Children's Law is Not a Subset of Women's Studies
In my comparative family law class yesterday, a classmate of mine asked this question: is family law a smaller subsection of women's studies?
My professor gave a comprehensive response that centered on the study of the family from the female point of view, and the waxing and waning of this perspective. This discussion, and almost all of the class up until that point, considered the roles of the husband/father and wife/mother -- without much separate consideration of the child.
Along similar lines, I've often encountered assumptions that my interest in children's law is somehow connected to feminism. This semester I enrolled in a heavily feminist reading group so that I can finally get a better handle on what others assume I'm advocating.
Feminism is a lot of things, but children's law cannot be categorically swallowed up. Children's law is not feminism.
Those advocating strictly for children's rights are often at odds with traditional feminist thinking. For example, a staunch child advocate might propose removing children earlier from abusive/neglectful homes. This position tends to be contrary to women's interests because these kids will often be removed from single parent homes -- often headed by single moms.
Some child advocates take a staunch feminist position saying that it is in the best interest of the child to remain with the mother. This protects mothers' hold on their children and purports to protect children.
I think that mothers (and fathers) are almost always the best people to raise their children. I think that if one claims to be a child advocate, however, one should recognize that this is not 100%. Sometimes the child's best interests cannot be recognized within the family. Sometimes families need help to protect their own.
Children's law should not be considered a subset of women's studies.
My professor gave a comprehensive response that centered on the study of the family from the female point of view, and the waxing and waning of this perspective. This discussion, and almost all of the class up until that point, considered the roles of the husband/father and wife/mother -- without much separate consideration of the child.
Along similar lines, I've often encountered assumptions that my interest in children's law is somehow connected to feminism. This semester I enrolled in a heavily feminist reading group so that I can finally get a better handle on what others assume I'm advocating.
Feminism is a lot of things, but children's law cannot be categorically swallowed up. Children's law is not feminism.
Those advocating strictly for children's rights are often at odds with traditional feminist thinking. For example, a staunch child advocate might propose removing children earlier from abusive/neglectful homes. This position tends to be contrary to women's interests because these kids will often be removed from single parent homes -- often headed by single moms.
Some child advocates take a staunch feminist position saying that it is in the best interest of the child to remain with the mother. This protects mothers' hold on their children and purports to protect children.
I think that mothers (and fathers) are almost always the best people to raise their children. I think that if one claims to be a child advocate, however, one should recognize that this is not 100%. Sometimes the child's best interests cannot be recognized within the family. Sometimes families need help to protect their own.
Children's law should not be considered a subset of women's studies.
posted by eponcz at 7:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home