© Copyrighted Material

Chapter 6 m o .c te a g h s From Third Wave to Third Generation:.a w w w

m o , Faith, and Human Rights.c te a g h s .a M. Christian Green w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m In recent decades, feminists of faith have been central voiceso in international .c te human rights discussions. This was particularly the casea at the UN-sponsored g h s 1994 International Conference on Population and Development.a at Cairo and w w w the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing, which focused on m o core feminist issues of reproductive rights and gender.c equality. The struggle for te a g women’s rights has rarely, however, been disconnectedh from broader struggles for s .a human rights in the areas of poverty, peace, health,w environmental sustainability, w w cultural rights, and rights to development andm self-determination of peoples that o .c have come to be known as the “third generation”te of human rights. The hallmark a g h of third generation rights, in contrast with firsts generation civil and political rights .a w and second generation social, economic,w and cultural rights, is that they involve w

m big global problems that no state or regiono of the world can solve alone. For this .c te a reason, third generation rights are ofteng referred to as rights of “fraternity” or h 1 s “solidarity.” Third generation rights.a have become particularly important with the w w w advent of globalization, with its exposure of the ways in which we are a connected m o and mutually interdependent world..c te a g The increased attention toh these third generation rights coincides, in important s .a 2 w ways, with the emergence wof third-wave feminism. In much the same way that w third generation rights expandedm the reach of first and second generation rights, o .c te third-wave feminism embracesa first- and second-wave feminist concerns in areas g h s of sexuality, gender, reproduction,.a and family that have been traditional feminist w w issues, while at thew same time calling for engagement with global feminist

m communities and globalo feminist issues, which embrace many third generation .c te a rights concerns.g The expansive global sensibility of third-wave feminism is h s .a illustrative notw only of the way in which “women’s rights are human rights” w w (Clinton 1995), but also of the inseparability of women’s human rights from m o .c broader thirdte generation human rights. a g h s .a w w w

m o 1. c The “third generation human rights” term is attributed to the Czech-French jurist te a andg former UNESCO head, Karel Vasak (Vasak 1979a). h s .a 2 The term “third-wave feminism” was coined by third-wave feminist Rebecca w w Walkerw (Walker 1992). © Copyrighted Material 142 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Both third generation rights and third-wave feminism have been contested on m o various grounds. Some human rights scholars see the first and second generation.c te a g h rights as perfectly adequate and view third generation rights as unnecessary—s .a w perhaps not even human rights at all (Sehmer 2007, Algan 2004, Alstonw 1982). w

Likewise, the notion of a third wave of feminism has sometimes been m a source o .c te of tension between second-wave feminists who see their struggles a as not yet g h s concluded, and third-wave feminists who want to move on to.a new issues w w 3 (Walker 1992, Siegel and Baumgardner 2007, Henry 2004, Pollittw 2010). The

m o equality-difference paradigm has been an important rubric of analysis.c in feminist te a legal theory and , balancing the quest for g sex equality with h s .a acknowledgment of the biological, and even moral, differencesw that shape w w women’s experience (Bartlett and Rhode 2010, Bock and James 1992, Gatens m o .c 1991, Bartlett and Kennedy 1991). But third-wave feministste have expanded the a g h equality-difference paradigm beyond sexual and reproductives arrangements, to .a w include questions of global justice and equity. w w

m In this chapter I will describe how third-waveo feminism corresponds to .c te third generation human rights in ways that advancea both feminism and human g h s rights in the normative, humanitarian, and pluralistic.a direction that is necessary w w w for our twenty-first century, globalized, and cosmopolitan world. I will then m o provide an analysis of the ways in which recent.c international women’s human te a g rights conferences have sought to elaborateh women’s third generation rights. I s .a will then suggest some ways in which third-wavew feminist and third generation w w rights themes were anticipated in the livesm and work of a group of twentieth- and o .c twenty-first century women, who havete drawn on faith in seeking legal and social a g h change. The group includes Dorothys Day, Wangari Maathai, Rigoberta Menchú, .a w w and Suu Kyi. For thesew women, both feminism and faith have been

m important resources in connectingo women’s rights to broader human rights in a .c te a way that mirrors third-wave feminism’sg insistence on diversity and pluralism of h s .a voices and issues. I will concludew by identifying a set of additional themes that link w w third-wave feminism and third generation rights through the lives of these women m o who were, in key respects,.c third-wave feminists before their time: a concern for te a g h diversity and pluralisms , looking beyond sexuality and reproduction, attention to .a w w w

m o .c 3 Some of thet eintergenerational angst is also reflected in pithy quotes that have emerged a g h between second- sand third-wave feminists (Henry 2004). In her analysis of these tensions, .a w social critic Kathaw Pollitt reports that, in response to the notion that third-wave feminists w

m can carry the torcho for second-wave feminists, leading second-wave feminist .c te has quipped,a “Get your own damned torch. I’m still using mine.” (Pollitt 2010). Referring g h to the characterizations of third-wave feminism as post-feminism, a popular bumper sticker/ .a w lapel buttonw slogan, apparently reflecting second-wave sentiments reads, “I’ll be a post- w

m feministo in the post-.” By contrast, leading third-wave feminist Rebecca Walker .c te has aproclaimed, “I am not a post-feminism feminist. I am the Third Wave.” (Walker 1992). g h In sthe last analysis, both second- and third-wave feminists claim their feminism—however .a w w differentlyw construed. © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 143 © Copyrighted Material

the material and cultural dimensions of rights, a caution against perfectionismm , o .c te and, in theological terms, a shift from creation to redemption. a g h s .a w w w

m Third-Wave Feminists and Third Generation Rights o .c te a g h s .a Analysis of third-wave feminist writings reveals both new conceptionsw of feminism w w and new conceptions of rights. The editors of one influential third-wave feminist m o .c reader, Rory Dickerson and Alison Piepmeier, argue that their generationte demands a g h a “politicized, activist feminism that is grounded in the materials realities and the .a 4 w cultural productions of life in the twenty-first century” (2003:w 5). They call for w

m a third-wave feminism “dedicated to a radical, transformativeo political vision, a .c te feminism that does not shy away from hard work but recognizesa that changing the g h s world is a difficult and necessary task, a feminism that utilizes.a the new technologies w w w of the Internet, the playful world of fashion, and the more clear-cut activism of m o protest marches, a feminism that can engage with .cissues as diverse as women’s te a g sweatshop labor in global factories and violenceh against women expressed in s .a popular music” (2003: 2). Third-wave feminismw advocates for material rights in a w w neoliberal political economy in ways that correspondm to third-wave anti-poverty o 5 .c and development rights. Their use of technology,te fashion, and popular culture a g h tends to raise eyebrows in second-wave feminists circles (Valenti 2007, Levy 2005, .a w Fillion 1996), but in the context of globalizationw these are increasingly places w

m o .c te a g h s 4 A definitional note on third-wave.a feminism may also be in order, particularly as w w the movement now seems to overlapw and include two separate groups. The first group,

m reflected in the anthologies cited above,o is largely composed of women from Generation .c te X, which came of age just as women’sa studies and other feminist programs were being g h s established in the academy and.a elsewhere. These early third wavers came of age during w w the Clinton Administration, which,w but for the Lewinsky scandal at its end, was notably

m supportive of women’s humano rights, particularly in the international realm. The second .c te a group, reflected in the numerousg blog postings cited below, has benefitted from women’s h s studies and feminist education.a and the technological and communicative revolution of the w w internet, but it also camew of age during the Bush Administration, which arguably achieved

m some goods for womeno in Afghanistan, its HIV programs in Africa, and its strong record .c te a against sex-trafficking,g but was also notably hostile to international organizations and much h s of the human rights.a community, including many women’s rights organizations, particularly w w the UNFPA, fromw which it withheld funds repeatedly.

m o 5 In this.c material emphasis, third-wave feminism conjures up themes from earlier te a socialist .g The writings of Heidi Hartmann in the 1970s and 1980s are, perhaps, h s the best known.a examples of second-wave (Hartmann 1979, Sargent w w w 1981). Socialist feminism, particularly its more Marxist and radical versions, tended to m o die out.c with the general discrediting of socialist feminism at the end of the Cold War. In te a lightg of recent global events since the 2008 recession, it might be time for a rereading. One h s contemporary.a legatee of earlier socialist feminism is third-wave feminist and globalization w w critic,w Naomi Klein (Klein 2008, 2000). © Copyrighted Material 144 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material where young feminists of the developed and developing world intersect—cultural m o resources which can serve as sites of resistance to the still largely patriarchal.c te a g h forces of market and state. s .a w Despite the frequent characterization of third-wave feminists asw being w in tension with their second-wave predecessors, third-wave feministsm have o .c te emphasized continuities. Dickerson and Piepmeier observe that a third-wave g h s feminism may have “less to do with a neat generational divide than with.a a cultural w w context,” particularly the challenges of developing a “sense of identityw in a world

m o shaped by technology, capitalism, multiple modes of sexuality, changing.c national te a demographics, and declining economic vitality” (2003: 14). Theg difference might h s .a best be understood in noting that, whereas second-wave feministsw emphasized that w w the “personal is political,” third-wave feminists added to this the conviction that m o .c the “global is local.” Second-wave feminism was not unconcernedte with global a g h issues (Morgan 1984, Smith 2000). Indeed, as we shall s see, the earliest struggles .a w for the international human rights of women developedw as a result of second-wave w

m feminist activism in such international organizationso as the United Nations. But .c te the emergence of third-wave feminism, concurrentlya with the end of the Cold War g h s and the rise of the Internet and telecommunications.a era, has made global issues w w w and global feminisms even more proximate to third-wave feminist concerns. m o It is particularly through this pronounced.c globalism that third-wave feminism te a g may be most effective in carrying feminismh forward. But the emergence of the s .a third wave has not come about without wa certain amount of questioning of the w w nature of feminism, the diversity of women’sm voices, and the scope of feminist o .c concerns. For all of its emphasis ont e diversity, multiplicity, and global political a g h agency, third-wave feminism has sometimess had difficulty embracing the legacy .a w w of second-wave feminism. As leadingw third-wave feminist Rebecca Walker has

m put it, “For many of us it seemso that to be a feminist in the way that we have .c te a seen or understood feminism gis to conform to an identity and way of living that h s .a doesn’t allow for individuality,w complexity, or less than perfect personal histories. w w We fear that the identity will dictate and regulate our lives, instantaneously pitting m o us against someone, forcing.c us to choose inflexible and unchanging sides, female te a g h against male, black againsts white, oppressed against oppressor, good against bad” .a w (Dickerson and Piepmeierw 2003: 15). Dickerson and Piepmeier confirm this sense w

m of ambivalence regardingo earlier modes of feminism, but they ultimately see great .c te promise in the thirda wave, arguing, “At its best, the third wave embodies the rage g h s and the joy of .a feminism. By taking much that is good from the second wave, w w listening to thew critiques of earlier feminism’s lack of diversity, and responding to

m o a changing .cworld, the third wave has the potential to be the second wave’s better te a g self” (2003:h 20). s .a The wemphasis on diversity and pluralism is crucial. From its inception, third- w w wave feminism has been committed to the inclusion of diverse issues and voices. m o .c Dickersonte and Piepmeier describe third-wave feminism as a “reinvigorated a g h feminists movement emerging from a late twentieth-century world” that is a .a w “worldw of global capitalism and information technology, postmodernism and w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 145 © Copyrighted Material

postcolonialism, and environmental degradation.” In terms of issues, they argue,m o .c te “We no longer live in the world that feminists of the second wave faced. Thirda g h s wavers, who came of age in the late twentieth century and after, are thereforea . w w concerned not simply with ‘women’s issues’ but with a broad range of interlockingw

m topics” (2003: 10). Third-wave feminism builds upon the second-wave discoveryo .c te a that “‘woman’ is an inadequate category because of the many differencesg among h s .a women,” along with the conviction that “feminism is not simply aboutw women’s w w issues but is a broad-based political movement that seeks freedom for all those m o .c who are oppressed” (2003: 8). Third-wave feminism pays particularte heed to the a g h idea that “identity is intersectional,” the concept that “gender, race,s ethnicity, class, .a w and sexuality are interlocking” and “oppression is not experiencedw simply along w

m one axis” (2003: 9). As Dickerson and Piepmeier put it, “Justo as it is interested in a .c te multiplicity of issues, the third wave operates from the assumptiona that identity is g h s multifaceted and layered. Since no monolithic view of .‘woman’a exists, we can no w w w longer speak with confidence of ‘women’s issues’; instead we need to consider that m o such issues are as diverse as the many issues who inhabit.c our planet” (2003:10). In te a g other words, third-wave feminists are “multiracial,h multi-ethnic, and multi-issued” s .a (2003:17). w w w

When it comes to the prioritization of issues,m some observers of third-wave o .c feminism have noted a particular questioningte of the priority of reproduction and a g h motherhood as quintessential women’s issues.s In the introduction to their anthology .a w of critical essays on third-wave feminism,w Stacy Gillis, Gillian Howie, and Rebecca w

m Munford observe that the “second generationo of feminists concentrated on issues .c te a which specifically impacted upong women’s lives: reproduction, mothering, h s sexual violence, expressions of sexuality,.a and domestic labour” (2007: 1). In w w w their view, one result of this emphasis has been that “third wave feminists tend to m o consider second wave feminism.c as triangulated in essentialism, universalism, and te a g naturalism” (2007: xxiv). Thish triangulation is seen as circumscribing women’s s .a w interests within the sexual w and domestic realms in a way that may presume a w falsely universal experiencem of those roles, while also obscuring women’s activism o .c te on a range of concernsa related to third generation rights that benefit women, g h s men, children, and the.a planet as a whole. Reproduction and motherhood are w w acknowledged to bew paramount and distinctive experiences in the lives of many

m women, but under ao third-wave paradigm of diversity, multiplicity, and inclusivity, .c te a they must also beg acknowledged to be experiences that not all women choose h s .a 6 to experience wor experience in the same way. Inquiry into third-wave feminist w w perspectives on third generation human rights in law and religion may help to m o .c te a g h s 6 The.a recent controversy over an article by former U.S. State Department Director w w w of Policy Planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter, concerning her decision to step down from her m o position.c to return to academia and her family drew commentary from both second- and third- te a waveg feminists (Slaughter 2012, Boyle 2012, Kantor 2012, Traister 2012, Dell’Antonia h s 2012,.a Covert 2012, Graff 2012, Belkin 2012, Valenti 201b). Third-wave feminist accounts w w ofw motherhood are just beginning to emerge (Crawford 2010b, Valenti 2012b). © Copyrighted Material 146 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material uncover some of these other dimensions and concerns of feminist activism that m 7 o inform some of the most crucial issues facing our world today. .c te a g h s .a w w w

“Mainstreaming Gender” in International Human Rights Law m o .c te a g h s Third generation rights concerns have, in fact, been percolating for .somea time in w w international human rights debates. The modern wave of attentionw to women’s

m o human rights and the “mainstreaming of gender” in human rights.c began with te a the First World Conference on Women at Mexico City in 1975g and subsequent h s .a conferences at Copenhagen in 1980 and Nairobi in 1985. The women’sw conferences w w focused on three main issues—equality, development and peace (UN 1975: Pt. III, m o .c Sec. VI). Anticipating key concerns at the later Cairo andte Beijing conferences, a g h the Mexico City conference report included resolutionss on women and health, .a w maternal and child health, family planning, the family,w and principles of equality w

m and nondiscrimination between men and women (UNo 1975: Pt. I, Sec. III, Res. .c te 5, 9, 15, and 17). Anticipating later third generationa concerns about women, the g h s environment, and climate change, the report included.a a number of provisions on w w w the relation between women and development, with particular attention to the m o situation of rural women, whose lives are closely.c connected to issues of land, te a g agriculture, and food provision (UN 1975:h Pt. I, Sec. III, Res. 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, s .a 22, 27). w w w

The Mexico City report also specificallym contemplated an enhanced role for o .c women in securing the third generationte right to peace. The report encouraged a g h women’s study of government ands international relations and their pursuit of .a w w careers in diplomacy, internationalw civil service, and international and regional

m organizations, as well as participationo in international forums on peace and in .c te a foreign policy decision-making.g It urged governments to facilitate grassroots h s .a activities to provide womenw with opportunities to learn more about “international w w peace and co-operation, cultural understanding, self-reliance, [and] self- m o determination,” to become.c “better aware of political issues and concepts,” and te a g h to be “better equippeds to resolve political problems,” particularly through the .a w 8 exchange of women wleaders” (UN 1975: Pt. I, Sec. III, Res. 28). w

m o .c te a g h 7 It should bes noted that despite the dominance of third-wave feminism in the fields .a w of women and genderw studies, there has been surprisingly little representation in the study w

m of law or religion.o Despite the profound normative dimensions of feminism, law, and .c te religion—threea important interlocking areas of normativity for interdisciplinary feminist g h theory ands consideration of women’s human rights—only a handful of books and articles .a w have comew forth to provide third-wave feminist perspectives in law and religion (Batlan et w

m al. 2008,o Klassen 2009, Crawford 2010a, 2010b, 2007). .c te a8 The issue of women’s lesser role in international affairs policy-making persists g h evens today, as exemplified in the Anne-Marie Slaughter affair. See note 6 above. Women’s .a w w peacemakingw activities, however, are drawing increased notice. See, especially, the Women, © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 147 © Copyrighted Material

Another Mexico City resolution on peacemaking hints at distinctivem o .c te motivations that women may have for peacemaking activity, noting that a “the g h s flames of war in the world have inflicted great pain, especially on womena and . w w children,” and that “the universal strengthening of world peace and the expansionw

m of co-operation among States will advance the economic, social, ando cultural .c te a development of the countries and serve the improvement of the situationg of h s .a women.” The report observes that women are not only beneficiaries, wbut also agents w w of peace, thus endorsing the “broadest involvement of women in the struggle for m o .c the strengthening of international peace and the elimination of teracism and racial a g h discrimination” and the “role of women in the struggle against colonialism,s racism .a w and racial discrimination and the strengthening of internationalw peace and co- w

m operation among States” (UN 1975: Pt. I–III, Sec. 29 (emphaseso added)). The .c te Mexico City report thus emphasized women’s agency in mattersa that included, but g h s also extended beyond, their reproductive and maternal .roles.a w w w The report of the Second World Conference on Women, held in Copenhagen in m o 1980, by contrast, devoted considerable attention to. c women’s reproductive health, te a g including the necessity of adequate access to familyh planning and the need for s .a an integrated approach to women’s health and welfarew (UN 1980: Ch. I, B, 1 and w w

Ch. I, B, 14). Reflecting tensions that had begunm to emerge between conservative o .c and liberal groups over issues of feminism andte the family, the Copenhagen report a g h was careful to note the familial—and specificallys the maternal—dimensions of .a w women’s peacemaking capabilities. Thew report affirmed that “the family, as a w

m basic unit of society, remains an importanto factor of social, political, and cultural .c te a change” and maintained that “preparationg for peace starts with and in the family, h s where women and men should be.a encouraged to instill in their children the w w w values of mutual respect and understanding for all peoples” (UN 1980: Pt. I, B, 7, m o preamble and (4) (emphases added))..c The role of the state in empowering women’s te a g peacemaking functions, in theh public capacities contemplated in the Mexico City s .a w report, was specifically conditionedw on the state’s “due regard for theconstitutional w rights and role of the familym ” (UN 1980: Pt. I, B, 7(7) (emphasis added)). In o .c te addition to seeming to acircumscribe women’s peacemaking activities within the g h s family, the Copenhagen.a report included a number of sections on women in various w w categories of vulnerabilityw that, while certainly drawing needed attention to these

m groups in ways thato responded to real issues of deprivation, also tipped the balance .c te a 9 somewhat from ang emphasis on women’s agency to women’s victimization. The h s .a w w w

m o Religion, Peace.c Program of the World Faiths Development Dialogue at the Berkley te a Center for g Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University. Accessible at: h s http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/projects/women-religion-and-peace-experience-.a w w w perspectives-and-policy-implications [accessed: 25 September 2012]. m o 9. c The referenced groups include migrant women (I, B, 3), elderly women (I, B, 4), te a batteredg women (I, B, 5), and refugee and displaced women (I, B, 12–13). The preference h s for.a “power” feminisms over “victim” feminisms in the third wave may be simply a reflection w w wof the cultural power and sense of invulnerability of the young, particularly in nations of the © Copyrighted Material 148 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material reduction of women to victimhood, without an adequate account of their capacity m o for agency even in conditions of constraint, is one that third-wave feminists have.c te a g h been particularly concerned to address. s .a w The report of the Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi inw 1985 w continued the triple emphasis on equality, development, and peace. Am chapter o .c te on equality noted the persistence of “a deeply rooted resistance on athe part of g h s conservative elements in society to the change in attitude necessary.a for a total w w ban on discriminatory practices against women at the family, local,w national and

m o international levels” (UN 1985: para. 50). A chapter on development.c described te a global economic recessions as “having a negative impact on an alreadyg unbalanced h s .a distribution of income, as well as on the high levels of unemployment,w which w w affect women more than men,” particularly in developing countries where the m o .c effects “have caused serious difficulties in the process ofte integrating women into a g 10 h development.” This was especially the case where womens experienced disparate .a w impact of climate change and environmental degradationw in areas “afflicted by w 11 m drought, famine, and desertification” (UN 1985: para.o 99). The Nairobi report .c te attributed a significant amount of global underdevelopmenta to gender injustice in g h s the family, in observing, “Despite significant efforts.a in many countries to transfer w w w tasks traditionally performed by women to men or to public services, traditional m o attitudes still persist and in fact have contributed.c to the increased burden of work te a g placed on women” (UN 1985: para. 101).h There was also attention to the rising s .a number of families supported by single mothersw and the double burden of economic w w and domestic support that single mothersm must necessarily assume. (UN 1985: paras. o .c 294–5). With such concerns in mind, thete Nairobi report recommended a variety of a g h measures “to enhance women’s autonomy,s bringing women into the mainstream of .a w w the development process on an equalw basis with men, or other measures designed

m 12 to integrate women fully in the ototal development effort” (UN 1985: para. 111). .c te a g h s .a w developing world. But it has spawnedw discussions of the ethical peril of treating victimized w women solely as victims in waysm that overlook their sources and strategies of agency. These o .c points were heavily emphasizedte at a workshop on “Gender Based Violence in Liberia,” a g h convened by the Institutes for Developing Nations and the Carter Center at Emory University .a w in June 2008, which broughtw together a number of young women human rights activists w from Liberia and them US for a daylong conference. For an excellent discussion of these o .c themes of vulnerabilityte and agency in feminist philosophy, see Tessman 2005. a g h 10 The Nairobis Report, of course, focused on the global recession of the early 1980s. .a w In the recent recessionw that began in 2007–2008, which has been described as a “he-cession,” w

m men seem to ohave fared worse initially in the loss of traditionally male jobs, though those .c te jobs seem alsoa to have come back more quickly in the limited recovery. (Salam 2009, g h Romano ands Dokoupil 2010, Rosin 2012). .a w 11 w This concern about women and the environment and the gender disparate effects w

m of environmentalo degradation and climate change has grown since Nairobi (Aboud 2012, .c te Dankelmana 2010, Dankelman 2009). g h s 12 In the interim between the Copenhagen and Nairobi conferences, in 1981, the UN .a w w passedw the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 149 © Copyrighted Material

The analysis of women’s development, thus, blended domestic and environmentalm o .c te concerns, but with a return of the Mexico City emphasis on women’s autonomya g h s and agency. a . w w The Cairo Conference (ICPD) combined concerns for gender equityw with

m sustainable development in a way that put women at the forefront of populationo .c te 13 a and development debates. The ICPD became infamous in theg eyes of h s .a conservative religious and political groups for its provisions on gender,w family, w w and sexual and reproductive health (UN 1994: Chs. 4, 5, and 7). These included m o .c lengthy recommendations concerning controversial matters of te family planning, a g h contraception, and the right to abortion. Indeed, reproductive healths became such .a w a focus at Cairo that it seemed to some observers, even thosew who supported the w

m ICPD, as if the procreative capacity of the world’s womeno was being blamed for .c te underdevelopment. As the Catholic reproductive choicea and health advocate, g h s Frances Kissling, has observed in connection with Cairo.a and other UN population w w w conferences, women from the developing world have rightly raised questions m o about sustainable development programs in which “reducing.c their numbers is seen te a g as an easier solution than compelling those of us inh the developed world to reduce s .a our consumption, or forcing corporations to stopw clear-cutting forests” (Kissling w w

2009). This concern was echoed by other religiousm observers and women’s groups o .c from the developing world. te a g h But for conservative religious groups, includings a notable alliance of Catholics .a w 14 and Muslims at Cairo, there were other problems,w as well. The Catholic-Muslim w

m alliance, along with other Christian conservativeo groups, objected to the ICPD .c te a passages on sexual and reproductiveg health for “individuals and couples” as h s .a w w w

m (CEDAW) (UN 1981). CEDAW readso primarily as a first and second generation rights .c te document, emphasizing the needa for equality and nondiscrimination in the protection of g h s women’s rights under the International.a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the w w International Covenant on Economic,w Social, and Cultural Rights. In this respect, the

m CEDAW was more redundanto than radical. .c te a Nonetheless, from theg outset, CEDAW was controversial among conservative religious h s groups. Under the notable.a influence of conservative Christian groups, who had fought w w the passage of the Equalw Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United

m States declined to ratifyo CEDAW—and still has not, even today. A number of Muslim .c te a nations appended greservations to provisions thought to be in contravention of the Islamic h s Sharia, particularly.a in the areas of gender, sexuality, and family. But the controversies that w w accompanied thew adoption of CEDAW would pale in comparison to those spawned by the

m o Cairo and Beijing.c conferences of the mid-1990s (Green 2011, Goldberg 2009, Butler 2006, te a Bayes and gTohidi 2001). h s 13 The.a ICPD was organized by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), w w w separately from the women’s conferences, which were organized predecessors of the body m o which.c has since 2010 been known as UN Women. te a g14 It should be noted that there were liberal and progressive women’s groups at h s both.a Cairo and Beijing, but as supporters, rather than opponents, of the Cairo and Beijing w w wplatforms, they tended to receive less attention (Butler 2006). © Copyrighted Material 150 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material sanctioning sexuality outside of marriage, on gender egalitarianism in marital m o and familial matters as disruptive of gender complementarity, and on the rights.c te a g h of adolescents and girls as interfering with the authority of parents overs their .a w children. A year later, many of these gender and sexuality issues at Cairow were w taken up at the Beijing Conference. m o .c te Echoing earlier women’s conferences, the Beijing Declaration and Platforma for g h s action announced a broad concern to “advance the goals of equality, .adevelopment w w and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of all whumanity,” to

m o acknowledge “the voices of all women everywhere and tak[e] note.c of the diversity te a of women and their roles and circumstances,” and to recognizeg that “the status h s .a of women has advanced in some important respects in the pastw decade but that w w progress has been uneven, inequalities between women and men have persisted m o .c and major obstacles remain, with serious consequences forte the well-being of all a g h people” (UN 1995: paras. 3–5). The Beijing Declarations emphasized that “explicit .a w recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all womenw to control all aspects of w

m their health, in particular their own fertility, is basico to their empowerment” and .c te insisted on the need to develop “efficient and mutuallya reinforcing gender-sensitive g h s policies and programmes, including development.a policies and programmes, at all w w w levels that will foster the empowerment and advancement of women” (UN 1995: m o paras. 17 and 19). But, in apparent response.c to concerns voiced by women in te a g the developing world about the quasi-eugenich dimensions of family planning and s .a population programs at Cairo, the Beijingw Declaration maintained, “Eradication of w w poverty based on sustained economic growth,m social development, environmental o .c protection and social justice requireste the involvement of women in economic a g h and social development, equal opportunitiess and the full and equal participation .a w w of women and men as agents andw beneficiaries of people-centered sustainable

m development” (UN 1995: paras. o6 and 16 (emphasis added)). .c te a In addressing the “feminizationg of poverty” that has accompanied globalization h s .a in recent decades, the Beijingw Declaration promised to “eradicate the persistent w w and increasing burden of poverty on women by addressing the structural causes m o of poverty through changes.c in economic structures, ensuring equal access for all te a g h women, including thoses in rural areas, as vital development agents, to productive .a w resources, opportunitiesw and public services” (UN 1995: paras. 26, 47–68, w

m 246–58). The Beijingo Declaration explicitly linked women’s rights and economic .c te development to a concerns for environmental sustainability in observing how g h s “[t]hrough their.a management and use of natural resources, women provide w w sustenance tow their families and communities. As consumers and producers,

m o caretakers .ofc their families and educators, women play an important role in te a g promotingh sustainable development through their concern for the quality and s .a sustainabilityw of life for present and future generations” (UN 1995: para. 248). w w The Beijing Conference also followed earlier women’s conferences in noting m o .c the tinextricablee connections between peace and women’s advancement, noting a g h particularlys that, “During times of armed conflict and the collapse of communities, .a w thew role of women is crucial. They often work to preserve social order in the midst w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 151 © Copyrighted Material

of armed and other conflicts. Women make an important but often unrecognizedm o .c te contribution as peace educators both in their families and in their societies” a(UN g h s 1995: para. 139). a . w w In addition to articulating rights to reproductive health and gender equity,w the

m Cairo and Beijing conferences both addressed a comprehensive list of o concerns .c te a affecting the world’s women—a fact that was often lost in the controversiesg over h s .a sexual matters. These included third generation rights to poverty alleviation,w peace, w w and environmental sustainability, along with the land rights for rural women, the m o .c cultural rights of indigenous women, and even women’s right to religiouste freedom a g h (UN 1994: para. 25, UN 1995: para. 12). In a sense, as importants as reproductive .a w health and gender equity are to women’s human rights, it isw regrettable that the w

m Cairo and Beijing conferences were so dominated by matterso of sex and gender, .c te as this emphasis has tended to obscure women’s humana rights and capacity for g h s agency in matters extending beyond their embodied relations..a w w w Third-wave reflections on women’s human rights following Cairo and Beijing m o have reflected something of this ambivalence..c While third-wave feminists te a g in the U.S. who came of age during the Clintonh Administration witnessed s .a international attention to women’s human rightsw with high levels of government w w support and participation, the large-scale U.S.m pullout from the UN during the o .c Bush Administration resulted in diminishedte interest by third-wave feminists in a g h the 2000s (Vanessa 2004). As one third-waves feminist wrote at the influential .a w third-wave feminist blog Feministing, “Althoughw it’s disappointing, I’m not too w

m surprised when I hear folks express apathy/cynicismo towards the UN in general .c te a and the CSW [Commission on the Statusg of Women] in particular, especially since h s I myself have harbored those same.a kinds of feelings towards the UN in the past. w w w It can seem like with all the acronyms and jargon being used, many delegates m o don’t want members of civil society.c to get involved, or that they are creating a te a g deliberate barrier for non-UN hfolks to get to the content. It can also sometimes feel s .a w like the progress being madew there isn’t real or important, since things. move. so. w slowlyyyyyyy. sometimes”m (Lori 2010). Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing, o .c te has continuously raiseda issues pertaining to the UN women’s conferences on the g h 15 s blog, but has also acknowledged.a her readership’s low level of interest. w w Among third-wavew feminists who do follow UN proceedings on Cairo,

m Beijing, and theiro follow-up meetings, a perceived emphasis on population .c te a control continuesg to draw criticism. Commenting on the UNFPA’s 2011 World h s .a Population Dayw events, one third-wave blogger wrote, “I was happy to see that w w their messaging wasn’t too focused on population control … . While the number of m o .c people on earthte is obviously an important factor in sustainability, climate change a g h and resources,s the more important element is often use of resources. In that regard, .a w w w

m o 15.c Before the Beijing+10 conference, Valenti wrote, “I know a lot of folks aren’t really te a intog the UN processes (for varying reasons), but this meeting should be really interesting.” h s (Valenti.a 2005). In another posting, she provides links to resources on the UN Commission w w onw the Status of Women, to bring her readers up to speed (Valenti 2009). © Copyrighted Material 152 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material it’s countries like the United States that have a greater environmental impact m o than countries with population booms currently” (Miriam 2011). Third-wave.c te a g h feminists are more receptive to population and development agendas whens they .a w are connected to issues of peace and the environment. As one third-wave feministw w working at the intersection of population, development, and environmentalm issues o .c te writes, “[f]or many people, the ties between environmental activism aand sexual g h s health or reproductive rights aren’t obvious—unless, of course, they’ve.a heard w w the mainstream line that global overpopulation is the root of resourcew scarcity,

m o poverty, war and, most recently, climate change. We need to ask.c hard questions te a about who is targeted as needing to control their family size, and gwhether accepting h s .a the threatening framework of overpopulation is really in thew best interest of our w w feminist and environmentalist organizations” (Bryson 2010). Third-wave feminists m o .c have also grown up witnessing, in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur,te and the Congo, some a g h of the most execrable abuses of women’s rights throughs rape and sexual violence .a w in the context of conflict and war in a way that has lentw a certain urgency to their w

m connection of reproductive health issues and questionso of war and peace. As one .c te third-wave blogger writes, noting the emergence aof new international initiatives g h s on women and conflict, “[t]hough we have.a long known that conflict andwar w w w are dangerous for women, noting the specific conflicts and organizations that m o contribute to violence against women is an .cimportant shift for the international te a g community. … But it is an important steph for international institutions like the s .a UN, that have peace-building resources atw their disposal to know that an important w w part of creating peace is creating safetym for women in war zones, conflict areas o .c and post-conflict areas” (Pandit 2012).te Third-wave feminists remain committed to a g h rights pertaining to sex, gender, ands reproductive health, but they also bring new .a w w critical perspectives that connect wthese matters to third generation rights to peace,

m development, and environmentalo sustainability. They may not be as involved in or .c te a aware of the UN and other internationalg organizations as they should be, but this is h s .a not for lack of global interest.w Third-wave feminists may, in fact, be an important w w target audience for outreach by international women’s rights organizations. m o .c te a g h s .a w Third-Wave Feministw “Foremothers” of Faith w

m o .c te Even new movementsa have histories and precedents, and there are a number of g h s twentieth- and .a twenty-first century women around the world, whose lives and w w work anticipatew the concerns of third-wave feminism and third generation rights

m o in crucial ways—while.c also invoking a faith factor that is still lacking in the te a g “spiritual,h but not religious” precincts of third-wave feminism. The perspectives s .a of thesew women are importantly informed by feminism and faith—sometimes w w as motivation, sometimes retrospectively—in ways that acknowledge the m o .c ambivalencete of both of these normative resources, while at the same time drawing a g h upons them in seeking legal, political, social change on a range of third generation .a w rightw issues. In their connection of “women’s issues” to national and global issues w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 153 © Copyrighted Material

of poverty, peace, culture, environment, development and human rights, thesem o .c te women were ahead of their time in ways that can serve as a historical backdropa to g h s the activism of today’s third-wave feminists. a . w w w

m Dorothy Day o .c te a g h s .a Dorothy Day (1897–1980) was an adult convert to Catholicism whosew journalistic w w career and social activism changed the face of twentieth-century advocacy on m o .c issues of poverty, homelessness, and peace through the Catholic Workerte movement a g h and the “houses of hospitality” for the poor and homeless thats she established .a w with her fellow activist Peter Maurin. Her early adult life wevinces some of the w

m imperfection that third-wave feminists have sought to claimo against the supposed .c te mandatory purity of second-wave feminism, including aa cohabiting love affair g h s that led to pregnancy and abortion, a short-lived marriage.a and divorce on the w w w rebound, and a common-law marriage that resulted in the birth of a daughter, m o Tamar. Day’s partner was triply opposed to religion,.c marriage, and offspring— te a g eventually abandoning his common-law wife andh child in a way that freed Day s .a to pursue single motherhood and spiritual pursuitsw in the embrace of the Catholic w w 16 Church. Day baptized her daughter as a Catholicm and soon after was baptized o .c and confirmed herself, later in life becomingte an oblate, or lay member, ofthe a g h Benedictine monastic order. In life, Day hads inveighed, “Don’t call me a saint—I .a w don’t want to be dismissed that easily.” w Even so, Pope John Paul II opened her w

m candidacy for sainthood in 2000. o .c te a Despite her famous quip against gsainthood, a number of Day’s writings reveal h s a particular interest in saints as emblematic.a of activism and engagement in the w w w world. In her autobiography, The Long Loneliness, Day asks at one point, “Why m o was so much done in the name.c of remedying evil instead of avoiding it in the te a g first place? … Where were hthe saints to try to change the social order, not just s .a 17 w to minister to the slaves butw to do away with the slavery?” (Day 1952: 45). In w a more positive spirit, shem wrote elsewhere, as if answering her own question, o .c te “There are many saintsa here, there, and everywhere and not only the canonized g h s saints that Rome draws.a to our attention” (Forest 2011: 118). There are hints in w w these remarks of a callw for the kind of structural change that has been a hallmark

m of the third-wave feministo movement, as well as a redefinition of saintliness away .c te a g h s .a w w 16 Some whave speculated that Day’s relationships with emotionally unavailable men

m o may have been.c a repetition of her relationship to her father, a sports journalist, who has been te a described asg “remote” and “deeply disapproving” of his daughter’s religious and political h s commitments..a On the other hand, Day is said to have had a close relationship with her w w w mother (Forest 2011: 5, 23). m o 17.c Some of the interest in saints came from Day’s Catholic Worker co-founder te a Peterg Maurin, who recommended study of the saints and was likely behind the distinctive h s iconography.a of the Catholic Worker’s illustrations, which featured saints engaged in manual w w laborw (Forest 2012: 107, 126–7). © Copyrighted Material 154 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material from a detached perfectionism and toward a sometimes messy engagement with m o the world. .c te a g h Day spent her early adulthood building a name for herself as a writer for variouss .a w socialist and anarchist newspapers and journals in New York and Chicago.w Her w conversion to Catholicism estranged her from fellow activists in these movements,m o .c te leaving her in a situation of having “a religious faith and social conscience,a but g h s no community” (Forest 2011: 99). Even her own conversion seemed.a increasingly w w to be cast into doubt, for she wrote, “[h]ow little, how puny my workw had been

m o since becoming a Catholic, I thought. How self-centered, how.c ingrown, how te a lacking in a sense of community!” (Day 1952: 165). This was a gpainful realization h s .a for someone whose faith centered on the idea that, “We havew all known the long w w loneliness and we have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes m o .c with community” (Day 1980: 4). te a g h Day’s personal epiphany prompted her to ask questionss of her church, as well. .a w In reporting on a Hunger March on Washington organizedw by her former socialist w

m and communist associates, she wrote, “I could write,o I could protest, to arouse .c te the conscience, but where was the Catholic leadershipa in the gathering of bands g h s of men and women together for the actual works.a of mercy that the comrades w w w had always made part of their technique in reaching the workers?” (Day 1952: m o 165). The Catholic Worker began in New York.c in 1933, the fourth year of the te a g Great Depression, with a mission to let peopleh know “that the Catholic Church s .a has a social program,” including people w“who [were] working not only for their w w spiritual, but for their material welfare”m (Forest 2011: 3). By all accounts, Day o .c would have fully supported the recentte Occupy Wall Street protests, which drew a g h notable participation from third-waves feminists committed to third generation .a w 18 w rights in the global economy. w

m Day’s economic and politicalo views were radical, but her views of sexuality .c te a and family were conservative—sog much so that some have questioned whether she h s 19 .a can be considered to be feministw (O’Connor 1991). Toward the end of her life, w w Day remarked of the second-wave feminism of the time, “[w]omen’s liberation is m o too self-centered. It’s not.c geared to the poor but to articulate middle-class women te a g h with time on their hands,s the ones who have the least to complain about” (Scott .a w 1992: 34). Her viewsw were almost certainly born of lessons that she had learned the w

m hard way in her owno romantic life. She maintained that the “institution of marriage .c te has been built upa by society as well as the Church to safeguard the home and g h s children as well.a as people who don’t know how to take care of themselves” and w w w

m o .c te 18 Seea Bellafante 2012, Kandra 2011, Reinholz 2011. One OWS group in Santa Rosa, g h Californias even formed a Dorothy Day Working Group. See http://www.occupysantarosa. .a w org. Forw third-wave feminist perspectives, see Burtsch 2011, Stevens 2011, Muller 2011, w

m Occupyo Patriarchy 2012, Rogers 2011, Occupy Wall Street 2012, Butler 2012. .c te a19 The Our Inner Lives project of Feminist.com, a third-wave feminist website, g h includess a webpage on Day, claiming her as one of its Women of Vision. See http://www. .a w w feminist.com/ourinnerlives/wv_dorothy_day.html.w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 155 © Copyrighted Material

that “promiscuity and looseness in sex is an ugly and inharmonious thing” (Scottm o .c te 1992: 34). Indeed, she argued, “[s]ex is not at all taboo with me except outsidea of g h s marriage … . [B]ut sex having such a part in life as producing children, hasa been . w w restricted as society and the Church have felt best for the children” (Scottw 1992:

m 34). o .c te a Day also subscribed to views of gender difference undergirded by theg Catholic h s .a doctrine of complementarity, manifest in the different approaches shew and Maurin w w took in leading the Catholic Worker movement. These views were especially m o .c pronounced in Day’s writing about motherhood. Reflecting herte own experience a g h and echoing the Apostle Paul, Day wrote that, “woman is saveds by child-bearing,” .a w which imposes a “rule of life which involves others” throughw which “she will w

m be saved in spite of herself” (Forest: 116). This sexual conservatismo would not .c te seem to fit with third-wave feminism’s liberal sexuala views and the tendency g h s toward solipsism that characterizes today’s society, saturated.a as it is with personal w w w revelation and frequent self-interest. But upon closer comparison, Day’s concern m o for women’s interests in sexual relationships, coupled.c with her own affirmation of te a g the value of sexuality, mirrors third-wave feministh concerns about pornographic s .a objectification of women, a persistent rape culture,w and the international sexual w w and economic trafficking of women—the darkm side of sexuality in a context of o .c neoliberalism and globalization. te a g h s .a w Rigoberta Menchú Tum w w

m o .c te a Rigoberta Menchú Tum is a Guatemalang of the Quiche indigenous ethnic group h s who became a leader in promoting.a the rights of Guatemala’s indigenous peoples w w w 20 during and after the long Guatemalan Civil War (1960–96). Menchú received m o the Nobel Peace Prize of 1992.c for promoting the rights of indigenous peoples. te a g The Guatemalan Civil War wash largely a war between the various military-led s .a w governments and leftist movementsw supported by many indigenous groups. w

Menchú’s testimonial biography,m I, Rigoberta Menchú, in addition to testifying o .c te to the various human a rights violations inflicted on indigenous people by the g h s military, also describes.a the postcolonial economic and cultural rights struggles of w w 21 Guatemala’s indigenousw peoples (Stoll 1998, Arias 2001, Golden 1999, Wilson

m 1999, Rohter 1998).o .c te a g h s .a w w 20 Detailsw of Menchú ’s life and work are taken primarily from her autobiographies.,

m o Menchú, 1984.c and 1998, as well as the documentary filmWhen the Mountains Tremble. te a 21 Menchú’sg testimonial came under dispute in the late 1990s as scholars and h s journalists.a uncovered information that cast doubt on some of the actual facts of her w w w narrative. Other scholars (Grandin 2010) and Menchú herself have defended the account m o as an. c example of the Latin American narrative form of testimonio in which stories of the te a communityg as a whole are integrated into the accounts of individual narrators. The Nobel h s Prize.a Committee has defended its award to Menchú as being based on the effectiveness of w w workw on behalf of indigenous rights, rather than on the strict authenticity of her narrative. © Copyrighted Material 156 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Menchú’s father, a farmer who had also been part of an anti-government m o guerilla movement, was killed during the Civil War, along with her brother .andc te a 22 g h other family and ethnic community members. Educated at Catholic schoolss .a w through the eighth grade, Menchú has cited the bible as the “main weapon”w in the w education and mobilization of the indigenous people in their war against oppressionm o .c te and for economic, social, and cultural rights. She describes the movementa that she g h s started in these terms: .a w w w

m o We began to study the Bible as our main text … . The important thing.c for us is te a that we started to identify that reality with our own … . It also helpedg to change h s .a the image we had, as Catholics and Christians: that God is up therew and that God w w has a great kingdom for we the poor, yet never thinking of our own reality as m o .c a reality that we were actually living … . We began studyingte more deeply and a g h we came to a conclusion. That being a Christian means thinkings of our brothers .a w around us, and that every one of our Indian race has aw right to eat … . And it’s w

m precisely when we look at the lives of Christians in theo past that we see what our .c te role as Christians should be today. (Menchú 1984:a 131–3). g h s .a w w w Menchú grounds her activism not only in the terms of liberation theology, but m o also in the language of feminist maternalism,.c observing, “[t]here is something te a g important about women in Guatemala, h especially Indian women, and that s .a something is her relationship with the earth—betweenw the earth and the mother. w w

… There is a constant dialogue betweenm the earth and the woman. The feeling o .c is born in women because of the responsibilitieste they have, which men do not a g h have” (Menchú 1984: 220). At thes same time, noting her own unmarried and .a w 23 w childless status, Menchú has resistedw defining the movement in terms of purely

m maternalistic or gynocentric conceptso of feminism and women’s rights. On this .c te a g h s .a w Recent scholarship of the Guatemalanw Civil War, including the work of the UN-sponsored w

Historical Clarification Commissionm (CEH), a Guatemalan Truth and Reconciliation o .c Commission, has tended ttoe support Menchú’s account of the human rights violations a g h against indigenous peoples in ways that have reaffirmed, for most, the importance of her .a w overall work for indigenousw rights, women’s rights, and other human rights concerns. w

For accounts of the m controversy, see Stoll 1998, Arias 2001, Golden 1999, Rigoberta o .c Menchú Says Autobiographyte Reflects Collective Memory, Not Just Personal Experience a g h 1999, Wilson, 1999,s Rohter 1998. In defense of Menchú, see Smith 2011, Grandin 2010, .a w “Historical Truth”w vs. “Narrative Truth” in Rigoberta Menchú’s Autobiography 1999. w

m 22 Menchúo admits in her testimonial to feeling “slightly more love” for her father, .c te but dedicatesa a chapter to the lessons and values that she learned from her mother (Menchú g h 1984: 236).s Her paternal relationship falls between Day’s rockiness and Aung San Suu .a w Kyi’s reverence.w w

m 23o At one point she explains this as the result of a childhood decision to forego .c te marriagea and motherhood because she was “afraid of life” and the possibility of conditions g h of sresponsibility and suffering that mothers experienced toward their children, in light of .a w w thew harshness of life in her community (Menchú 1984: 220). © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 157 © Copyrighted Material

point, she has maintained, “[p]erhaps in the future, when there’s a need for it, therem o .c te will be a women’s organisation in Guatemala. For the time being, though, we thinka g h s that it would be feeding machismo to set up an organisation for women only,a since . w w it would mean separating women’s work from men’s work. Also we’ve foundw that

m when we discuss women’s problems, we need the men to be present, soo that they .c te a can contribute by giving their opinions of what to do about the problemg and so h s .a that they can learn as well. If they don’t learn, they don’t progress” (Menchúw 1984: w w 222). The appeal to feminist maternalism is not an argument that has appealed to m o .c third-wave feminists (Valenti 2012: ch. 4). But concerns for partnershipte with men, a g h emphasized for decades by the UN women’s conferences, dos have third-wave .a 24 w appeal (see, e.g., Vanessa 2009, Urban 2012). Menchú herselfw is also mentioned w

m frequently and with appreciation in the third-wave blog literatureo (see, e.g., Ann .c te 2007, Pandit 2012, Maya 2012). a g h s .a w w w Wangari Maathai m o .c te a g In 2004, the Kenyan environmental and political activisth Wangari Maathai became s .a the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace wPrize. Much as Menchú’s prize had w w highlighted connections between the justice andm rights for indigenous people to o .c the larger goal of peace, Maathai’s award drewte needed attention to the connections a g h between peace, democracy, and sustainables development. Maathai, like Menchú, .a w received a Catholic education at primaryw and secondary schools in Kenya and w

m later at a Catholic women’s college ino the United States. She studied biological .c te a sciences and earned a doctorate in anatomy,g eventually becoming the first East h s African woman to earn a doctoral degree..a While on the faculty of the University w w w of Nairobi, she campaigned for equal employment benefits for women faculty m o and staff and became involved .cin a number of civic organizations, including the te a g National Council of Womenh of Kenya (NCWK), which she would eventually s .a w chair. Her environmental workw began in the 1970s under the auspices of the w

United Nations Environmentalm Program, leading to a project called Envirocare o .c te which put the unemployeda to work planting trees to conserve the environment. g h s Connections through the.a United Nations Human Settlements Program (HABITAT) w w eventually providedw Maathai with funds to pay Kenyan women small stipends to

m plant nurseries ando trees in the first “Green Belt” initiative, later the Green Belt .c te a Movement, for whichg Maathai would earn the Nobel Prize. h s .a w w w

m o .c te a 24 Theg cited third-wave feminists’ emphasis on cross-gender partnership is a long h s way from,.a for example, feminist legal theorist Martha Fineman’s call to redefine all w w w parental caregiving as “mothering.” (1995). See, e.g., Ann, “F’ed-Up Headline of the m o Day,”.c Feministing.com, August 27, 2007 (providing a link to a news article titled “Hotel te a mistakesg Nobel laureate for bag lady”), Feministing.com, August 17, 2007; Eesha Pandit, h s “Guatemala.a Launches Unit,” Feministing.com, March 13, 2012; Maya, “‘The w w Warw on Drugs Has Become a ’,” Feministing.com, June 6, 2012. © Copyrighted Material 158 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Amid these various initiatives, there were personal and political challenges—a m o bitter divorce, a job abroad that required Maathai to leave her three children.c to te a g h live with her former spouse, politically orchestrated opposition to her assumings .a w the chairmanship of the NCWK to which she had been elected, denialw of w eligibility to run for a Parliamentary seat, and even eviction from her university-m o .c te owned housing. Maathai’s Green Belt Movement attained internationala visibility g h s in 1985 at the Third World Conference on Women in Nairobi, but.a this led to w w persecution at home. Maathai and her organization were denouncedw by the Kenyan

m o government throughout the 1980s and 1990s for preaching democracy.c along te a with environmentalism. In 1992 Maathai was arrested with otherg pro-democracy h s .a activists in an action that drew international attention and elicitedw statements by w w Vice President Al Gore and Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States on her m o .c behalf. Upon her release, Maathai participated in a hungerte strike by a group of a g h Kenyan mothers on behalf of those still in prison and swas subjected to forcible .a w removal by the police. Once dispersed, the protest wwas resumed at All Saints w

m Cathedral, the seat of the Anglican Archbishop in oKenya. The relocation of the .c te protest to the church drew criticism, but it also appearsa to have reconfirmed, for g h s Maathai, the power of the Church to act on behalf.a of justice. In 2002 Maathai was w w w elected to the Kenyan Parliament with 98 percent of the vote and was subsequently m o appointed Assistant Minister in the Ministry.c for Environment and Natural te a g Resources, a position that she held from h 2003–2005. In 2005 she was elected s .a the first president of the African Union’sw Economic, Social and Cultural Council, w w and she has continued to draw internationalm honors and international attention, o .c including a visit from then-Senator Barackte Obama during the course of which a g h Maathai and Obama planted a tree ats Uhuru Park, the central Nairobi green space .a w w that had been the site of many of Maathai’sw democratic protests. In 2011, Maathai

m died from ovarian cancer. o .c te a A year before she died,g Maathai published a spiritual memoir of her h s .a environmental work, titled Replenishingw the Earth (2010). In it she wrote, “[u]pon w w reflection, it is clear to me that when I began this work in 1977, I wasn’t motivated m o by my faith or by religion.c in general. Instead, the motivation came from thinking te a g h literally and practicallys about how to solve problems on the ground. It was a desire .a w to help rural populations,w especially women, with the basic needs they described w

m to me during seminarso and workshops … . So, when these questions were asked .c te during the early days,a I’d answer that I didn’t think digging holes and mobilizing g h s communities to.a protect or restore the trees, forests, watersheds, soil, or habitats for w w wildlife that surroundedw them was spiritual work or only relevant to the religious”

m o (Maathai 2010:.c 13). At the same time, she maintained, “[p]ersonally, however, I te a g never differentiatedh between activities that might be called ‘spiritual’ and those s .a that mightw be termed ‘secular.’ After a few years I came to recognize that our w w efforts weren’t only about planting trees, but were also about sowing seeds of a m o .c differentte sort—the ones necessary to heal the wounds inflicted on communities a g h thats robbed them of their self-confidence and self-knowledge. What became clear .a w wasw that individuals within these communities had to rediscover their authentic w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 159 © Copyrighted Material

voice and speak out on behalf of their rights (human, environmental, civic, andm o .c te political)” (Maathai 2010: 14). a g h s Maathai identified as the Four Core Values of the Green a Belt Movement: . w w (1) love for the environment, (2) gratitude and respect for Earth’s resources,w

m (3) self-empowerment and self-betterment, and a (4) spirit of serviceo and .c te a volunteerism. Of the last, she observed, drawing on the same saintly tropeg as Day, h s .a that service and volunteerism involve a “giving of self that characterizesw prophets, w w saints, and many local heroes” and “puts a priority on doing one’s part to achieve m o .c the common good: both for those who are near and dear and forte strangers who a g h may be in faraway places” (Maathai: 2010: 15). Maathai attributeds this emphasis .a w on service to the education that she received from missionaryw nuns, of whom w

m she said, “probably the greatest lesson they gave me is noto so much what they .c te were talking about, as the way they lived. I really admireda their sense of service, g h s sense of self-giving and when I look back, that’s what. awas probably the greatest w w w lesson” (Schnall 2008). And as Maathai later observed in Replenishing the Earth, m o “[s]elfless service is the basis for much of what .c we admire in those we see as te a g exemplars of what is best in humanity—peopleh who represent a model of not s .a only self-empowerment but also of how to motivatew others to act for the common w w good.” (Maathai 2010: 158). m o .c Maathai referenced both Dorothy Day andte as among those a g h who have exemplified such service (Maathais 2010: 158–9). .a w Balance between proximate and remotew needs, between self-giving and self- w

m sacrifice, and between women’s traditionalo care families and desire to be agents .c te a in the wider world, are paramount feministg issues, though Maathai does not name h s them as such. Both Maathai’s faith.a motivation and her feminist underpinnings w w w seem to have been recognized, to a certain extent, retrospectively, and with a m o strong dose of religious ecumenism.c and realism about what women’s organizations te a g can accomplish. While “neitherh a theologian nor a student of religions or faith s .a w traditions,” Maathai arguedw that from both a spiritual and a humanistic perspective w

“the environment becomesm sacred, because to destroy what is essential to life is to o .c te destroy life itself,” and a that, because of this connection between spiritual values g h s and nature, “people who.a are religious should be closest to the planet and in the w w forefront of recognizingw that it needs healing” (Maathai 2010: 19, 18). There is

m a postcolonial syncretismo in Maathai’s intentional incorporation of traditional .c te a Kikuyu principlesg and examples to supplement the Christian principles that h s .a are predominantw in Kenya today—traditional concepts which she notes were w w considered “primitive” by the missionaries whose education otherwise served her m o .c so well. te a g h Askeds about the connections between women and the environment, Maathai .a w initiallyw framed the connection in some of the same maternalistic terms that Day w

m and Menchúo use in describing women’s connection to salvation and the earth, .c te respectively.a Maathai explained, g h s .a w w w © Copyrighted Material 160 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

It was almost by coincidence—well, it was not really a coincidence, it was almost m o by—it had to be that way … in that part of Africa, it’s the women who actually .c te a g h are the first victims of environmental degradation, because they are the ones whos .a w fetch water, so if there is no water, it is them who walk for days—or for hoursw I w

should say—looking for water. They are the ones who fetch firewood. Theym are o .c te the ones who produce food for their families. So it’s easy for them to explaina g h s when the environment is degraded and to persuade them to take action,.a because w w they can see where it will impact them directly positively (Schnall 2008).w

m o .c te a In a similar vein of pragmatism about the feminist project, Maathaig remarked, h s .a w w w I think that sometimes we romanticize the role that the women can play, because m o .c women in many countries of the world, women are still notte in charge. They are a g h still not playing a very important role in decision-making.s But sometimes when .a w women do find themselves in those positions, w we really don’t see that much w

m difference. And I have always felt that perhaps womeno have sometimes almost .c te embraced the same values as men, and the same charactera as men, because they g h s are in the men’s world, and they are trying to fit.a into a system that men have w w w created (Schnall 2008). m o .c te a g These senses of serendipity and pragmatismh in Maathai’s feminism may seem s .a discordant with the sense of idealism andw intentional agency that shape feminism w w and other social movements. But it maym be the case that Maathai herself, like the o .c nuns who inspired her, has inspired feministte accolades not so much for her feminist a g h articulations, as through her lived struggles for principles of on the .a w w ground—and in the ground, in thew trees of hope and peace that her movement has

m planted across Africa. Maathai haso certainly been warmly received by third-wave .c te a feminists of the blogosphere g (Sapra 2011, Church 2011, Valenti 2004, Vanessa h s .a 2004). w w w

m o Aung San Suu Kyi .c te a g h s .a w Aung San Suu Kyi w is a democracy activist who spent nearly two decades in w

m more or less continuouso house arrest in Burma after becoming a leader of the .c te Burmese democratica revolution in 1988. In 1990, her party, the National League g h s for Democracy.a (NLD), won enough votes to guarantee them nearly 80 percent w w of the seats inw Parliament. It was thought that Suu Kyi might have served as

m o Prime Minister,.c but the controlling military government did not recognize the te a g election resultsh and Suu Kyi was kept in confinement. During brief periods of s .a liberationw from house arrest in 1996 and 2002, motorcades in which she was riding w w with fellow NLD leaders were attacked by mobs allegedly paid by the military m o .c government.te In 2007, Suu Kyi made a brief public appearance outside her home a g h to ssupport Buddhist monks who were marching in support of human rights in the .a w democraticw protests that came to be referred to as the “Saffron Revolution.” In w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 161 © Copyrighted Material

2010, Suu Kyi was released for the last time, and in April 2012 she was finallym o .c te elected to Parliament. a g h s Suu Kyi was the third child and only daughter of Aung San, the militarya and . w w political leader who negotiated Burma’s independence from the British w Empire

m in 1947. That same year, when Suu Kyi was just two years old, her fathero was .c te a assassinated by political rivals during a meeting to form a new government.g h s .a Aung San is still revered by the Burmese people as an independencew leader and w w founder of modern Burma. After her father’s death, Suu Kyi’s mother, Khin Kyi, m o .c was appointed ambassador to India and Nepal and Suu Kyi,t e having attended a g h Methodist and Catholic schools in her youth, accompanied her smother to complete .a w her secondary school education and pursue university studiesw in India. Suu Kyi w

m completed further university studies in politics, philosophy,o and economics at .c te , after which she moved to New York to work at athe United Nations. She g h s returned to Britain three years later to marry Michael Aris,.a an Oxford scholar of w w w Tibetan culture. Suu Kyi gave birth to two sons before resuming her studies and m o earning a doctorate in Burmese literature from the School.c of Oriental and African te a g Studies of the University of . h s .a In 1985, Suu Kyi returned to Burma alone wto care for her dying mother, but w w quickly became involved in the democracy protestsm of August 8, 1988, as heir to o .c her father’s revolutionary aims. Her leadershipte status was confirmed in an address a g h before a half million protesters at Rangoon’ss landmark Shwedagon Pagoda on .a w August 26, 1988, in which Suu Kyi dreww on both Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of w

m nonviolence and traditional Buddhist concepts.o She was placed under house arrest .c te a in 1989. Half a world and conditionsg of near-continuous house arrest separated h s Suu Kyi from her husband, who was.a permitted to visit Suu Kyi in Burma five w w w times. Tragically, his last visit in 1995 was followed by a cancer diagnosis in m o 1997 and death in 1999. Suu Kyi’s.c second son, Kim Aris, was permitted to visit te a g her in 2010 for the first timeh in nearly twenty-five years (Stanford 2012). Kim s .a w Aris welcomed his mother backw to the United Kingdom and introduced her to her w grandchildren in the summerm of 2012 during Suu Kyi’s first trip back to Europe o .c te since 1998. a g h s A Theravada Buddhist,.a Suu Kyi has cited Buddhist principles as playing a key w w role in sustaining herw through her years of imprisonment and as being the foundation

m of her commitmentso to democracy and development. When she was awarded the .c te a Nobel Peace Prizeg in 1991 for her “non-violent struggle for democracy and human h s .a rights,” her olderw son, Alexander Aris, accepted on her behalf. In his remarks, Aris w w spoke powerfully of his mother’s peace activism, stating, “I personally believe m o .c that by herte own dedication and personal sacrifice she has come to be a worthy a g 25 h symbol throughs whom the plight of all the people of Burma may be recognised” .a w w w

m o 25.c In a rare 2004 interview, Kim Aris also spoke of his mother with pride, saying te a “Atg the end of the day, freedom for Burma was the most important thing for her. I have h s to. a respect her reasoning. It wasn’t easy, but I am proud she took that decision” (Stanford w w 2012).w © Copyrighted Material 162 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

(Aris 1991). Citing his mother’s writings on the negative correspondence of fear m o and freedom, “within the military government there are those to whom the present.c te a g h policies of fear and repression are abhorrent, violating as they do the most sacreds .a w principles of Burma’s Buddhist heritage” (Stanford 2012, citing Suu Kyiw 1991: w

183, 185, 174) Those writings were collected under the title Freedom fromm Fear, o .c te after an eponymous article released for publication to commemoratea Suu Kyi’s g h s 1990 receipt of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom.a of Thought. w w In those writings, Suu Kyi makes frequent reference to Buddhist wprinciples as a

m o source of human rights. She observes that the “quintessential revolution.c is that te a of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need forg change in those h s .a mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation’sw development” w w and requiring “sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting m o .c influences of desire, ill will, ignorance and fear” (Suu te Kyi 1991: 183). At one a g h point, in an interesting affinity with Day and Maathai s over the exemplary power .a w of saints, Suu Kyi observes, “Saints, it has been said,w are the sinners who go on w

m trying” (Suu Kyi 1991: 183). o .c te There is certain emphasis on perfectionism in aSuu Kyi’s philosophy, perhaps g h s reflective of the saint-like status that she has assumed.a in the eyes of her own people w w w for her sacrifices of family and freedom on behalf of the nation. She observes, m o “[f]earlessness may be a gift but perhaps more.c precious is the courage acquired te a g through endeavour, courage that comes fromh cultivating the habit of refusing to s .a let fear dictate one’s actions, courage thatw could best be describes as ‘grace under w w pressure’—grace which is renewed repeatedlym in the face of harsh, unremitting o .c pressure” (Suu Kyi 1991: 184). Uponte receiving the Nobel Prize in person at a g h last in the summer of 2012, Suu Kyis noted, “[a]bsolute peace in our world is an .a w w unattainable goal. But it is one towardsw which we must continue to journey, our

m eyes fixed on it as a traveller ino a desert fixes his eyes on the one guiding star .c te a that will lead him to salvation.g Even if we do not achieve perfect peace on earth, h s .a because perfect peace is notw of this earth, common endeavours to gain peace will w w unite individuals and nations in trust and friendship and help to make our human m o community safer and kinder”.c (Suu Kyi 2012). te a g h Suu Kyi’s speeches,s writings, and activism have sometimes been described as .a w lacking a distinctly feministw perspective and as conforming to “Southeast Asian w

m constructions of theo feminine as ‘moral guardian’” (Rosenzweig et al. 2006). In .c te a video address toa guests at the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Global Women’s g h s Rights Awards .aevent, at which she was awarded the Eleanor Roosevelt award for w w her work on democracyw and human rights in Burma, Suu Kyi remarked, “I believe

m o women play.c the more important part in our world because not only are they entering te a g the professionalh world, they still remain the pillars of their homes and families. s .a So I hopew the menfolk in this audience will forgive me for speaking in favor of w w women—for speaking out in favor of women—because I think only a woman can m o .c understandte the troubles, the problems, the discrimination that other women have a g h to sface” (Hallett 2011). These remarks have certain poignant datedness, coming .a w fortyw years after the great flow of middle- and upper-class women from home into w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 163 © Copyrighted Material

the workforce, but, of course, Suu Kyi was imprisoned under house arrest form o .c te half of this time. They also have a certain maternalistic quality, perhaps reflectivea g h s of the “moral guardian” tradition, but Suu Kyi notably sacrificed decadesa of . w w maternal experience for the work of democracy. In that sense, she may havew been

m the ultimate working mother by the standards of the work-family choiceso that .c te a women are still regularly called to make today. What signals her solidarityg with h s .a the from which she was isolated for so long is herw invitation in w w accepting the Eleanor Roosevelt award that “from this day onwards, until all the m o .c people in the world, particularly all the women in the world, arete able to achieve a g h their full potential, I hope we will be able to work together closelys and in the true .a w spirit of sisterhood” (Hallett 2011). Even though her imprisonmentw predated the w

m inception of the third wave, the recent attention to Suu Kyi’so release and election .c te to Parliament by third-wave feminists suggests an affinitya with her work (Bahadur g h s 2012, Pandit 2012, Chloe 2010, Kort 2010, Ariel 2009)..a w w w

m o .c te a g Repairing and Redeeming the World: The Futureh of Third-Wave Feminism s .a in Law and Religion w w w

m o .c So, what are some of the implications of third-wavete feminism and third generation a g h human rights for future inquiries into feminism,s law, and religion, particularly in .a w light of the still scant reception of third-wavew feminism in law and religion and the w

m still marginal status of third generation orights in human rights law? First, the third- .c te a wave feminist call for diversity and gpluralism of voices and issues will continue h s to emanate from those working in.a both law and religion. This commitment to w w w diversity and pluralism has not only academic and theoretical implication in the m o disciplines of law and religion, but.c also practical application at the United Nations te a g and other international fora, h where feminists from the developing world have s .a w been some of the most insistentw voices challenging the traditional, liberal, second- w wave feminism of Europe,m North America, and other developed regions. Recent o .c te international conventionsa on the self-determination of peoples and the rights of g h s indigenous peoples are.a examples of the trend in international law to attend to the w w claims and concernsw of those in the developing world (UN 2007: Art. 22).

m Second, the diversityo of issues will continue to extend beyond sexuality and .c te a reproduction to thirdg generation rights to peace, prosperity, health, environmental h s .a sustainability, andw development—all issues that have been acknowledged to affect w w women disproportionately and differently in various parts of the world. Access to m o .c reproductivete health, including contraception and abortion, and equality in the family a g h will continues to be significant issues for women’s security and wellbeing, but third .a w generationw human rights issues will continue to be increasingly important issues w

m for women’so activism. Sexual and reproductive rights are, ultimately and overall, .c te inextricablya linked to women’s self-development and wider human progress, but g h s they.a will need to be connected and balanced with the more proximate concerns w w w © Copyrighted Material 164 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material of women suffering from poverty, famine, disease, war, conflict, environmental m o degradation, and physical or cultural genocide in many parts of the world. .c te a g h Third, there will continue to be a pronounced emphasis on both materials and .a w cultural dimensions of rights and reform in both law and religion. Womenw do w not live by bread alone, but they may find it helpful to have Smartphones.m Third- o .c te wave feminism is known for its often playfully subversive means of challenginga g h s the culture, as well as the structure of society. The exponential.a increase of w w participation in women’s NGOs between Cairo and Beijing as thew Internet and

m o teleconferencing were coming into use is a further example of the.c use of culture te a and communication to achieve feminist goals—seen recently ing the use of social h s .a media through Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in such placesw as Iran, Egypt, w w and Syria (Ghimire 2011, Kandy 2011, Khamis 2011, Nemati 2010). Third-wave m o .c feminism will continue to access these tools in building at e culture of human rights a g h in the third generation. s .a w Fourth, there emerges, both within third-wave feminismw and in the lives of w

m their feminist forebears discussed above, a convictiono and often a lived reality .c te against perfectionism. Femininity—and sometimesa feminism—sits at times g h s uneasily with the circumstances of their lives and.a the sacrifices that these women w w w made. There are whispers in their autobiographies and activism of the “I’m a m o feminist, but …” ambivalence expressed by.c many third-wave feminists today. te a g Their lives feature imperfect romantic alliances,h separations from family and s .a caregiving roles, and time spent in jail,w under house arrest, or in exile—a far w w cry from the usual stereotypes of feminine,m maternal, and domestic virtue. Their o .c lives were distinctly imperfect, but inte a sense that tends to confirm the historian a g h Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s oft-quoteds quip, “Well-behaved women seldom make .a w w history” (Ulrich 2007). In a sense,w each of these women has been thought of as

m saint, an icon, or a martyr, but eacho of them seems to have understood their trials .c te a and their callings in the sense gof Suu Kyi’s definition of saints as “sinners who go h s .a on trying.” w w w Finally, and related to the points above, both third-wave feminism and third m o generation rights point to .ca shift from creation to redemption. No longer are women, te a g h in an essentialist way, sconfined to the parameters of their sexual and reproductive .a w roles, as paramount asw these will necessarily remain in the lives of many women. w

m No longer is the achievemento of civil and political rights and economic, social, .c te and cultural rightsa to be left solely to individual nations or governments. There is g h s a recognition that.a women can do more—and that third generation human rights w w require more.w Today’s women’s human rights activists, increasingly including

m o third-wave .cfeminists, are active on a wide range of human rights issues including te a g climate change,h cultural rights, and cyberdemocracy. In a theological sense, they s .a are not wlimited to the order of creation, but are called to be agents in the repair w w and redemption of the world. In a similar sense of renewal, third-wave feminism m o .c and tethird generation rights, their breadth and interaction, seem destined to play an a g h s .a w w w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 165 © Copyrighted Material

increasingly important role in women’s theory and practice at the intersection mof o 26 .c te feminism, law, and religion in today’s globalized and interconnected world. a g h s .a w w w

m List of References o .c te a g h s .a Aboud, G. 2012. Climate Conversations—Helping Women Gainw a Voice on w w Climate Change. AlertNet. 3 August. m o .c Algan, B. 2004. Rethinking “Third Generation Human Rights.”te Ankara Law a g h Review, 1(1), 121–55. s .a w Alston, P. 1982. A Third Generation of Solidarity Rights: Progressivew Development w

m or Obfuscation of International Human Rights Law? Netherlandso International .c te Law Review, 29(3), 307–22. a g h s Ann. 2007. F’ed-Up Headline of the Day. Feministing.com.a , 17 August. w w w Arias, A. (ed.) 2001. The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy . Minneapolis: University m o of Minnesota. .c te a g Ariel. 2009. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Mothers hof All Movements. Feministing. s .a com, 13 August. w w w

Aris, A. 1991. Acceptance speech delivered onm behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi on the o .c occasion of the award of the Nobel Peacete Prize, Oslo, Norway, 10 December. a g h Bahadur, G. 2012. “The Lady” Takes Offices in Burma.Ms. Magazine Blog, 2 May. .a w Bartlett, K.T., and Kennedy, R. 1991. Feministw Legal Theory: Readings in Law w

m and Gender. Boulder, CO: Westview.o .c te a Bartlett, K.T., and Rhode, D.L. 2010.g Gender and Law: Theory, Doctrine, h s Commentary. 5th edition. New .York:a Aspen. w w w Batlan, F., Hradsky, K., Jeschke, K., Meyer, L., and Roberts, J. 2008. Not Our m o Mothers’ Law School?: A Third-Wave.c Feminist Study of Women’s Experiences te a g in Law School. Universityh of Baltimore Law Forum, 39(2), 124–52. s .a w Baumgardner, J., and Richardsw A. (eds.) 2000. Manifesta: Young Women, w

Feminism, and the Future.m New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. o .c te Bayes, J. and Tohidi, N.a (eds.) 2001. Globalization, Gender, and Religion: The g h s Politics of Women’s.a Rights in Catholic and Muslim Contexts. Basingstoke: w w Palgrave. w

m Belkin, L. 2012. Anne-Marieo Slaughter: Why One Woman Reached the Top and .c te a Then Left. Theg Huffington Post, 21 June. h s .a Bellafante, G. 2012.w A Different Intersection of Church and Politics. The New York w w Times, 27 April. m o .c Bengtsson,te J. 2012. Aung San Suu Kyi: A Biography. Dulles, VA: Potomac. a g h Bock, G.s and James, S. (eds.) 1992. Beyond Equality and Difference: Citizenship, .a w Feministw Politics and Female Subjectivity. London: Routledge. w

m o .c te a g h s .a 26 This article is dedicated to the author’s niece, Sidonie Louise Gillette, a w w kindergartenw peace activist and likely fourth- or fifth-wave feminist. © Copyrighted Material 166 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Boyle, K. 2012. Atlantic magazine story goes viral, and women have something to m o say about having “it all.” The Washington Post, 24 June. .c te a g h Bryson, K.M. 2010. Connecting Environmental and Reproductive Justice.s .a w Feministing.com, 2 April. w w

Burtsch, A. 2011. My Hope for #occupy wallstreet. Feministing.com, 4 October.m o .c te Butler, J. 2006. Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized. London: a Pluto. g h s Butler, M. 2012. Occupy Wall Street Holds First Feminist General Assembly..a Ms. w w Magazine Blog, 18 May. w

m o Chloe, Big News: 2010. Aung San Suu Kyi Released. Feministing.com.c , te a 15 November. g h s .a Church, E.M. 2011. Remembering Dr. Wangari Maathai. Ms.w Magazine Blog, w w 27 September. m o .c Clinton, H.R. 1995. Remarks to the UN 4th World Conferencete on Women Plenary a g h Session, Beijing, China, 5 September. s .a w Covert, B. 2012. Why Women Can’t Have It All—It’s Notw You, It’s Discrimination. w

m The Nation, 21 June. o .c te Crawford, B.J. 2007. Toward a Third Wave Feminista Legal Theory: Young Women, g h s Pornography, and the Praxis of Pleasure. Michigan.a Journal of Gender & Law, w w w 14, 99–168. m o Crawford, B.J. 2010a. The Third Wave’s Break.c from Feminism. International te a g Journal of Law in Context, 6, 100–102.h s .a Crawford, B.J. 2010b. Third-Wave Feminism,w Motherhood, and the Future of w w

Feminist Legal Theory, in Gender, Law,m and Sexualities, edited by Jackie Jones o .c et al. London: Routledge, 227–40.te a g h Dankelman, I. 2009. Environment ands Sustainable Development, in A Companion .a w w to , edited byw P. Essed, D.T. Goldberg, and A.Kobayashi.

m Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.o .c te a Dankelman, I. 2010. Gender andg Climate Change: An Introduction. Washington, h s .a DC: Earthscan. w w w Day, D. [1939] 2006. From Union Square to Rome. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. m o Day, D. [1952] 1996. The.c Long Loneliness. New York: HarperOne. te a g h Day, D. [1963] 1997. Loavess and Fishes. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. .a w Day, D. 1980. The Finalw Word Is Love. The Catholic Worker, May, 4. w

m Dell’Antonia, K.J. o 2012. Talking About Why Women Can’t Have It All. The New .c te York Times, 21a June. g h s Dickerson, R., .aand Piepmeier, A. 2003. Catching a Wave: Feminism w w for the 21stw Century. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

m o Dorothy Day:.c Don’t Call Me a Saint (dir. Claudia Lawson, 2006). te a g Ellsberg, h R. (ed.) 2008. The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day. s .a Milwaukee,w WI: Marquette University Press. w w Ellsberg, R. (ed.). 2010. All the Way to Heaven: The Selected Letters of Dorothy m o .c Dayte . Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press. a g h Fillion,s K. 1996. Lip Service: The Truth About Women’s Darker Side in Love, Sex, .a w w and Friendship. Toronto: Harper Collins. w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 167 © Copyrighted Material

Findlen, B. (ed.) 1995. Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generationm . o .c te Seattle, WA: Seal Press. a g h s Fineman, M. 1995. The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family and Other Twentieth-a . w w Century Tragedies. New York: Routledge. w

m Forest, J. 2011. All Is Grace: A Biography of Dorothy Day. Maryknoll, NY:o Orbis. .c te a Gatens, M. 1991. Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Differenceg and h s .a Equality. Bloomington: Indiana University. w w w “Gender Based Violence in Liberia,” workshop convened by the Institute for m o .c Developing Nations and the Carter Center at Emory University,te June 2008. a g h Gettleman, J. 2011. Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate,s Dies at 71. The .a w New York Times, 26 September. w w

m Ghimire, Bumika. 2011. Saudi Women Demand Theiro Rights, on Twitter. .c te Global Voice Advocacy [Online]. Available at: http://advocacy.globalvoicesa g h s online.org/2011/02/24/saudi-women-demand-their-rights-on-twitter.a w w w [accessed: 25 September 2012]. m o Gillis, S., Howie, G., and Munford, R. 2007. Third.c Wave Feminism: A Critical te a g Exploration. 2nd edition. New York: Palgrave.h s .a Goldberg, M. 2009. The Means of Reproduction:w Sex, Power, and the Future of the w w

World. New York: Penguin. m o .c Golden, T. 1999. A Legendary Life. The Newte York Times, 18 April. a g h Graff, E.J. 2012. Why Does The Atlantic Hates Women? The American Prospect, .a w 21 June. w w

m Grandin, G. 2010. It Was Heaven that Theyo Burned. The Nation, 8 September. .c te a Green, M.C. 2011. Christianity andg the Rights of Women, in Christianity and h s Human Rights: An Introduction.a , edited by J. Witte, Jr., and F.S. Alexander. w w w New York: Cambridge University Press. m o Gregory, D.L. 2006. Dorothy .c Day, in The Teachings of Modern Christianity te a g on Law, Politics, and Humanh Nature, vol. 1, edited by J. Witte, Jr. and s .a w F.S. Alexander. New York:w Columbia University Press. w

Hallett, S. 2011. Aung Sanm Suu Kyi Speaks to Feminists. Ms. Magazine Blog, o .c te 29 April. a g h s Hanna, M.A. 2001. Interface.a Between the Third Generation Human Rights and w w the Good Governancew in a Globalized World, in Globalization, International

m Law, and Humano Rights, edited by J.F. Addicott, M.J.H. Bhuiyan, and .c te a T.M.R. Chowdhury.g New Delhi: Oxford University Press. h s .a Hartmann, H.I.w 1979. The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards w w a More Progressive Union. Capital & Class, 3(2), 1–33. m o .c Henry, A. 2004.te Not My Mother’s Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave a g h Feminism.s Bloomington: Indiana University Press. .a w Heywood,w L., and Drake, J. (eds.) 1997. Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist and w

m Doingo Feminism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. .c te “Historicala Truth” vs. “Narrative Truth” in Rigoberta Menchú’s Autobiography. g h s .a 1999. Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 February. w w w © Copyrighted Material 168 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Juss, S. 1998. The Coming of Communitarian Rights: Are “Third-Generation” m o Human Rights Really “First-Generation Rights?” International Journal.c of te a g h Discrimination and the Law, 3(3), 159–80. s .a w Kandra, G. 2011. The Catholic Worker Adds Its Voice to Occupy Wallw Street. w

Patheos.com, 2 November. m o .c te Kandy. 2011. Egypt, Italy, Ivory Coast, and Twitter! Global Women’s Revolution?a g h s The Daily Kos, 8 March. .a w w Kantor, J. 2012. Elite Women Put a New Spin on an Old Debate. wThe New York

m o Times, 21 June. .c te a Khamis, S. and Vaughan, K. 2011. Cyberactivism in the Egyptiang Revolution: h s .a How Civic Engagement and Citizen Journalism Tippedw the Balance. Arab w w Media & Society, 14(Summer). Available at: http://www.arabmediasociety. m o .c com/index.php?article=769&printarticle [accessed: 25te September 2012]. a g h Kissling, F. 2009. Contraception Fights Global Warming.s Salon.com, 29 September. .a w Klassen, C. 2009. Feminist Spirituality: The Next Generation.w Lanham, MD: w

m Lexington Books. o .c te Klein, N. 2000. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Branda Bullies. New York: Picador. g h s Klein, N. 2008. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of.a Disaster Capitalism. New York: w w w Picador. m o Kort, M. 2010. Aung San Suu Kyi, Free at Last!.c Ms. Magazine Blog, 13 November. te a g Levy, A. 2005. Female Chauvinist Pigs, Womenh and the Rise of Raunch Culture. s .a New York: New Press. w w w

Lori, 2010. CSW 2010: Why This U.S. Basedm Feminist Gives a Damn. Feministing. o .c com, 2 March. te a g h Maathai, W. 2006. Unbowed: A Memoirs . New York: Knopf. .a w w Maathai, W. 2010. Replenishing thew Earth: Spiritual Values for Healing Ourselves

m and the World. New York: Doubleday.o .c te a Maya. 2012. “The War on Drugsg Has Become a War on Women.” Feministing. h s .a com, 6 June. w w w Menchú, R. 1984. I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala, edited m o by E. Burgos-Debray.c and translated by A. Wright. London: Verso. te a g h Menchú, R. 1998. Crossings Borders, translated and edited by A. Wright. London: .a w Verso. w w

m Menchú, Rigoberta.o 1999. Says Autobiography Reflects Collective Memory, Not .c te Just Personal aExperience. Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 February. g h s Miriam. 2011. .aWorld Population Day: The World at 7 Billion. Feministing.com, w w 11 July. w

m o Morgan, Robin.c (ed.) 1984. Sisterhood Is Global: The International Women’s te a g Movementh Anthology. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. s .a Muller, w D. 2011. Are Feminists Occupying Wall Street? Ms. Magazine Blog, w w 21 October. m o .c Nemati,te C. 2010. How the Internet Gave Women a Voice in Iran: A Brief History. a g h s Center for Democracy and Technology [Online] Available at: https://www.cdt. .a w w w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 169 © Copyrighted Material

org/blogs/cyrus-nemati/how-internet-gave-women-voice-iran-brief-historym o .c te [accessed: 25 September 2012]. a g h s O’Connor, J. 1991. The Moral Vision of Dorothy Day: A Feminist Perspective.a . w w New York: Crossroad. w

m Occupy Patriarchy. 2012. Bring Feminism to Wall Street Now: A Statemento and a .c te a Flyer. OccupyPatriarchy.org, 25 October. g h s .a Occupy Wall Street. 2012. Women Occupying Wall Street Reclaimw Feminism in w w Citywide Gathering.” Occupy Wall Street.org, 17 May. m o .c Pandit, E. 2012. Newsflash: war and militarism are dangerouste for women. a g h Feministing.com, 2 March. s .a w Pandit, E. 2012. Guatemala Launches Femicide Unit. Feministing.comw , 13 March. w

m Pandit, E. 2012. Aung San Suu Kyi’s Party Wins Election.o Feministing.com, .c te 3 April. a g h s Pollitt, K. 2010. Feminist Mothers, Flapper Daughters. .Thea Nation, 30 September. w w w Popham, P. 2011. The Lady and the Peacock: The Life of Aung San Suu Kyi. New m o York: The Experiment. .c te a g Reinholz, M. In the East Village, Christian Anarchyh Meets Occupy Wall Street. s .a The Local East Village, 31 October. w w w

Rogers, S. 2011. What Occupy Wall Street m Owes to Feminist Consciousness- o .c Raising. Ms. Magazine Blog, 13 December.te a g h Rohter, L. 1998. Tarnished Laureate: Nobels Laureate Accused of Stretching the .a w Truth. The New York Times, 15 December.w w

m Romano, A. and Dokoupil, T. 2010. Men’so Lib. Newsweek, 20 September. .c te a Rosenzweig, R. et al. (eds.) Womeng in World History. Center for History and h s New Media, George Mason University.a . Available at: http://chnm.gmu.edu/ w w w wwh/p/119.html [accessed: 24 September 2012]. m o Rosin, H. 2012. The End of Men:.c And the Rise of Women. New York: Riverhead. te a g Salam, R. 2009. The Death ofh Macho. Foreign Policy, July/August. s .a w Sapra, S.K., 2011. Wangariw Maathai Obituary (1940–2011). The Feminist Wire. w

com, 12 October. m o .c te Sargent, L. (ed.) 1981. a Women and Revolution: A Discussion of ‘The Unhappy g h s Marriage of Marxism.a and Feminism. Montreal: Black Rose. w w Schnall, M. 2008. Conversationw with Wangari Maathai. Feminist.com, 9 December.

m Scott, D. 1992. Moreo than a Feminist. Commonweal, 119(5), 13 March, 34. .c te a Sehmer, C. 2007.g Report of the Parallel Event “Third Generation Human Rights— h s .a Reflectionsw on the Collective Dimension of Human Rights.” UN Human w w Rights Council, 4th Sess., Geneva. [Online]. Available at: http://www.fes- m o .c globalization.org/geneva/documents/Report_FES-Geneva_3rd-generation_te a g h human_rights.pdfs [accessed: 24 September 2012]. .a w Siegel, w D. and Baumgardner, J. 2007. Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical w

m Womeno to Grrrls Gone Wild. Basingstoke: Palgrave. .c te Slaughter,a A.M. 2012. Why Women Still Can’t Have It All. The Atlantic, July/ g h s .a August. w w wSmith, B. (ed.) 2000. Global Feminisms Since 1945. New York: Routledge. © Copyrighted Material 170 Feminism, Law, and Religion © Copyrighted Material

Smith, K. 2011. Female Voice and Feminist Text: Testimonio as a Form of m o Resistance in Latin America. Florida Atlantic Comparative Studies Journal.c , te a g h 12, 21–38. s .a w Stanford, P. 2012. The pain of Aung Sun Suu Kyi’s sons, parted from theirw mother w

for 25 Years. The Telegraph, 22 June. m o .c te Stevens, A.B. 2011. We Are the 99%, Too: Creating a Feminist Spacea within g h s Operation Wall Street. Ms. Magazine Blog, 11 October. .a w w Stoll, D. 1998. Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalansw . Boulder,

m o CO: Westview. .c te a Suu Kyi, A.S. 1991. Freedom from Fear. London: Viking. g h s .a Suu Kyi, A.S. 2012. Nobel Lecture, Oslo, Norway, 16 June. w w w Tessman, L. 2005. Burdened Virtues: Virtue Ethics for Liberatory Struggles. New m o .c York: Oxford University Press. te a g h Traister, R. 2012. Can Modern Women “Have It All”? Salon.coms , 21 June. .a w Ulrich, L.T. 2007. Well-Behaved Women Seldom Makew History. New York: Knopf. w

m United Nations. 1975. Report of the Conference ofo the International Women’s .c te Year, Mexico City, 19 June–2 July. UN Doc. E/CONF.66.34.a g h s United Nations. 1980. Report of the World Conference.a of the United Nations w w w Decade for Women: Equality, Development, Peace, Copenhagen, 14–30 July. m o UN Doc. A/CONF.94/35. .c te a g United Nations. 1981. Convention on h the Elimination of All Forms of s .a Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),w G.A. res. 34/180, 34 UN GAOR w w

Supp. (No. 46) at 193, UN Doc. A/34/46,m entered into force Sept. 3, 1981. o .c United Nations. 1995. Report of the Fourthte World Conference on Women, Beijing. a g h 4–15 September. UN Doc. A/CONF.177/20/Rev.1.s .a w w United Nations. 2007 Declarationw on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res.

m 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/1o (2007). .c te a United Nations Population gFund (UNFPA). 1994. International Conference h s .a on Population and Developmentw Programme of Action (ICPD), Cairo, w w 5–13 September. UN Doc. A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1. m o Valenti, J. 2004. Congratulations,.c Wangari Maathai! Feministing.com, 10 December. te a g h Valenti, J. 2005. UN meetings on women begins today. Feministing.com, 28 February. .a w Valenti, J. 2007. Full wFrontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism w

m Matters. Emeryville,o CA: Seal Press. .c te Valenti, J. 2009.a Commission on the Status of Women Kicks Off This Week. g h s Feministing.com.a , 3 March. w w Valenti, J. 2012a.w Why Have Kids?: A New Mom Explores the Truth About

m o Parenting.c and Happiness. New York: New Harvest. te a g Valenti, J.h 2012b. Sad White Babies with Mean Feminist Mommies. jessicavalenti. s .a tumblr.comw , 19 June. w w Vanessa. 2004. African Woman Environmentalist Awarded Nobel Peace Prize. m o .c Feministing.comte , 8 October. a g h Vanessa.s 2004. Once Again Bush Turns Back on UN. Feministing.com, 14 October. .a w w w © Copyrighted Material From Third Wave to Third Generation 171 © Copyrighted Material

Vanessa. 2009. Men and Boys Working Toward . Feministing.m o .c te com, 3 April. a g h s Vasak, K. 1979. For the Third Generation of Human Rights: The Righta of . w w Solidarity. Inaugural Lecture, Tenth Study Session, International Institutew of

m Human Rights, July 1979. o .c te a Walker, R. 1992. Becoming the Third Wave. Ms., January/February, 39–41.g h s .a Walker, R. 1995. To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Challengingw the Face of w w Feminism. New York: Anchor. m o .c When the Mountains Tremble (dir. Newton Thomas Sigel and Pamelate Yates, 1983). a g h Wilson, R. 1999. Anthropologist Challenges the Veracity of sMulticultural Icon. .a w Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 January. w w

m Wintle, J. 2008. Perfect Hostage: The Life of Aung Sano Suu Kyi. New York: .c te Skyhorse. a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w

m o .c te a g h s .a w w w © Copyrighted Material