Cited by 60International Human Rights and Reproductive LawFeminist Theory and Gender StudiesFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

Women’s human rights: From progress to transformation, an intersectional response to Martha Nussbaum

Open access
Atrey, Shreya·2018·Human Rights Quarterly

Abstract

This article asks ‘the intersectional question’ about women’s progress. The purpose is to understand whether the successes of the women’s movement and women’s human rights have improved the conditions of women who are disadvantaged not only because of their sex or gender but also disadvantaged by their race, colour, caste, religion, region, disability, age, sexual orientation, etc. It takes its cue from an account of the matter laid out by Martha Nussbaum. I contend that Nussbaum’s view of women’s progress, especially under CEDAW, does not consider the substantive and strategic implications of intersectionality and thus is not transformative in nature. The central argument then espouses a normative vision of women’s progress which is intersectional such that it reflects and improves the lives of all women in the specific ways in which they are affected by multiple and overlapping systems of disadvantage and in turn subverts and transforms these systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/hrq.2018.0048

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Atrey, S.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Atrey, Shreya
Venue
Human Rights Quarterly
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2018
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
859-904
ISSN
  • 0275-0392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1085-794X
OpenAlex
W2884938478
Cited by
60
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Human Rights Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Keywords
women's human rights, intersectionality, Martha Nussbaum, women's advancement, CEDAW, women's movement, transformative justice, race and gender, disability, sexual orientation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review