Advertisement

Shaping Political Discourse on Women’s Rights: The Role of Women in the Amendment of Gender Policies in Turkey

Chapter
  • 85 Downloads
Part of the Comparative Feminist Studies Series book series (CFS)

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, gender policies have undergone a remarkable change in Turkey.1 Although one might rightfully argue that the Turkish state initiated these policy changes as part of an effort to become a European Union (EU) member2 (Muftuler Bac 2005), it is my contention that grassroots feminism played an important role in this process. The European Commission (EC), the executive body of the EU, criticized Turkey for not complying with its requirements, especially the “political criteria” that were put forward by the EC at the 1993 Copenhagen Summit (Karluk 2003). These criteria encompass the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. They also include the requirements regarding gender equality. In order to comply with the criteria and with the hope for receiving a date from the EC to begin the accession negotiations, Turkey amended its civil and penal codes, the labor law, and the constitution after 2000.

Keywords

European Union Political Discourse Penal Code Civil Code European Parliament 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works Cited

  1. Armutcu, Emel. 2006. “Kadin orgutleriyle degil, bazi kadinlarla sorunum var” [Not with women’s organizations, I have a problem with some women] (Feb. 12). http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com/showthread.php?t=4562. Last accessed Sept. 20, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. Brenner, Johanna. 1998. “Feminist political discourses: Radical versus liberal approaches to the feminization of poverty and comparable worth.” Contemporary Feminist Theory. Ed. Mary Rogers. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 204–14.Google Scholar
  3. Diez, Thomas, Apostolos Agnantopoulos, and Alper Kaliber. 2005. “Turkey, Europeanization and Civil Society.” South European Society & Politics 10(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duzel, Nese. 2004. “Yasayla, flortu de yasakliyorlar” [Flirting is being forbidden by law] (Sept. 6). Last accessed Sept. 11, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. Goksel, Diba, and Rana Gunes. 2005. “The Role of NGOs in the European Integration Process: The Turkish Experience.” South European Society & Politics 10(1):57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fraser, Nancy. 1997. “Structuralism or Pragmatics? On Discourse Theory and Feminist Politics.” The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. Ed. Linda Nicholson. New York: Routledge. 379–95.Google Scholar
  7. Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ilkkaracan, Ipek. 2000. “Kadin haklari mucadelesinin temel talebi: Demokrasi” [The primary demand of the women’s rights struggle: democracy]. (Aug.). http://www.kadinininsanhaklari.org/?id=414. Last accessed Nov. 10, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Isanberg, Nancy. 1992. “The Personal Is Political: Gender, Feminism, and the Politics of Discourse Theory.” American Quarterly 44(3):449–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kardam, Nuket. 2005. Turkey’s Engagement with Global Women’s Human Rights. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Karluk, Ridvan. 2003. Avrupa Birligi ve Turkiye [The European Union and Turkey]. Istanbul: Beta.Google Scholar
  12. Liebert, Ulrike. 2004. “Between Diversity and Equality: Analysing Europeanization.” Gendering Europeanization. Ed. Ulrike Liebert. Brussels: P.E.I.-Peter Lang. 11–45.Google Scholar
  13. Mercimek, Ali, and Zeynel Lule. 2004. “Resti cekti” [He made his final point]. Hurriyet Sept. 20.Google Scholar
  14. Mills, Sara. 2004. Discourse: The New Critical Idiom. 2d ed. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Muftuler Bac, Meltem. 2005. “Turkey’s Political Reforms and the Impact of the European Union.” South European Society & Politics 10(1):17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmid, Dorothee. 2004. “The Use of Conditionality in Support of Political, Economic and Social Rights: Unveiling the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership’s True Hierarchy of Objectives?” Mediterranean Politics 9(3):396–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sen, Erdal. 2004. ‘Turk kadinini marjinal bir kesim temsil edemez’ [A marginal group cannot represent Turkish women]. Zaman Sept. 25.Google Scholar
  18. Tocci, Nathalie. 2005. “Europeanization in Turkey: Trigger or Anchor for Reform?” South European Society & Politics 10(1):73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams, Andrew. 2004. EU Human Rights Policies: A Study in Irony. New York: Oxford University. Press.Google Scholar
  20. Women for Women’s Human Rights/New Ways. 2003. “Kadin bakis acisin-dan Turk Ceza Kanunu [Turkish Penal Code from woman’s perspective].” Cumhuriyet June 4, 2003 http://www.kadinininsanhaklari.org. Last accessed Nov. 30, 2004.
  21. Women for Women’s Human Rights/New Ways. 2001. “Son dakika atagi” [Last minute effort]. Aksam March 20, 2001 http://www.kadinininsanhaklari.org. Last accessed Nov. 30, 2004.

Copyright information

© Clara Román-Odio and Marta Sierra 2011

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations