ReligionDispatches.org

This is not the first time the Vatican is blaming feminism for what it

considers terrible things happening in the world today. While visiting

Manila-Philippines, Vatican official Paul Josef Cordes declared

yesterday that "feminism" is not only eroding manhood but causing "a

crisis in fatherhood."

According to Cordes, "gender mainstreaming" and "radical feminism"

attack biological manhood by insisting that gender roles are learned.

He claims that men are demeaned by the ideal of a "sweeter man" who is

both emasculated and feminized.

Cordes lays the blame for delinquency and suicides among

"fatherless children," on women. This prompted a local feminist (who

considers "sweeter men" as a cause for celebration) to ask the obvious:

"How is it that when men abandon their families, women get blamed?"

Cordes' lament comes in the wake of deliberations in the Philippine

Senate, which is likely to result in the passage of pro-women's rights

legislation called the Magna Carta for Women. The bill seeks to adopt

the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) into local

legislation.

While there is reason to hope that a law furthering women's rights

will be passed soon, it was recently noted in the local media that the influential wife of a former Senator was "lobbying" in the Senate by threatening senators with no less than the

"opprobrium of the Catholic bishops."  Even as I write this post, advocates are hard at work to defend

the provisions of the bill, which are being targeted for deletion by

the self-appointed Catholic lobbyists.

One Senator who was approached to introduce the amendments claims

that the Catholic Bishop's Conference (CBCP) denied that the so-called

amendments (accompanied by a letter from the Archbishop of San

Fernando Pampanga, on the official stationery of the CBCP) are the

"official" position of the CBCP.

I received a copy of the proposed amendments and apart from a

handful of useful grammatical suggestions the proposal, which seeks to

delete virtually all references to gender and human rights, defies both

logic and fairness.

Gender is a widely used term in international human rights law. As

a "social category" which is commonly used as a basis for

discrimination and/or subordinate treatment, gender is specified

alongside race, sex, religion, language, and ethnicity in relation to

the principle of non-discrimination. One UN document reflecting such

usage is General Recommendation No. 19 of the CEDAW on Violence Against

Women (VAW), which defines "gender-based" violence.

As an analytical or evaluative standard for inclusion on the other

side of discriminatory practice and exclusion, mandating the

integration of a "gender perspective" in General Recommendation No. 14

by the Committee on the International Convention on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) relates to the manner of compliance by

states of their obligation under the treaty to promote and protect the

"right to health."  As an evaluative standard, "gender" helps to

highlight erstwhile "neutral" policies and programs, which usually end

up adopting male biased standards.

Health has proven to be especially problematic for gender-blind

policy because of the differing reproductive health needs of the sexes,

as well as the varying impact of health interventions on marginalized

groups which includes women and sexual minorities.

The Catholic lobbyists' proposed amendments do not really provide a full discussion of their position but it attacks the CEDAW:

The

above language is bad. CEDAW opens the door for several policies that

can violate constitutional rights such as marriage, life, the right of

parents to educate their children, etc. Additionally, it extends to

other international instruments, which includes CEDAW's protocol and

other later conventions such the one (sic) on the elderly (includes

euthanasia), children, etc. which could allow the authors to claim that

the right to life is not a universally recognized international human

right.

The Philippines has ratified all International Human Rights

Instruments to date (save for the Rome Statute establishing the

International Criminal Court) while the International Convention on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other instruments affirm the right to

life, though there is no "International Convention on Euthanasia." Given

its rejection of human rights, patent absurdity, and disregard for fair

play (grassroots women have been lobbying and working with Congress

through the legislative cycle over the last six years while the new

amendments came long after the period for deliberations and

interpellation) surely the proposed amendments will be impossible to

peddle in the august halls of the Philippine Senate?

I still don't understand how making women better off and in a

position to exercise their rights is an affront to men. I do, however,

in this case understand how politicians desperate for the Catholic

hierarchy's backing in the 2010 Philippine elections can dash women's

hopes.