Feminist scholarship on human rights emerged from a profound dissatisfaction with the traditional human rights framework, which was perceived as inherently biased, incomplete, and largely ineffective in addressing the myriad forms of oppression and violence experienced by women globally. This critical perspective began to gain significant traction in the late 20th century, particularly leading up to and following the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, where the rallying cry “women’s rights are human rights” became a powerful statement of intent. The core premise of feminist human rights theory is that the mainstream human rights discourse, shaped largely by Western, liberal, and male-centric perspectives, failed to adequately conceptualize, identify, and address the specific human rights violations faced by women, often rendering their experiences invisible or illegitimate within the existing legal and political structures.
At its heart, feminist human rights scholarship critiques the foundational assumptions, conceptual frameworks, and practical applications of conventional human rights law. It argues that the universalistic claims of human rights have historically been applied in a gender-blind manner, effectively excluding or marginalizing women’s unique experiences of discrimination and violence. This body of work challenges the very definition of “human” within the human rights paradigm, positing that it has often been implicitly masculine, failing to encompass the full spectrum of human experience, particularly as it pertains to gendered realities. The arguments put forth by feminist scholars are diverse, reflecting various waves of feminism and different theoretical approaches, but they converge on several key areas of critique, aiming to dismantle patriarchal structures within human rights and build a more inclusive, just, and effective framework for all.
Critique of the Public/Private Divide
One of the most foundational and persistent critiques leveled by feminist scholars against traditional human rights discourse is its inherent reliance on, and reinforcement of, the public/private divide. This conceptual distinction, deeply embedded in liberal political philosophy and subsequently mirrored in international law, posits a realm of public life, encompassing state actions, politics, and the marketplace, and a distinct realm of private life, comprising the family, home, and personal relationships. Historically, human rights law has primarily focused on abuses perpetrated by the state or its agents within the public sphere, such as torture by government officials, arbitrary detention, or restrictions on freedom of speech. The private sphere, conversely, was largely considered beyond the legitimate purview of state intervention and, consequently, outside the domain of human rights accountability.
Feminist scholars meticulously demonstrated how this rigid divide renders a vast array of human rights violations against women invisible and unaddressable. The vast majority of violence and discrimination experienced by women occurs not in public squares at the hands of the state, but within the domestic sphere, at the hands of family members, partners, or community members. Acts such as domestic violence, marital rape, forced marriage, honor killings, and female genital mutilation were historically dismissed as “private matters” or cultural practices, rather than recognized as grave human rights violations demanding state protection and intervention. By confining state responsibility primarily to the public sphere, the traditional framework effectively absolved states of their duty to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish such abuses, leaving women vulnerable and without recourse. Feminist advocacy, particularly through landmark events like the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action which explicitly stated that “the human rights of women and of the girl-child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights,” and subsequent developments like the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women, fundamentally challenged this divide. They argued that states have a positive obligation to exercise due diligence in preventing and responding to violence, regardless of whether it occurs in the public or private sphere, thereby expanding the understanding of state accountability to include non-state actors and private abuses.
Deconstructing the Masculinist Bias of the "Human"
Another central argument advanced by feminist scholars is that the very concept of the “human” in human rights discourse is implicitly and historically masculinized. The archetypal rights-bearing subject, from which traditional human rights principles emerged, is often portrayed as an autonomous, rational, self-sufficient individual, largely unencumbered by the dependencies and relational aspects of human life. This abstract, universal subject, rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, typically reflects the experiences and concerns of white, propertied men in public life, inadvertently marginalizing or ignoring the specific experiences and vulnerabilities of women, who have historically been relegated to dependent roles within the private sphere.
This masculinist bias manifests in several ways. Firstly, the emphasis in early human rights instruments predominantly fell on civil and political rights (e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, protection from torture, fair trial), which are often more relevant to men’s historical engagement in public life and political dissent. Economic, social, and cultural rights (e.g., rights to health, education, housing, work, food), which are often more critical to women’s material well-being, survival, and equality, were historically given less prominence or seen as aspirational goals rather than justiciable rights. Feminist scholars argue that this hierarchy of rights neglects the systemic economic and social disadvantages faced by women globally, which profoundly impact their ability to enjoy any human right.
Furthermore, the masculinist lens often disturbs the understanding of violence itself. Traditional human rights focused on state-sponsored physical and political violence, such as torture or arbitrary detention, which are typically enacted in public settings. While crucial, this focus overlooked the pervasive and systematic gender-based violence that women disproportionately face, including sexual violence, reproductive coercion, and the emotional and psychological abuses that underpin patriarchal control. Even in contexts of armed conflict, the traditional narrative often centered on male combatants and battlefield casualties, largely ignoring the systematic use of sexual violence against women as a weapon of war, mass displacement, or the particular impact of conflict on women’s livelihoods and bodies. Feminist critiques highlight how the very language and conceptual categories of human rights have historically failed to capture and legitimize women’s unique experiences of oppression, demanding a fundamental rethinking of whose experiences count as “human rights violations.”
Navigating Universalism and Cultural Relativism
The tension between Universalism and cultural relativism poses a significant challenge, which feminist scholars have critically engaged with. Traditional human rights discourse often asserts the universal applicability of rights, implying they transcend cultural, religious, and national boundaries. However, cultural relativist arguments often contend that rights must be interpreted within the context of specific cultural norms and traditions, which can lead to situations where “cultural practices” are invoked to justify practices that violate women’s rights, such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honor killings, or restrictions on women’s mobility and education.
Feminist scholars reject a simplistic cultural relativism that would permit human rights abuses under the guise of tradition. They argue that appeals to culture are often a thinly veiled excuse for maintaining patriarchal power structures and that “culture” is not monolithic or static but often interpreted and enforced by dominant male elites. They emphasize that many so-called “traditional” practices are harmful and are resisted by women within those very cultures. Simultaneously, feminists also critique a “thin” or “abstract” universalism that fails to account for the diverse realities of women globally and often reflects a particular Western liberal worldview, potentially imposing norms that do not genuinely resonate with or empower women in non-Western contexts.
Instead, feminist scholars advocate for a “redefined universalism” or “dialogical universalism.” This approach insists on the fundamental universality of human rights principles – particularly the rights to bodily integrity, dignity, equality, and non-discrimination – while also acknowledging the importance of cultural context and self-determination. It seeks to develop human rights norms that are genuinely inclusive of women’s diverse experiences and aspirations, empowering women within their own cultural contexts to challenge oppressive practices and define their own paths to liberation. This involves a nuanced understanding of culture as contested and evolving, recognizing women’s agency in shaping cultural meanings, and promoting human rights through dialogue and mutual respect rather than imposition.
Expanding the Scope of Human Rights: Beyond Civil and Political
Feminist scholars have been instrumental in pushing for a significant expansion of the human rights agenda, moving beyond the traditional emphasis on civil and political rights to encompass a broader spectrum of rights crucial for women’s well-being and equality. Their arguments highlight how the enjoyment of civil and political rights is often contingent upon the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCRs), and how the denial of ESCRs disproportionately impacts women, especially those in marginalized communities.
A major focus has been on reproductive rights, arguing for their recognition as fundamental human rights encompassing bodily autonomy, health, and freedom from discrimination. This includes the right to access comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare, including contraception and safe abortion services, freedom from forced sterilization or forced pregnancy, and the right to make informed decisions about one’s body and reproductive life without coercion. These rights are seen as essential for women’s physical and mental health, their ability to participate in public life, and their overall equality.
Furthermore, feminist scholarship has profoundly shaped the understanding of gender-based violence (GBV) as a human rights violation. This includes not only domestic violence and marital rape but also Trafficking for sexual exploitation or forced labor, sexual violence in conflict (e.g., systematic rape, sexual slavery), forced prostitution, and other forms of violence rooted in gender inequality. They argue that states have a comprehensive obligation to prevent, protect against, prosecute, and provide redress for GBV, whether perpetrated by state actors or private individuals. This has led to the development of specific international legal instruments and mechanisms addressing violence against women.
Beyond violence, feminists advocate for women’s economic rights, recognizing that economic disempowerment is a major barrier to women’s full enjoyment of human rights. This includes the right to equal pay for equal work, access to land and property, control over economic resources, and recognition of unpaid care work. They also emphasize the right to development, arguing that development initiatives must be gender-transformative, ensuring women’s equitable participation in and benefit from development processes.
The Power of Intersectionality
A crucial and increasingly influential argument within feminist human rights scholarship is the concept of intersectionality. Coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality posits that various social and political identities (such as gender, race, class, sexual orientation, disability, religion, caste, indigeneity) do not operate independently but intersect and interact, creating unique experiences of discrimination and disadvantage. This framework critiques the notion of a monolithic “woman” subject, arguing that women’s experiences are incredibly diverse and that a focus solely on gender can obscure the distinct forms of oppression faced by women at the intersections of multiple marginalized identities.
For instance, an indigenous woman with a disability living in poverty faces compounded discrimination that cannot be understood by merely adding up her experiences as a woman, as indigenous, as disabled, and as poor. Her specific vulnerabilities and forms of oppression are unique to the intersection of these identities. This means that human rights responses must be tailored and nuanced, recognizing that general provisions for “women’s rights” may not adequately address the particular challenges faced by, for example, Dalit women, Rohingya women, LGBTQ+ women, or migrant women.
The intersectional approach challenges human rights institutions to move beyond single-axis analyses of discrimination and to adopt a more complex understanding of how power operates and how inequalities are produced and reinforced. It calls for disaggregated data, context-specific analysis, and the inclusion of diverse women’s voices in the conceptualization, interpretation, and implementation of human rights. By highlighting the unique vulnerabilities and resilience of women with intersecting identities, feminist scholars push for human rights frameworks that are truly inclusive and capable of addressing the full spectrum of human rights violations.
Critique of State-Centricity and Emphasis on Accountability
While traditional human rights law primarily focuses on the state as the main duty-bearer responsible for upholding human rights, feminist scholars have expanded this view by critically examining the limits of state-centricity and emphasizing a broader understanding of Accountability, particularly concerning violence against women. They argue that while states are indeed the primary guarantors of human rights, abuses against women are frequently perpetrated by non-state actors, including family members, private individuals, armed groups, and increasingly, corporations.
Feminist scholars contend that the state’s responsibility extends beyond merely refraining from violating rights directly; it also encompasses a positive obligation to prevent human rights violations by non-state actors, to investigate and prosecute those who commit them, and to provide effective remedies and redress to victims. This is known as the “due diligence” standard, which has become a cornerstone of international law on violence against women. For example, if a state fails to enact laws criminalizing domestic violence, or if its law enforcement and judicial systems systematically fail to prosecute perpetrators, or if it lacks adequate support services for victims, it is considered to be in violation of its human rights obligations, even if the violence was perpetrated by a private individual.
Furthermore, feminist scholars have highlighted the complicity of states, either through direct action or inaction, in perpetuating harmful patriarchal norms and structures that enable violence and discrimination against women. This includes systemic discrimination in law, policy, and practice, which can create environments where women are disempowered and vulnerable. This extended understanding of state responsibility pushes for comprehensive legislative, policy, and programmatic interventions to address systemic inequalities and ensure Accountability for all forms of gender-based human rights violations, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity.
Agency, Participation, and Empowerment
Beyond merely identifying and remedying violations, feminist human rights scholarship strongly emphasizes women’s Agency, Participation, and Empowerment as fundamental aspects of human rights realization. Traditional frameworks often implicitly or explicitly viewed women as passive victims in need of protection. Feminist perspectives challenge this paternalistic approach, asserting that women are active agents of change, capable of claiming their rights, shaping their destinies, and contributing to the development of human rights norms and practices.
This argument underscores the importance of women’s voices and leadership in all spheres – political, economic, social, and cultural. It advocates for women’s equal participation in decision-making processes, from local governance to international human rights bodies, arguing that without women’s perspectives, human rights frameworks will remain incomplete and ineffective. The right to participate in public and political life, to access education, to economic independence, and to freedom of association are not just formal rights but crucial enablers of Agency and Empowerment.
Feminist scholars highlight that true human rights for women involve not just freedom from violence and discrimination, but also freedom to exercise choice, pursue opportunities, and define their own lives without patriarchal constraints. This includes the right to bodily autonomy, which extends beyond reproductive choices to encompass freedom from all forms of physical and sexual coercion, and the right to control one’s own sexuality. Ultimately, this focus on Agency and Empowerment aims to transform the power dynamics that perpetuate gender inequality, enabling women to be full and equal subjects of rights, rather than merely objects of protection.
The cumulative arguments of feminist scholars have profoundly reshaped the landscape of human rights, moving beyond its traditional, narrow conceptualizations to embrace a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding. By rigorously critiquing the public/private divide, exposing the masculinist bias in foundational principles, and navigating the complexities of universalism, they have broadened the scope of human rights to encompass previously invisible violations and marginalized experiences. This has led to a re-evaluation of state responsibility and a stronger emphasis on Accountability for gender-based violence, whether perpetrated by state or non-state actors.
Furthermore, the introduction of intersectionality has enriched the human rights discourse by illuminating the layered oppressions faced by women based on their diverse identities, demanding tailored and nuanced responses that recognize the unique vulnerabilities of marginalized groups of women. The shift from viewing women solely as victims to recognizing them as active agents of change, with rights to participation and empowerment, marks a significant evolution in human rights thinking. While challenges persist in the full realization of women’s human rights globally, these feminist arguments have laid the indispensable intellectual groundwork for progressive legal and policy reforms, influencing international instruments like CEDAW, the Beijing Platform for Action, and UN Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security.
In conclusion, feminist scholarship has been transformative in insisting that human rights cannot be genuinely universal unless they fully account for the experiences, needs, and aspirations of women in all their diversity. Their arguments underscore that gender equality is not merely a supplementary goal but is fundamental to the very credibility and effectiveness of the entire human rights system. By challenging systemic biases and expanding the understanding of what constitutes a human rights violation and who is responsible, feminist scholars continue to advocate for a human rights framework that is truly comprehensive, just, and capable of fostering dignity and equality for all individuals, transcending historical limitations and patriarchal norms.