Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Canada adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, women have not always agreed about the Charter rights that would best protect their interests. Recently I conducted three studies that illustrate women’s rights-based differences: the prohibition of polygamy, the “ban” on faith-based family arbitration, and the reasonable accommodation of cultural differences. All three issues involve contests between religious freedom and sex equality, with women being found on each side. I opted to conceptualize all of these women as feminists while distinguishing them as either religious or secular. By definition, religious feminists give priority to religious freedom over sex equality, while secular feminists give priority to sex equality over religious freedom. Even though religious and secular feminists monopolized the public space, however, there were other feminists whose narratives were ignored. I refer to the missing voices as belonging to intersectional feminists.My objective is to explore the question of whether these intersectional feminists should have access to the promise of constitutionalism. I begin pragmatically, setting out the normative and structural barriers that exclude their narratives from existing (polygamy) or potential (faith-based family arbitration or cultural accommodation) Charter litigation. Next, I move to the realm of feminist theory – specifically to exemplars of liberal, postcolonial, and deliberative feminism – to outline the responses of Susan Moller Okin, Leti Volpp, and Madhavi Sunder to the issue of the constitutional recognition of intersectional feminism. I argue that these theories may work for multiculturalism, but they are either too confrontational or not sufficiently confrontational to work for intersectionalism. While deliberative feminism is the most promising, it is also the most illusory given its reliance on dialogue’s potential in the political realm, and/or dialogue laced with rules in the legal realm. Ultimately, I conclude that the impermeability of its normative and strategic barriers deprive constitutionalism of utility for intersectional feminists. Given the allure of its promise, in short, Canadian constitutionalism is bad for intersectional feminists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.133 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".