MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379805985 · doi:10.1353/cro.2013.a783300

Women's Human Rights—and Religion

2013· article· en· W4379805985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Y. Mitchem

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossCurrents · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPoliticsConversationMeaning (existential)SociologyGender studiesValue (mathematics)LawEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women's Human Rights—and Religion Stephanie Y. Mitchem I was invited to give a paper at the Women, Religion, and Human Rights conference held in Sweden June 2011. Women and men from around the world, scholars from a variety of fields, gathered to share experiences and ideas. Two questions occurred to me at that event. Near the end of the conference, some of the participants began to define “religion.” I knew that many of the scholars attending the conference were from history or sociology or political science, some field other than religious studies or theology. If religionists’ absence indicated that theologians had ceded the arguments about human rights, this was very disturbing to me. After all, most religious traditions claim an anthropological view that humans have meaning beyond apparent economic or social value. It would seem that such a human rights focus could also have the added benefit of engendering deeper interfaith dialogues. Following this line of thought, my question was: “Why aren't more religion scholars thinking through issues of human rights and women?” Second, I was struck by the fact that I was one of the few Americans present. My second question became: “In a global conversation, why were so few Americans involved?” I'm aware that there is a belief that United States’ women are secure in their human rights. However, this belief is a fiction that, in global comparisons, is consistently proven untrue. The number of women in political leadership; the social efforts to end domestic violence; achieving equal pay and economic strength as well as the leadership of various religious bodies—in such markers as these, women in the United States do not take the lead among nations, but fall far down the list. We've long needed to have substantive conversations about these women and human rights from the perspectives of religious scholars. During and following that 2011 conference, women's status and well‐being in the United States were brought into sharp relief. Throughout the presidential election cycle, birth control and contraception were challenged by some church groups, using proposed legislation to outlaw each as a form of abortion. Religious freedom has been a battle cry that has served to reinscribe male dominance over women's bodies, and in doing so, reinforce the subsequent economic inequalities. Beyond the U.S., a recent book and documentary by Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl LeDun, Half the Sky, brought a painful focus to global issues of women and human rights. And yet, we've long needed to have substantive conversations from the perspectives of religions about women's human rights. It is my hope that this issue of Crosscurrents will hold the beginnings of a longer conversation. The authors are from the United States as well as Ghana and Canada/Azerbaijan. Some are Muslims, some Christians, and some are atheist. Issues of rape, economic abuse, and domestic violence arise. But some of the authors challenge definitions of women, leadership, and women's human rights that come from other women, with the hope to broaden the conversations to encompass their own perspectives on religions and on human rights. Feminist or womanist, different races or nationalities, of various ages, the authors in this issue bring a commitment to finding answers that account for complex relationships and situations. These women add a new, political, and battle‐tested savvy to their discussions. The authors highlight women's agency in bringing forth revised thinking and direct action. For some of the authors, their own religious traditions offer beliefs that become important to their growth as women. For others, moving from a religious structure does not mean giving up humanist, human‐centered ethics. For each essay, the complexities of contemporary thought about women, especially from women, are highlighted. Their words help us to think more deeply about women and human rights and religions’ roles. Not just a topic for fruitless theorizing in seminaries’ classes that replaces the old “how many angels dance on the head of pin?” question. Not simply answered through legislation but recognizing complex, global layers that surround any issue of women and human rights. And not just an occasional focus for the activist work of a “Peace and Justice...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossCurrentsSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207