Human Rights Watch article decries the omission of "woman" from laws

[Ingenieur]

I'm not sure how much to read into this relatively puffy Human Rights Watch article, but I did notice a small nugget towards the end of this article on the state of international women's rights:

Disregarding the harsh realities that women and girls face, the term “women” is being eliminated from policies that initially addressed gendered discrimination, such as violence against women.

I'm wondering if it's a ray of sunshine, or just more of the same inclusive meaning of the term "woman"?

Well, that's a depressing article!

It's positive that they note the word 'woman' is vanishing from policy as a bad thing, but in my experience some feminist organisations are able to simultaneously call for an end to MVAWG while suggesting a M can become a W or a G.

Which article are you referring to. Do you have the link?

Click on the word this in blue in the opening post @IwantToRetire that is the link to the article.

hmmm - that's a bit obscure as the colour contrast with the green background is very accessible.

Is there a problem with putting the actual link in?!

www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/07/global-backlash-against-womens-rights

The 'omission of women in laws' is in the paragraph about South Korea, so it might not be a general observation from them but just referring to that country? Or they could mean it more generally, of course.

I think there have been similar discussions on whether it is helpful to label MVAWG as such in recent mainstream discussions at the Scottish Parliament etc, perhaps as part of the discussion of misogyny and what to do about it (last I heard, fuck all).

In multiple countries, rights have been rolled back in recent years with anti-feminist rhetoric and policies. According to UN Women, gender disparities are worsening. They believe it could take another 286 years to close the global gender gaps in legal protections for women and girls.

Ignoring the gender and not sex reference, as they are talking about actual women...286 years! My bet of this decade is off then! Did anyone have the year 2309 in the sweepstake?

Bit nit picky @IwantToRetire . Is that all you could find to comment on?

Not at all nit picky. If you are posting on the internet you need to be aware that there are accessibility issues. ie anyone with a visual impairment would not have seen that eg I didn't. You didn't even put it in bold.

Not everybody is equally able bodied. If you google you will see there are recommended guidelines for users of the internet to follow.

Admittedly not helped by Mumsnet's redesign that uses a font that does not meet accessibility standards and appears to be pale grey rather than true black.

So if want a range of replies you need to ensure that access the article is enabled for those with impairments.

You can change the colour of the post backgrounds in settings, I believe. For me, the OP is pink, for example.

In 'Settings'.

Fair point, apologies.

You didn't even put it in bold. I'm not the OP and it is MN settings that put the 'this' in the style it is, not the OP choosing.