Women's rights and culture in Africa: a dialogue with global patriarchal traditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on findings from field research in Ghana, analyses of the 2003 Maputo Protocol on women's rights in Africa and other human rights instruments, this article discusses the challenges of advocating for individual women's rights in African states. The article examines the strategies women's rights advocates employ in navigating cultural hindrances to women's rights and negotiating women's individual rights within Ghana's socio-cultural and political terrain. It argues that advocates must advance a type of ‘specific relativism’ that is based on a fine balance between universalist and cultural relativist claims within the human rights discourse. Further, it argues that African women's rights issues, considered in the context of Africa's post-colonial environment, highlight the manner in which global economic inequalities reinforce oppressive cultural customs that marginalise women and contribute to rights violations. Therefore, women's advocates must also take into account the global economic system when articulating claims for African women's rights. Résumé S'appuyant sur une recherche menée au Ghana et une analyse du Protocole de Maputo et d'autres documents légaux, cet article discute les défis auxquels les défenseurs des droits des femmes s'affrontent dans les états africains. Ce travail examine les stratégies employées par ces activistes visant à combattre les violations culturelles des droits et libertés des femmes au Ghana. Il conclue que le succès des droits des femmes au Ghana dépend sur l'articulation d'une voie moyenne entre les positions univeralistes et relativistes présentes dans le discours des droits humains. En plus, sachant que le système économique et international renforce la marginalisation des femmes, les activistes doivent aussi trouver un moyen de s'addresser ces inégalités économiques au Ghana.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".