A chapter four fundamental

Dear All,

It's a wonder to me that when we talk about rights, it's always group by group (or at least in this book). I can see how the rights became specific to a group, but I can't see WHY. I agree with Carol Smart on page 80 when she says that rights are developed to correct social wrongs, but why these wrongs were there in the first place is what I would suggest correcting. It would be an interesting experiment to create a world in which the rights were non-explicit--meaning they defended everyone by not defending anyone.

I was particularly interested in the argument for "special rights". Most of us come into the argument understanding that men and women are biologically different whether we like it or not. But are we wary enough, when wording our "rights talk", to recognize when we are prescribing negative attributes? I am thinking of the passage on 82 that sums, "to argue for a special right to maternity leave is to suggest...that their primary purpose is repoduction." How could we make a special right in regards to maternity leave that does not say that?