Women’s human rights: From progress to transformation, an intersectional response to Martha Nussbaum
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
According to Atrey, the effectiveness of women's movements, and ultimately progress, take place when women with more than one intersectional disadvantage can improve their situation.
“According to Atrey, the effectiveness of women's movements, and ultimately progress, take place when women with more than one intersectional disadvantage (those at the bottom of the basement) can improve their situation.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/669608 · Cited by 4,126 · see citing works
Nash, J. C. (2008) · Feminist Review · doi:10.1057/fr.2008.4 · Cited by 1,995 · see citing works
Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory
Harris, A. P. (1990) · Stanford Law Review · doi:10.2307/1228886 · Cited by 740 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
- Authors
- Atrey, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Atrey, Shreya
- ORCID
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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