them. Relatively few (7%) say feminism has hurt them personally. Democratic women, those with a bachelor’s degree or more education and women younger than 50 are among the most likely to say they’ve benefitted personally from feminism.

Views about how much progress the country has made on gender equality differ widely along partisan lines. About three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, while 19% say it’s been about right and 4% say the country has gone too far. Among Republicans, a third say the country hasn’t made enough progress, while 48% say it’s been about right and 17% say the country has gone too far in giving women equal rights with men.

There is also a gender gap in these views, with 64% of women – compared with 49% of men – saying the country hasn’t gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men. Democratic and Republican women are about ten percentage points more likely than their male counterparts to say this (82% of Democratic women vs. 70% of Democratic men and 38% of Republican women vs. 28% of Republican men).

The nationally representative survey of 3,143 U.S. adults was conducted online from March 18-April 1, 2020. 1 Among the other key findings:

More cite women’s suffrage than other milestones as the most important in advancing the position of women in the U.S. About half of Americans (49%) say women gaining the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S.; 29% cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act, while smaller shares point to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (12%) or the availability of the birth control pill (8%) as the most important milestone.

A majority of Americans say feminism has had a positive impact on the lives of white, Black and Hispanic women. About six-in-ten or more U.S. adults say feminism has helped the lives of white (64%), Black (61%) and Hispanic (58%) women at least a little. But more say feminism helped white women a lot (32%) than say it’s done the same for Black (21%) or Hispanic (15%) women. About a quarter (24%) say feminism has helped wealthy women a lot; just 10% say it’s been equally helpful to poor women.

About four-in-ten Republican men think women’s gains have come at the expense of men. Most Americans (76%) say the gains women have made in society have not come at the expense of men, but 22% think these gains have come at the expense of men. That view is more common among men (28%) than women (17%). Republican and Democratic men are more likely than their female counterparts to say the gains women have made in society have come at the expense of men. About four-in-ten Republican men (38%) say women’s gains have come at the expense of men, compared with 25% of Republican women, 19% of Democratic men and 12% of Democratic women.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that, when it comes to gender discrimination, the bigger problem is discrimination being overlooked. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the bigger problem for our country today is people not seeing gender discrimination where it really does exist; 31% say people seeing gender discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (85%) point to people overlooking gender discrimination as the bigger problem; 46% of Republicans say the same.

Most Americans favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, even as many don’t think this would make much difference for women’s rights. About eight-in-ten U.S. adults (78%), including majorities of men and women and Republicans and Democrats alike, say they at least somewhat favor adding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution. When asked about the impact they think adopting the ERA would have on women’s rights in the U.S., 44% say it would advance women’s rights, while 5% say this would be a setback for women’s rights and 49% say it would not make much of a difference. Even among those who favor adopting the amendment, 44% say doing so wouldn’t have much of an impact on women’s rights (54% say it would advance women’s rights).

A majority of Americans say the country has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men

The vast majority of Americans across demographic and partisan groups agree that women should have equal rights with men. More than nine-in-ten U.S. adults say it is very important (79%) or somewhat important (18%) for women to have equal rights with men in this country. Just 3% of Americans say gender equality is not too or not at all important.

Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party (86%) are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners (71%) to say it is very important for women to have equal rights with men. Still, majorities of Republicans and Democrats, including at least two-thirds of men and women in each party, say this is very important.

When it comes to giving women equal rights with men, a majority of adults (57%) think our country has not gone far enough, while 32% say things have been about right; 10% of Americans say the country has gone too far in giving women equal rights with men.

Women (64%) are more likely than men (49%) to say the country hasn’t made enough progress on gender equality. However, there is also a sizable party gap. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (76%) say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 33% of Republicans. Instead, 48% of Republicans – compared with 19% of Democrats – say things are about right when it comes to gender equality and 17% say the country has gone too far; just 4% of Democrats say things have gone too far.

Across parties, women are more likely than men to say the U.S. has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men. About four-in-ten Republican women (38%) say that gender equality has not come far enough, compared with 28% of Republican men. Still, about half of Republican men (51%) and 45% of Republican women say things are about right in the country when it comes to gender equality.

Among Democrats, 82% of women, compared with 70% of men, say the country still has work to do on gender equality. About a quarter of Democratic men (24%) say things are about right in the country when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 14% of Democratic women who say the same.

Among Democrats, those with at least some college education are more likely than those with no college experience to express dissatisfaction with the current state of gender equality. About eight-in-ten Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education (82%) and 77% of those with some college education say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, compared with 71% of Democrats with a high school diploma or less education. Among Republicans, there is generally more agreement across levels of educational attainment.

Overall, Americans express more dissatisfaction with the state of gender equality now than they did in 2017, when this question was last asked. Then, half said the country hadn’t gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men, while 39% said things were about right and 10% said the country had gone too far. Attitudes have shifted among men and women and Republicans and Democrats alike.

Most Democrats and Republicans say the country has made progress in giving women and men equal rights over the last 10 years

While many Americans say there’s still work to be done to achieve gender equality, most say there’s been progress over the past decade. Majorities of men and women say the U.S. has made progress in the last 10 years when it comes to giving women equal rights with men. Still, 25% of Americans say things are the same as they were 10 years ago, and one-in-ten say the country has lost ground when it comes to equal rights for women.

Majorities of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (71%) say that, in the last 10 years, the country has made progress on gender equality. However, Democratic women are the least likely to say this: 58% of Democratic women say this, compared with 63% of Democratic men and 71% of both Republican men and Republican women. Instead, 28% of Democratic women say things are about the same as they were 10 years ago (21% of Republican women say the same).

About three-in-ten U.S. men think women’s gains have come at the expense of men

When it comes to the gains that women have made in society, most Americans (76%) say the gains have not come at the expense of men, but 22% – including 28% of men – think these gains have come at the expense of men.

Republican men (38%) are twice as likely as Democratic men (19%) to say the gains women have made have come at the expense of men. A quarter of Republican women also say this, less than the share of their male counterparts but higher than the shares of Democratic men and women (12%) that hold this view.

Among women, those without a bachelor’s degree are about twice as likely as college graduates to say gains have come at the expense of men (21% vs. 10%); educational differences are less pronounced, though still significant, among men: 30% of men with some college or less education say the gains women have made in society have come at the expense of men, compared with 24% of men with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Most who say the country still has work to do on gender equality say equality is likely in the future

On the whole, the majority of Americans who say that the country has not gone far enough to give women equal rights with men think it is very or somewhat likely that women in our country will eventually have equal rights with men. More than eight-in-ten Americans who say the country hasn’t made enough progress say this is very likely (31%) or somewhat likely (53%); just 16% say they think it is not too likely or not at all likely.

Large majorities of men and women and Republicans and Democrats who say the country has not yet achieved gender equality say it is at least somewhat likely that men and women will eventually have equal rights, but men (37%) are considerably more likely than women (26%)  to say it is very likely.

Among Republicans who say the U.S. has work to do to achieve gender equality, 36% say gender equality is very likely, compared with 29% of Democrats. This difference is driven in part by Democratic women, who are among the least likely to say they expect men and women to eventually have equal rights. Among Democratic women who say the country hasn’t gone far enough to achieve gender equality, 23% say they think it is very likely that there will eventually be gender equality; 38% of Democratic men say the same.

Even among the small share of Americans who say the country has lost ground on gender equality in the last 10 years, 76% say it is very or somewhat likely that women will eventually have equal rights with men.

More cite equality in the workplace than any other example as a sign of a society where men and women are equal

When those who say it is important for women to have equal rights with men are asked what a society with gender equality might look like, about half give examples that focus on equality in the workplace: 45% specifically say equal pay, 19% cite no discrimination in hiring and promotion, 5% say men and women getting equal respect in the workplace, and 2% say better paid leave and paternity and maternity support are things they would expect to see in a society where women have equal rights with men.

About one-in-ten cite more or equal representation of women in leadership, with 6% specifically mentioning political leadership and 5% mentioning business leadership. Relatively few point to reproductive rights (4%) and less traditional gender norms (4%) as markers of a society where women have equal rights with men. (Respondents were asked to answer this question in their own words; for respondents who gave multiple examples, up to three responses were coded.)

For the most part, men and women who say equal rights are important have a similar picture of what a society with gender equality would look like, but a larger share of women than men cite equal pay (51% vs. 40%). Still, the gender pay gap tops the list for both men and women who say gender equality is important.

Among women, references to equal pay differ by age. Women ages 50 and older (56%) are more likely than women under 50 (45%) to mention equal pay when describing a society where men and women have equal rights.

Democrats who say gender equality is important are more likely than their Republican counterparts to cite equal pay when asked about a society with gender equality: 50% of Democrats say this, compared with 41% of Republicans. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say that more or equal representation in business and politics is a marker of equality (12% vs. 5%).

Wide party and gender gaps in views of the obstacles women face in achieving gender equality

When Americans who say the country has not gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men are asked about the obstacles to achieving equal rights, sexual harassment tops the list: 77% say this is a major obstacle for women. Roughly two-thirds say women not having the same legal rights as men (67%) and the different expectations that society has for men and women (66%) are major obstacles, and 64% say the same about not enough women in positions of power. Some 43% point to family responsibilities as a major obstacle, while fewer cite men and women having different physical abilities (19%) and women not working as hard as men (13%) as major obstacles. Roughly two-thirds (64%) of those who say the country has work to do on gender equality say women not working as hard as men is not an obstacle to gender equality.

Perceptions of the obstacles to gender equality vary across genders. For example, while 71% of women who say the country hasn’t gone far enough in giving women equal rights with men cite not enough women in positions of power as a major obstacle to gender equality, 55% of men say the same.

A majority of women who say the country hasn’t made enough progress on gender equality also point to women not having the same legal rights as men (73%) and different societal expectations for men and women (72%) as major obstacles to women having equal rights with men. Fewer men who say this see each of these as major obstacles to gender equality (59% and 58%, respectively).

When it comes to the role sexual harassment plays in men and women having equal rights, women who say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to gender equality (82%) are more likely than men who say the same (72%) to cite this as a major obstacle, though large majorities of both groups say this.

Among women who say the country hasn’t made enough progress on gender equality, those with at least a bachelor’s degree are more likely than those who have attended some college or less to say different societal expectations (81% vs. 67%) and not enough women in positions of power (80% vs. 66%) are major obstacles.

Among those who say there’s work to be done on gender equality, a majority of Democrats, but fewer than half of Republicans, see not enough women in power as a major obstacle

Among those who say there’s more work to be done in giving women equal rights with men, Democrats and Republicans differ on the extent to which certain factors are holding women back. A higher share of Democrats than Republicans point to not enough women in positions of power (72% vs. 41%), women not having the same legal rights as men (73% vs. 51%), sexual harassment (81 % vs. 66%) and different societal expectations (69% vs. 57%) as major obstacles to women having equal rights with men.

Republicans who say the country has not gone far enough to give women equal rights (27%) are more likely than similarly minded Democrats (17%) to say differences in the physical abilities of men and women are a major obstacle to women having equal rights with men, although relatively small shares of each group say this is the case. Meanwhile, there are no significant partisan gaps when it comes to views of family responsibilities (44% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans see it as a major obstacle) or women not working as hard as men (13% and 15%, respectively).

Democratic women are particularly likely to see some of these as major obstacles, while Republican men tend to be the least likely to do so. For example, 78% of Democratic women say women not having the same legal rights as men is a major obstacle to equal rights, as do 65% of Democratic men and 58% of Republican women. In contrast, 42% of Republican men say this is a major obstacle.

And while 77% of Democratic women, 65% of Democratic men and 50% of Republican women say not enough women in positions of power is a major obstacle to gender equality, just 31% of Republican men say the same.

Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there are problems with gender discrimination being overlooked

When it comes to gender discrimination, by more than a two-to-one margin Americans say the bigger problem for the country is people not seeing discrimination where it really does exist, rather than people seeing gender discrimination where it really does not exist (67% vs. 31%).

The vast majority of Democrats (85%) say the bigger problem is people not seeing gender discrimination where it really exists. In contrast, more Republicans say the bigger problem is people seeing discrimination where it doesn’t exist (53%) than say the people overlooking discrimination is the bigger problem (46%).

There is a wide gender gap among Republicans. While a majority of Republican men (61%) say the bigger problem is people seeing gender discrimination where it doesn’t exist, fewer than half of Republican women (44%) say the same. Democratic men are also more likely than their female counterparts to say this (19% vs. 11%), but 80% of Democratic men and 89% of Democratic women agree that the bigger problem is people overlooking gender discrimination.

More cite women gaining the right to vote than other milestones as the most important in advancing the position of women

When asked about milestones they see as important in advancing the position of women in the U.S., about half of Americans (49%) point to women gaining the right to vote as the most important milestone, a view that is more common among men (52%) than women (46%). Roughly three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act, while smaller shares say passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the availability of the birth control pill are the most important milestones in advancing the position of women (12% and 8%, respectively).

White adults, as well as those with at least a bachelor’s degree, are more likely than Black and Hispanic adults and those with less education to see women’s suffrage as the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S. Some 53% of white adults say women getting the right to vote has been a more important milestone than the passage of the Equal Pay Act, passage of the FMLA or the availability of the birth control pill. Black and Hispanic adults are about as likely to cite the passage of the Equal Pay Act as they are to cite women gaining the right to vote.

Among those with at least a bachelor’s degree, 59% see women’s suffrage as the most important milestone, compared with 48% of those with some college education and 41% of those with less education. Even so, across educational attainment, more point to women getting the right to vote than to the other milestones as the most important in advancing women’s rights in the U.S.

These differences by race and ethnicity and educational attainment are also evident when looking separately at the views of men and women. A majority of white men (57%) cite women gaining the right to vote as the most important milestone, compared with 39% of Black men and 43% of Hispanic men. And while white women are less likely than their male counterparts to say this (49% do so), even smaller shares of Black (36%) and Hispanic (38%) women point to women’s suffrage as the most important milestone.

Similarly, men with at least a bachelor’s degree (64%) are more likely than women with the same level of educational attainment (54%) to say women gaining the right to vote was the most important milestone. Both are more likely than their less educated counterparts to say this.

Views on this vary little, if at all, by age or partisanship, but Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are about twice as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners to say the availability of the birth control pill has been the most important milestone in advancing the position of women in the U.S. (11% vs. 5%). Similar shares of Democratic women (12%) and men (11%) say this, compared with 6% of Republican women and an even smaller share of Republican men (3%).

A third of Americans know what year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote

When asked in an open-ended format what year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote, 47% offer a year between 1915 and 1925 (within five years of the correct answer), including 33% who correctly identify 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote. About three-in-ten Americans (31%) say women gained the right to vote in 1926 or later, while just 7% say this happened before 1915. (Some 14% didn’t provide an answer.) Men and women give similar answers.

Those who say women gaining the right to vote has been the most important milestone in advancing women’s rights in the U.S. are not necessarily more knowledgeable about the timing of this milestone. An identical share of those who cite women’s suffrage or the availability of the birth control pill as the most important milestones correctly identify 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote (38% each). Similar shares in these groups offer a year between 1915 and 1925.

Educational attainment is related to knowledge of the year women in the U.S. gained the right to vote. About six-in-ten adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (61%) give a year between 1915 and 1925, with 41% correctly identifying 1920 as the year women gained the right to vote. Smaller shares of those with some college (47%) or with a high school diploma or less education (36%) give an answer within five years of the correct year, and a third and quarter, respectively, give the correct answer.

Adults ages 65 and older are more likely than those who are younger to give an answer within five years of the correct year. More than half of those ages 65 and older (55%) say U.S. women gained the right to vote between 1915 and 1925, compared with 49% of those ages 50 to 64, 42% of those ages 30 to 49 and 47% of adults younger than 30.

Majorities say the feminist movement and the Democratic Party have done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights in the U.S.

Seven-in-ten Americans say the feminist movement has done a great deal (22%) or a fair amount (48%) to advance women’s rights in the U.S.; 59% say the same about the Democratic Party, including 12% who say it has done a great deal. In contrast, most Americans say the Republican Party (61%) and Donald Trump (69%) have not done much or have done nothing at all to advance women’s rights.

Women (73%) are more likely than men (67%) to say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance the rights of women in the U.S., but large majorities of each group say this. Meanwhile, a larger share of men (40%) than women (34%) say the GOP has done at least a fair amount in this area.

There are far wider partisan gaps than gender gaps when it comes to these views. About three-quarters of Democrats and those who lean Democratic (73%) say the Democratic Party has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights in the U.S.; fewer than half of Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party (42%) say the same. Conversely, two-thirds of Republicans – but only 13% of Democrats – say the GOP has done a great deal or a fair amount in this area. Similarly, a majority of Republicans (59%) say Donald Trump has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights, while just 6% of Democrats say the same.

When it comes to the feminist movement’s impact, majorities of Democrats and Republicans say it has done at least a fair amount. Still, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say this (80% vs. 58%).

For the most part, views on this don’t vary considerably by gender within each party. Republican women (62%) are more likely than Republican men (55%) to say the feminist movement has done a great deal or a fair amount to advance women’s rights, but more than half of both say this. And while Democratic men are more likely than their female counterparts to say their party has done at least a fair amount, about seven-in-ten or more of each group share this view (76% of Democratic men and 71% of Democratic women). Republican men and women give similar views when it comes to how much each of the political parties and Donald Trump have done, and there are no significant differences between Democratic men and women in views of the feminist movement, the Republican Party or Trump.

Majorities say feminism has helped white, Black and Hispanic women

In addition to saying the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights in the U.S., a majority of Americans think feminism has had a positive impact on the lives of specific groups of women. For example, about six-in-ten or more say feminism has helped the lives of white (64%), Black (61%) and Hispanic (58%) women at least a little, although there are more pronounced differences in the shares saying feminism has helped each of these groups a lot (32% vs. 21% and 15%, respectively). 2  Notably, just 41% of women say the movement has helped them personally.

A majority of Americans (57%) also think feminism has helped lesbian and bisexual women at least a little, including 23% who say it’s helped this group a lot. By comparison, 41% say feminism has helped transgender women, with just 11% saying this group has been helped a lot. About one-in-five (21%) say feminism has hurt transgender women, and 17% say the same about its impact on lesbian and bisexual women.

When asked about the impact of feminism on the lives of wealthy and poor women, 49% say it has helped each of these groups at least a little, but while 24% say feminism has helped wealthy women a lot , just one-in-ten say the same about the impact it’s had on the lives of poor women.

Opinions about how feminism has impacted each of these groups of women don’t differ significantly between men and women. In fact, the shares of men and women saying feminism has helped each of these groups at least a little vary only by 3 percentage points or less.

Majorities of white and Hispanic adults say feminism has helped white, Black and Hispanic women at least a little. Some 64% of Black adults also say feminism has helped white women, more than the shares who say it’s helped Black (49%) or Hispanic (48%) women. Black adults are the most likely to say feminism has helped white women a lot: 42% say this, compared with 34% of Hispanics and an even smaller share of white adults (29%).

Consistent with the difference in the shares of Republicans and Democrats who say the feminist movement has done at least a fair amount to advance women’s rights, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say feminism has helped each of these groups of women.

About four-in-ten women say feminism has helped them personally

When asked about the impact of feminism on their own lives, 41% of women say it has helped them at least a little, with one-in-ten saying feminism has helped them a lot; 7% say feminism has hurt them, while half say it has neither helped nor hurt. 3

Some 55% of women with at least a bachelor’s degree say feminism has helped them personally, compared with 41% of women with some college education and an even smaller share of those with a high school diploma or less education (30%). In turn, six-in-ten of those with no college experience and half of those with some college say feminism has neither helped nor hurt them; 36% of women with a bachelor’s degree or more education say the same.

Hispanic women (46%) are more likely than Black women (36%) to say feminism has helped them personally; white women fall somewhere in the middle (41% say feminism has helped them). There are also differences by age, with 47% of women younger than 50 saying feminism has helped at least a little, compared with 35% of those ages 50 and older.

Among Democratic women, half say feminism has helped them personally, while just 5% say it has hurt them and 43% say it has neither helped nor hurt. By comparison, 28% of Republican women say feminism has helped them, while a majority (60%) say it’s neither helped nor hurt; 9% of Republican women say feminism has hurt them.

Most Americans favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution

In January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) , nearly half a century after it passed the Senate in 1972. While the ERA has now been ratified by three-fourths of the states, the number required for amending the U.S. Constitution, it is likely to face legal challenges as the deadline for ratification has passed.

The survey finds widespread support for adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution: About eight-in-ten Americans (78%) say they favor it, including 35% who strongly favor it being added to the Constitution. Women are more likely than men to say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the Constitution (39% vs. 31%), but about three-quarters or more in each group say they favor it at least somewhat.

Democrats overwhelmingly favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, with roughly nine-in-ten saying they favor it strongly (51%) or somewhat (37%). There’s less support among Republicans: 66% say they favor adopting the ERA, with 16% expressing strong support for this. Republican women (75%) are far more likely than Republican men (58%) to say they favor adding the ERA to the Constitution. Views on this do not differ by gender among Democrats, but they do vary across other dimensions, including educational attainment, race and ethnicity, and age.

Large majorities of Democrats across levels of educational attainment say they favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, but those with at least a bachelor’s degree are the most likely to express strong support: 62% say they strongly favor adopting the ERA, compared with 55% of Democrats with some college and a smaller share of those of those with a high school diploma or less education (37%).

Among white Democrats, 58% say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution. About four-in-ten Black and Hispanic Democrats say the same (42% each). These gaps remain when taking differences in educational attainment into account.

And while more than eight-in-ten Democrats across age groups support adopting the ERA, those ages 65 and older are more likely than those who are younger to express strong support. About six-in-ten Democrats ages 65 and older (63%) say they strongly favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, compared with 46% of Democrats ages 18 to 29 and ages 30 to 49 and 52% of those 50 to 64.

These differences by age, educational attainment and race and ethnicity are present among Democratic men and women. Among Republicans, the only notable demographic split on views of adopting the ERA is along gender lines.

Many say adding the ERA to the Constitution wouldn’t make much difference for women’s rights

Despite widespread support for adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution, 49% of Americans say this would not make much of a difference when it comes to women’s rights in the country; 44% say this would advance women’s rights and 5% think this would be a setback for women’s rights.

Even among those who favor adding the ERA to the Constitution, a sizable share (44%) is skeptical that this would have much of an impact, while 54% say it would advance women’s rights and just 2% see it as a potential setback. Democratic supporters of the ERA are far more likely than their Republican counterparts to say this would advance women’s rights in our country (63% vs. 38%). A majority of Republican ERA supporters (59%) say adding it to the Constitution wouldn’t make much difference.

Overall, male and female supporters of the ERA offer similar assessments of the impact adding the amendment to the Constitution would have on women’s rights; 54% of women and 53% of men who favor adopting the ERA say this would advance women’s rights in the U.S. Women ages 18 to 29 are more optimistic than women in older age groups to say adding the ERA to the Constitution would advance women’s rights. About six-in-ten women younger than 30 who support the ERA (63%) say adopting the amendment would advance women’s rights, compared with about half of older women who favor the ERA.

For the most part, adults who oppose adding the ERA to the U.S. Constitution say doing so wouldn’t make much difference for women’s rights (69% say this), while 20% think this would be a setback for women’s rights and 10% say it would advance women’s rights.

• For more details, see the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• The shares who say feminism has helped each group of women at least a little may not add to the shares who say “a lot” and “a little” as shown in the chart due to rounding. ↩
• The shares of women who say feminism has helped them personally at least a little may not add to the shares who say “a lot” and “a little” as shown in the chart due to rounding. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Gender & Leadership
• Gender & Politics
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Americans’ views of offensive speech aren’t necessarily clear-cut

Cultural issues and the 2024 election, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular, report materials.

• 19th Amendment Survey

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Global Working Group

The economics of women's rights.

Two centuries ago, in most countries around the world, women were unable to vote, had no say over their own children or property, and could not obtain a divorce. Women have gradually gained rights in many areas of life, and this legal expansion has been closely intertwined with economic development. We aim to understand the drivers behind these reforms. To this end, we distinguish between four types of women's rights—economic, political, labor, and body—and document their evolution over the past 50 years across countries. We summarize the political-economy mechanisms that link economic development to changes in women's rights and show empirically that these mechanisms account for a large share of the variation in women's rights across countries and over time.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Health Serv Res
• v.54(Suppl 2); 2019 Dec

Gender discrimination in the United States: Experiences of women

Gillian k. steelfisher.

1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston Massachusetts

Mary G. Findling

Sara n. bleich, logan s. casey, robert j. blendon, john m. benson, justin m. sayde, carolyn miller.

2 Research, Evaluation, and Learning Unit, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton New Jersey

Associated Data

To examine reported experiences of gender discrimination and harassment among US women.

Data Source and Study Design

Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey of 1596 women, conducted January‐April 2017.

We calculated the percentages of women reporting gender discrimination and harassment in several domains, including health care. We used logistic regression to examine variation in experiences among women by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity.

Principal Findings

Sizable fractions of women experience discrimination and harassment, including discrimination in health care (18 percent), equal pay/promotions (41 percent), and higher education (20 percent). In adjusted models, Native American, black, and Latina women had higher odds than white women of reporting gender discrimination in several domains, including health care. Latinas’ odds of health care avoidance versus whites was (OR [95% CI]) 3.69 (1.59, 8.58), while blacks’ odds of discrimination in health care visits versus whites was 2.00 [1.06, 3.74]. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) women had higher odds of reporting sexual harassment (2.16 [1.06, 4.40]) and violence (2.71 [1.43, 5.16]) against themselves or female family members than non‐LGBTQ women.

Conclusions

Results suggest that discrimination and harassment are widely experienced by women across multiple domains of their lives, particularly those who are a racial/ethnic minority or LGBTQ. Further policy and programmatic efforts beyond current legal protections for women are needed to meaningfully reduce these negative experiences, as they impact women's health care and their lives overall.

1. INTRODUCTION

The prominence of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have heightened public awareness of discrimination, sexual assault, and harassment against women in the United States. 1 While this is an important step in bringing visibility to these issues, these movements were popularized largely by anecdotal experiences of celebrities, with an emphasis on the impact for their careers. In order to identify appropriate policies that address discrimination for the larger public and to support related health outcomes, it is critical to examine and document experiences of discrimination among a broader swath of women and across a broader spectrum of life domains, including health. It is particularly important to examine the experience of women at risk for multiple types of discrimination, including racial/ethnic minority women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) women.

Evidence about the negative health effects of gender discrimination is grounded in a strong body of literature, showing that the gender‐based discrimination and harassment that women experience in the workplace affect their physical and mental health, as well as their economic opportunities. 2 , 3 , 4 Such discrimination and harassment further contribute to gender inequalities in health. 5 , 6 Research has also shown there is gender‐based discrimination against women in health care interactions and gender bias in medicine, which can have negative health impacts. 7 , 8 , 9

Evidence about the health impact of gender discrimination is supported indirectly by literature documenting the relationship between racial/ethnic discrimination and negative health outcomes. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 These studies suggest that the experience of discrimination—be it institutional (eg, health care) or interpersonal (eg, microaggressions)—increases the body's stress response over time, and that discrimination is linked to a range of poor health‐related behaviors, mental health outcomes, and physical health problems, including high blood pressure, heart disease, and mortality. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 Experiencing gender discrimination may negatively impact women's health through parallel mechanisms, that is, through both psychological and physiological stress responses and health behaviors that lead to worse health outcomes. 15 , 16 Research in the field also suggests that women who are racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately exposed to discrimination and are also more likely to experience health effects of discrimination. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 Similarly, women who identify as LGBTQ are at higher risk for experiencing discrimination than their non‐LGBTQ counterparts. 20 , 21

While older studies document gender discrimination in discrete areas of women's lives (eg, the workplace), increasing evidence about the health risks of discrimination suggests an updated examination across a broader range of areas is warranted. 2 , 6 , 14 , 22 The purpose of this specific study is twofold: (a) to document the prevalence of gender discrimination against women across multiple institutional and interpersonal domains, including health care, education, employment, housing, political participation, police and the criminal justice system, slurs, microaggressions, harassment, and violence; and (b) to examine the variation in discrimination experiences of racial/ethnic minority women and LGBTQ women. This study brings a public health perspective to the complexity and pervasiveness of discrimination in the United States today alongside complementary articles in this issue of Health Services Research . It was conducted as part of a larger survey fielded in 2017 to understand nationally representative experiences of discrimination against several different groups in America today, including blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, women, and LGBTQ people.

2.1. Study design and sample

Data were obtained from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone (cell and landline) survey of US adults, conducted from January 26 to April 9, 2017. The survey was jointly designed by Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and National Public Radio. SSRS administered the survey. Because Harvard researchers were not directly involved in data collection and de‐identified datasets were used for analysis, the study was determined to be “not human subjects research” by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health Office of Human Research Administration.

The full survey sample included 3453 US adults aged 18 years and older, and this paper examines the subsample of 1596 US women. The completion rate for this survey was 74 percent among respondents who answered initial demographic screening questions, with a 10 percent overall response rate, calculated based on the American Association for Public Opinion Research's (AAPOR) RR3 formula. 23 Because data from this study were drawn from a probability sample and used the best available sampling and weighting practices in polling methods (eg, 68 percent of interviews were conducted by cell phone, and 32 percent were conducted via landline), they are expected to provide accurate results consistent with surveys with higher response rates 24 , 25 and are therefore reliably generalizable to the broader population of US women, within a margin of error of ± 4.6 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. See Benson, Ben‐Porath, and Casey (2019) for a further description of the survey methodology. 26

2.2. Survey instrument

Polling questions were developed using AAPOR best practices for survey research, after conducting a review of available survey questions on discrimination. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 27 The questionnaire was reviewed by external experts for bias, balance, and comprehension, and it was pretested in the field before it was conducted among the full sample. 26 The poll asked about women's experiences of discrimination, including harassment. We conceptualized gender discrimination as differential or unfair treatment of individuals based on their self‐identification as a woman/female. We include discrimination that is “institutional,” meaning propagated by social institutions (based on laws, policies, institutions, and related behavior of individuals who work in or control these laws, policies, or institution) or “interpersonal,” meaning propagated by individuals (based on beliefs, words, and behavior). 11 , 27 , 28 We analyzed 17 questions from the survey, covering six interpersonal and six institutional areas of discrimination that women may face (question wording in Appendix S1 ). Institutional areas included employment, education, health care, housing, political participation, and police and courts. Interpersonal areas included gender‐based slurs, microaggressions, sexual harassment, being threatened or nonsexually harassed, and violence. We also examined two areas in which concerns about discrimination might prevent women from taking potentially needed action: seeking health or police services. We examined discrimination in domains previously demonstrated to be associated with health (eg, health care interactions), 8 , 9 as well as domains outside health services research (eg, police interactions), to capture a wide range of possible discriminatory experiences across women's lives. Questions were only asked among a random half sample of respondents in order to maximize the number of questions (and thus dimensions of discrimination considered) while limiting the survey length and time burden for any individual respondent. Questions were only asked of relevant subgroups (eg, questions about college only asked among women who had ever applied to or attended college). Questions about harassment, violence, and avoiding institutions for fear of discrimination were asked about yourself or family members because of the sensitive nature of the topic and prior literature demonstrating that vicariously experiencing stress (eg, through discrimination experienced by family members) can directly and adversely affect individuals. 29

2.3. Statistical analyses

We first calculated the prevalence of all women who reported that they had ever experienced gender discrimination in each of the domains. Second, we generated bivariate statistics to assess whether women in racial/ethnic minority groups or women in a sexual and/or gender minority (LGBTQ) were more likely to experience gender discrimination. For race/ethnicity, women self‐identified with one of the following mutually exclusive groups: white (reference group); Hispanic or Latina; black; Asian; American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native American; or Other. If respondents identified as Latina and another race, interviewers asked if they identified more with being Hispanic/Latina (coded as Latina) or more with the other race (coded as the other race). For sexual orientation and/or gender identity, women were classified as LGBTQ if they identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer, or if they identified as transgender or genderqueer/gender nonconforming. Women were classified as non‐LGBTQ if they self‐identified as heterosexual/straight and female gender, and did not identify as transgender or genderqueer/gender nonconforming. Using pairwise t tests of differences in proportions, we made uncontrolled comparisons of the percentage of women reporting discrimination between racial/ethnic minority and white women, as well as between LGBTQ and non‐LGBTQ women. Differences achieving statistical significance at P  < .05 are discussed in the results.

To give further consideration as to whether race/ethnicity or LGBTQ status is a driver of these associations, we then conducted logistic regression models to assess whether reporting discrimination remained significantly associated with race/ethnicity or sexual orientation/gender identity after controlling for the following possible confounders: age (18‐29, 30‐49, 50‐64, 65+); self‐reported household income (<$25 000, $25 000‐<$50 000, $50 000‐<$75 000, $75 000+), education (less than college degree or college graduate), and, for health care questions only, current health insurance status (uninsured, Medicaid insured, non‐Medicaid insured). Finally, we examined whether each sociodemographic variable was significantly associated with experiencing discrimination across domains in order to consider other possible drivers of gender discrimination.

To compensate for known biases in telephone surveys (eg, nonresponse bias) and variations in probability of selection within and across households, sample data were weighted by household size and composition, cell phone/landline use, and demographics (age, education, race/ethnicity, and Census region) to reflect the true population distribution of women in the country. Other techniques, including random‐digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and random selection of a respondent within a household, were used to ensure that the sample is representative. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp), and all tests accounted for the variance introduced by weighted data.

Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of this nationally representative sample of women are displayed in Table ​ Table1. 1 . A majority were white (65 percent), 15 percent were Hispanic/Latina, 13 percent were black, 6 percent were Asian, and 1 percent were Native American. About nine in ten women (89 percent) identified as non‐LGBTQ, 7 percent identified as LGBTQ, and 4 percent refused to answer sexual orientation/gender identity questions.

Weighted characteristics of a nationally representative sample of women in the United States, overall and by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity a

Sizeable fractions reported personally experiencing institutional discrimination across all domains of life examined. For example, about one in five women (18 percent) reported gender‐based discrimination when going to a doctor or health clinic, while more than four in 10 (41 percent) reported such discrimination in obtaining equal pay or being considered for promotions, and 31 percent reported discrimination in applying for jobs. Approximately one‐fifth experienced discrimination in applying to or while attending college (20 percent), and a similar fraction experienced discrimination trying to rent a room/apartment or buy a house (16 percent) or in interacting with the police (15 percent).

Sizable fractions of women reported experiencing interpersonal discrimination personally or within their family: 37 percent reported that they or female family members have experienced sexual harassment, and 29 percent said they or female family members have been threatened or nonsexually harassed. More than a fifth (21 percent) said they or family members experienced violence because they are women.

Concerns that they would experience discrimination also prevented some women from taking action to protect themselves: 9 percent reported that they have avoided the doctor or seeking health care for themselves or their family, and the same percentage (9 percent) reported that they have avoided calling the police or other authority figures, even when in need.

Looking at uncontrolled comparisons across racial/ethnic groups, black, Native American, and Hispanic/Latina women were more likely to report discrimination than white women in several domains (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). In particular, Native American women were dramatically more likely to than white women to report sexual harassment (62 vs 42 percent, P  < .03), threats or nonsexual harassment (58 vs 31 percent, P  < .01), and gender‐based violence (58 vs 21 percent, P  < .01) against themselves or a female family member. They were also more likely to avoid health care because of concerns about gender‐based discrimination or poor treatment (27 vs 7 percent, P  < .02). Asian women, and in a few cases Hispanic/Latina women, were less likely to report discrimination than white women in some domains.

Differences in percent of women reporting gender discrimination, by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity a

There were also differences between LGBTQ and non‐LGBTQ women's experiences of discrimination and harassment. LGBTQ women were more likely than non‐LGBTQ women to report gender discrimination when it comes to being paid equally or considered for promotions (61 vs 40 percent, P  < .01). When it comes to interpersonal discrimination against themselves or female family members, they were more likely to report sexual harassment (65 vs 36 percent, P  < .01), being threatened or nonsexually harassed (48 vs. 28 percent, P  < .01), and experiencing violence (42 vs 20 percent, P  < .01).

After we controlled for potential sociodemographic confounders in logistic regression models, many of the racial/ethnic and sexual orientation/gender identity differences persisted, and six emerged (see Tables ​ Tables3 3 and ​ and4 4 for detailed results). Notably, the odds of Native American women reporting discrimination were significantly higher than white women across nine domains, while the odds of Latina and black women were higher than whites in two and three domains, respectively. Notably, Asian women had lower odds than whites for reporting discrimination in seven domains, and all racial/ethnic minority women had lower odds of reporting sexual harassment compared to white women (Table ​ (Table4 4 ).

Odds of reporting personal experiences of gender discrimination across institutional domains among a nationally representative sample of US women

Abbreviations: CI, Confidence Interval; OR, Odds Ratio.

Odds of reporting interpersonal experiences of gender discrimination across domains among a nationally representative sample of US women

As in uncontrolled comparisons, adjusted models showed that LGBTQ women had higher odds of reporting gender discrimination in obtaining equal pay and promotions, sexual harassment, and violence compared to their non‐LGBTQ counterparts.

Several additional sociodemographic characteristics in the models were associated with discrimination. In both health care domains, uninsured women also had significantly higher odds of reporting gender discrimination than women with non‐Medicaid insurance. College‐educated women had significantly higher odds of reporting discrimination across both health care domains and all interpersonal domains compared to women without a college education. Women ages 18‐29 had significantly higher odds of reporting discrimination in most interpersonal domains compared to women 30 and over.

4. DISCUSSION

This study presents strong evidence that US women report widespread discrimination and harassment. This continuing evidence of reported systemic institutional and interpersonal discrimination against women suggests that additional policies and programs are needed to eliminate discrimination at the population level beyond legal protections already in place (eg, through the 19th amendment and Title IX ) and, subsequently, address negative health consequences associated with these experiences. Several findings are particularly relevant to consideration for those working to develop, implement, and evaluate policies addressing gender discrimination in the United States.

First, results confirm that many women experience interpersonal and institutional gender discrimination not only within the workplace, but also across a wide spectrum of other domains, including health care, higher education, housing, and the legal system. Our findings raise a host of concerns not only about gender discrimination within these individual domains, but also across them. While it is beyond the scope of our results to promote specific policies or practices to end gender discrimination in the United States, these results make clear that future work needs to consider the interrelated experiences of discrimination across multiple facets of women's lives.

Second, findings related to the experiences of gender discrimination within the health care arena suggest focused attention is needed here. It is alarming that one in five women report discrimination in their clinical experience and one in ten report avoiding care. It may be important to develop policies specific to the complexities of medical decision making, with recognition that gender inequalities in the underlying clinical evidence base may play a role in how decision making occurs in the clinical setting. 30 Further, given that both Latina and black women report higher odds of gender discrimination in health care, policies may need to account for the needs of these groups of women particularly. 9

Third, the evidence points to persistent experiences of gender discrimination and harassment against women in racial/ethnic minorities even outside health care. Our findings of discrimination and harassment among Native American women in particular were striking, as a majority reported personally experiencing gender discrimination in obtaining equal pay or promotions and that they or female family members had experienced both sexual and nonsexual harassment, as well as violence. These results are consistent with other findings of high incidence of violence, sexual violence, abuse, and assault against Native American women. They are especially troubling given further evidence that the high prevalence of historical and current trauma that Native American women experience has resulted in substantially worse health outcomes. 31 , 32 Findings are also consistent with prior evidence that Native American women avoid health care systems they do not perceive as culturally safe. 32 These findings raise important concerns about relevant gender discrimination policy for Native American women specifically, as well as broader considerations of policy support for women who are at risk of multiple and compounded types of discrimination based on their race/ethnicity and gender.

Fourth, we note that women who identified as LGBTQ were more likely to experience gender discrimination in work and more likely to experience (directly or through family) interpersonal discrimination including sexual harassment and violence. This adds to existing evidence that LGBTQ women experience high rates of sexual violence 33 and provides additional evidence about the experience of discrimination across multiple dimensions of their lives. Policies to guard against anti‐LGBTQ discrimination may need to consider the multiple and potentially compounded types of discrimination that LGBTQ women specifically face in these arenas.

Notably, our findings of greater reported interpersonal discrimination among college‐educated women are consistent with other literature showing positive associations between socioeconomic status and reported discrimination among racial/ethnic minorities. 27 , 34 However, it is unclear whether this relationship is driven by unequal exposures (eg, greater contact with institutions where women may experience discrimination/harassment) or differential reporting (eg, higher likelihood of recognizing and/or self‐reporting discrimination/harassment).

4.1. Limitations

Our results should be interpreted considering several limitations. First, although we assessed perspectives across a broad range of settings, we only examined a subset of types of discrimination and harassment that women may experience, and thus, we cannot speak to the full scope of discrimination. Second, we assessed whether women have or have not experienced any types of discrimination, without regard to timing or severity. This limits the ability to detect current levels experienced and instead focuses on lifetime experiences. However, lifetime experiences remain valid measures of discrimination, as discriminatory experiences may have long‐term effects on behavior or health. 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 Third, we note that many forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment and violence, are often under‐reported—particularly on surveys administered by an interviewer, such as in this study. 35 Prior research has also found that women are often reluctant to label offensive experiences as “harassment.” 22 To overcome the challenge of sensitive topic areas, we asked whether “you or someone in your family who is also female” had experienced gendered harassment or violence. Nonetheless, respondents may have not been comfortable answering these questions over the phone and also may have interpreted questions differently based on varying backgrounds and expectations. Women may also face multiple types of discrimination simultaneously based on intersecting parts of their social identities (eg, based on both gender and race). 17 It is not always possible for women to disentangle the reasons they face discrimination, so restricting analyses to only gender‐based discrimination may result in underreporting of discrimination by some respondents, and this may be different across women of different racial/ethnic or LGBTQ identities. Questions about discrimination based on race/ethnicity and LGBTQ identity are examined separately in other articles in this issue. Fourth, nonresponse bias is a concern in public opinion surveys, though evidence suggests that low response rates do not bias results if the survey sample is representative of the study population. 24 , 25 Recent research has shown that such surveys, when based on probability samples and weighted using US Census parameters, yield accurate estimates in most cases when compared with both objective measures and higher response surveys. 24 , 25 , 36 , 37 For instance, a recent study showed that across fourteen different demographic and personal characteristics, the average difference between government estimates from high‐response rate surveys and a Pew Research Center poll with a response rate similar to this poll was 3 percentage points. 24 However, it is still possible that some selection bias may remain that is related to the experiences being measured. Finally, we note that this survey was conducted before the viral October 2017 #MeToo movement, catalyzed by 80 women accusing film producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment and abuse. 38 This movement may have increased the salience of issues and increased subsequent self‐reported sexual harassment, so results from this study may be considered lower bound estimates of self‐reported gender‐based sexual harassment. 1 , 39

Despite these limitations, this study design was strengthened by its probability sampling design and by the breadth of questions asked on gender discrimination across institutions and interpersonally. It allowed us to examine reported experiences of gender discrimination and harassment among women. Most of the limitations suggest that our findings may underreport the experiences of discrimination and harassment, and thus, our results can be considered a lower bound estimate of gender discrimination and harassment in the United States today. We may also underreport the added burden of discrimination against women who are racial/ethnic minorities or LGBTQ. In the end, our findings further support the need for policy and programmatic efforts beyond current legal protections for women to reduce gender discrimination and harassment in order to improve women's health and well‐being.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Far beyond isolated cases, women report experiencing widespread discrimination across many areas of their lives with public, private, or governmental institutions—including in health care, the workplace, and higher education, as well as in personal interactions through gender slurs, microaggressions, and harassment. Women's experiences of discrimination vary widely by racial/ethnic background, LGBTQ identity, and other sociodemographic factors, with Native American women experiencing particularly high rates of gender discrimination and harassment across multiple areas of their lives. Evidence here amplifies findings from other papers in this journal issue on the multidimensional nature of gender discrimination in the United States, which impact women's health care and their lives overall. Major institutional changes in policy and programs should address these issues on a larger scale to combat systematic gender discrimination in the United States in all its facets.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

Joint Acknowledgment/Disclosure Statement : This work was supported by Grant #73713 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Dr. SteelFisher's husband has done work for Eli Lilly in the past five years and has minority ownership in a company that does work for Eli Lilly. Some readers may wish to know all healthcare‐related financial relationships of the authors.

SteelFisher GK, Findling MG, Bleich SN, et al. Gender discrimination in the United States: Experiences of women . Health Serv Res . 2019; 54 :1442–1453. 10.1111/1475-6773.13217 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reproductive Rights of Women: A Way to Gender Justice

37 Pages Posted: 16 Oct 2015

Hina Iliyas

Jamia Millia Islamia

Date Written: October 15, 2015

Women have been fighting the struggle for reproductive rights for centuries. Historically, these rights are an especially controversial subject due to the moral, ethical, and religious considerations. Do reproductive rights merely mean the right to reproduce? Or is the issue inextricably linked to the numerous questions that surround women’s reproductive freedom? The ability to reproduce seems to be what sets women apart from men. But do women have control over their own reproduction? Do women have the freedom to choose whether, when, and how many children to have? Do women have access to safe birth control methods? Do women have the right to safe abortion? Can sexuality be separated from reproduction? A big ‘NO’ in answer to many such questions led to the emergence of the women’s health movement in different parts of the world in the early 1970’s. It started as small ‘consciousness raising’ groups, which began by spreading awareness among women about the functioning of their bodies and gradually evolved into multi-faceted campaigns that have significantly influenced health policies in many countries. Human Rights are those rights, which should be available to every individual without any discrimination of any kind. Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom. The most important right of a Human is the Right to Life. It is the supreme human right from which no derogation is permitted. It is inalienable. The Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit the arbitrary deprivation of life. But there are some controversial issues related to this supreme right. One such issue is the question of Right to abortion. Among other rights of women, it is believed that every mother has a right to abortion, it is a universal right. But the rights of the mother are to be balanced with the rights of the unborn. Earlier the right to abortion was not permitted and it was strongly opposed the society. The termination of pregnancy was termed to be a murder of the foetus. But due to the change in time and technology, nowadays this right has been legally sanctioned by most of the nations after the famous decision of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court. But the oppositions are still present and people do believe that it should be legally prohibited. The question which is the reason for this discussion is -- whether a mother has a right to abortion vis-à-vis the right to life of the unborn. What are the International Instruments which sanction the right to abortion. What is the stand of India on this.

Keywords: reproduction, women, freedom, control, body, abortion

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Hina Iliyas (Contact Author)

Jamia millia islamia ( email ).

Centre for Management Studies OKHLA New Delhi, ID New Delhi India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, women, gender & the law ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Family & Children's Law eJournal

Social & political philosophy ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Public Health Law & Policy eJournal

Law & society: family law, relations & dispute resolution ejournal, human rights & the corporation ejournal, sexuality & the law ejournal, reproductive justice, law & policy ejournal, human rights ejournal.

• Animal Physiology
• Human Physiology

Movement of Female's Rights in the World

• December 2015
• International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 2(6):26
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Fem Media Stud

• ANAL CHIM ACTA

• Imelda Whelehan
• D. Hollenbach

• Mehrzad Javadi Kouchaksaraei

• Alice Abel Kemp

• Winston A. Van Horne
• Joan B. Landes
• Joan Wallach Scott
• Virginia Sapiro
• Wang Xiaobo
• Radh A Kumar
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans

• 1 Planned Parenthood of Montana, Billings, Montana
• 2 Resound Research for Reproductive Health, Austin, Texas
• 3 Hunter College, City University of New York, New York
• 4 Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, Massachusetts
• 5 Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
• Editor's Note Access to Safe Abortion for Survivors of Rape Deborah Grady, MD, MPH; Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH; Mitchell H. Katz, MD JAMA Internal Medicine
• Medical News in Brief 65 000 Rape-Related Pregnancies Took Place in US States With Abortion Bans Emily Harris JAMA
• Correction Error in Methods, Results, and Table 2 JAMA Internal Medicine

Many US women report experiencing sexual violence, and many seek abortion for rape-related pregnancies. 1 Following the US Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ( Dobbs ) decision overturning Roe v Wade , 14 states have outlawed abortion at any gestational duration. 2 Although 5 of these states allow exceptions for rape-related pregnancies, stringent gestational duration limits apply, and survivors must report the rape to law enforcement, a requirement likely to disqualify most survivors of rape, of whom only 21% report their rape to police. 3

• Editor's Note Access to Safe Abortion for Survivors of Rape JAMA Internal Medicine

Read More About

Dickman SL , White K , Himmelstein DU , Lupez E , Schrier E , Woolhandler S. Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans. JAMA Intern Med. 2024;184(3):330–332. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0014

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Best of JAMA Network 2022

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained

A proposed Republican party platform has been approved at the party’s national convention, but a much more detailed proposal from a conservative think tank has also been drawing attention.

Project 2025 was created by the Heritage Foundation and runs for more than 900 pages.

Trump has disavowed Project 2025, though critics have pointed out it was led by former officials in his administration.

The document calls for the sacking of thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education, sweeping tax cuts, a ban on pornography, halting sales of the abortion pill, and more.

There is agreement between many parts of the official Republican platform and Project 2025, although the think-tank document is much more detailed and in some policy areas goes much further than the party line.

There is a sharper contrast between the two when it comes to the issue of abortion, with Heritage urging much more aggressive anti-abortion policies.

Who wrote Project 2025?

It is common for Washington think tanks of all political stripes to propose policy wish lists for potential governments-in-waiting.

The conservative Heritage Foundation first produced policy plans for future Republican administrations in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was about to take office.

It has produced similar documents in connection with subsequent presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump won the presidency.

A year into his term, the think tank boasted that the Trump White House had adopted nearly two-thirds of its proposals.

The Project 2025 report was unveiled in April 2023, but liberal opposition to the document has ramped up now that Trump has extended his polling lead.

The Republican nominee himself has distanced himself from the proposal.

"I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his social media website, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it.

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

But the team that created the project is chock-full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president.

Mr Dans left the project in late July, clearing the way for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to take over. He said he was leaving during the presidential election season in order to "direct all my efforts to winning, bigly".

Russell Vought, another former Trump administration official, wrote a key chapter in the document and also serves as the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform policy director.

More than 100 conservative organisations contributed to the document, Heritage says, including many that would be hugely influential in Washington if Republicans took back the White House.

The Project 2025 document sets out four main policy aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.

Here's an outline of several of its key proposals.

Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control - a controversial idea known as "unitary executive theory".

In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.

The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.

The document labels the FBI a "bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization". It calls for drastic overhauls of this and several other federal agencies, as well as the complete elimination of the Department of Education.

What does the Republican party platform say?

The party platform includes a proposal to "declassify government records, root out wrongdoers, and fire corrupt employees", pledges to slash regulation and government spending. But it stops short of proposing a sweeping overhaul of federal agencies as outlined in Project 2025.

Immigration

Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border - one of Trump's signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document.

Project 2025 also proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and combining it with other immigration enforcement units in other agencies, creating a much larger and more powerful border policing operation.

Other proposals include eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.

Not all of those details are repeated in the party platform, but the overall headlines are similar - the party is promising to implement the "largest deportation programme in American history".

What a Trump second term would look like

Climate and economy.

The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to "stop the war on oil and natural gas".

Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and energy security.

The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to imports.

But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.

The party platform does not go as far as Project 2025 in these policy areas. The platform instead talks of bringing down inflation and drilling for oil to reduce energy costs, but is thin on specific policy proposals.

Abortion and family

Project 2025 does not call outright for a nationwide abortion ban.

However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, and using existing but little-enforced laws to stop the drug being sent through the post.

The document suggests that the department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family".

On this issue at least, the document differs fairly substantially from the Republican platform, which only mentions the word "abortion" once. The platform says abortion laws should be left to individual states and that late-term abortions (which it does not define) should be banned.

It adds that that access to prenatal care, birth control and in-vitro fertilisation should be protected. The party platform makes no mention of cracking down on the distribution of mifepristone.

Tech and education

Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that allow access would be shut down.

The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls "woke propaganda".

It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including "sexual orientation", "gender equality", "abortion" and "reproductive rights".

Project 2025 aims to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and government departments as part of what it describes as a wider crackdown on "woke" ideology.

Project 2025's proposals in this policy area are broadly reflected in the Republican platform, which in addition to calling for the abolishing the Department of Education, aims to boost school choice and parental control over education and criticises what the party calls the "inappropriate political indoctrination of our children".

Social Security

Although Heritage has long supported reforming the country's public pension plan, Project 2025 barely touches this third rail of American politics.

The platform says Social Security is a "lifeline" for millions of retired Americans and Republicans will "restore Economic Stability to ensure the long-term sustainability" of the programme.

The plan's future

Project 2025 is backed by a $22m (£17m) budget and includes strategies for implementing policies immediately after the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

Heritage is also creating a database of conservative loyalists to fill government positions, and a programme to train those new workers.

Democrats led by Jared Huffman, a congressman from California, have launched a Stop Project 2025 Task Force.

And many of the proposals would likely face immediate legal challenges from Trump's opponents if implemented.

Four surprises that could upend the 2024 US election

Where biden and trump stand on key issues, four things that could decide who wins us election.