Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9 results

  • Foreword
  • Edited by Beverley Baines, Queen's University, Ontario, Daphne Barak-Erez, Tel-Aviv University, Tsvi Kahana, Queen's University, Ontario
  • Book: Feminist Constitutionalism
  • Published online: 05 June 2012
  • Print publication: 16 April 2012, pp ix-xii
  • View extract

    Summary

    If feminism is what some of its purported academic adherents have made it over the last two decades or so, many of us have long been part of some other movement. The present volume goes far in reclaiming its promise as, in the words of Dean Daphne Barak-Erez, “a new interpretive perspective on human knowledge, including in the legal sphere,” as well as a tool for intervening in legal practice.

    Women have not, in general, written or agreed to constitutions. Powerful men have written them a long time ago as if women did not exist, after wars in the waging and peacemaking of which women often did not actively participate, by foreign experts who assumed that liberalism was enough for women, by the accretion of practices in which women have had more or less say. More recently, women have had some voice in constitutive processes, but nowhere near half of the clout. With exceptions, dominant men have largely interpreted constitutions, and have overwhelmingly confined debates they deem authoritative on them, to terms they set.