为所有人加强家庭建设?

Silvia Eugenia Fernandez, Mariela González de Vicel
{"title":"为所有人加强家庭建设?","authors":"Silvia Eugenia Fernandez, Mariela González de Vicel","doi":"10.35295/osls.iisl.1948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By means of the epistemology of intersectionality, three categories are brought together and questioned in the implementation of public policies for family strengthening in the child protection system: childhood, gender and disability. Women with disabilities, considered strangers to traditional hegemonic and patriarchal mandates, challenge the exercise of motherhood under criteria that are overvalued and demanded compared to women with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities. They challenge the prevailing mandate of hegemonic motherhood, which does not conceive of other designs for the exercise of the constitutional and conventional right to family life. States have the obligation to design support systems (arts. 12 and 19 CRPD) so that women with disabilities are not separated from their children because of their disability. Children and adolescents have the right not to be discriminated against because of the condition/situation of their parents (art. 2 CRC) and to be raised by them (art. 9). Support systems should be effective public policies for strengthening families so that children can remain in the care of their mothers in accordance with their best interests and so that mothers can exercise their maternity on an equal footing with other persons, as mandated by the Constitution.","PeriodicalId":508645,"journal":{"name":"Oñati Socio-Legal Series","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Family strengthening, for all?\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Eugenia Fernandez, Mariela González de Vicel\",\"doi\":\"10.35295/osls.iisl.1948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By means of the epistemology of intersectionality, three categories are brought together and questioned in the implementation of public policies for family strengthening in the child protection system: childhood, gender and disability. Women with disabilities, considered strangers to traditional hegemonic and patriarchal mandates, challenge the exercise of motherhood under criteria that are overvalued and demanded compared to women with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities. They challenge the prevailing mandate of hegemonic motherhood, which does not conceive of other designs for the exercise of the constitutional and conventional right to family life. States have the obligation to design support systems (arts. 12 and 19 CRPD) so that women with disabilities are not separated from their children because of their disability. Children and adolescents have the right not to be discriminated against because of the condition/situation of their parents (art. 2 CRC) and to be raised by them (art. 9). Support systems should be effective public policies for strengthening families so that children can remain in the care of their mothers in accordance with their best interests and so that mothers can exercise their maternity on an equal footing with other persons, as mandated by the Constitution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oñati Socio-Legal Series\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oñati Socio-Legal Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1948\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oñati Socio-Legal Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1948","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过交叉性的认识论,在儿童保护系统中实施加强家庭的公共政策时,有三个类别:童年、性别和残疾被结合在一起并受到质疑。残疾妇女被视为传统霸权和父权制任务的异类,她们对在与心理或智力残疾妇女相比被高估和高要求的标准下行使母亲职责提出了挑战。她们对霸权母权的普遍任务提出了挑战,因为霸权母权不考虑行使宪法和传统的家庭生活权的其他设计。各国有义务设计支持系统(《残疾人权利公约》第 12 条和第 19 条),使残疾妇女不会因其残疾而与子女分离。儿童和青少年有权不因其父母的状况/处境而受到歧视(《儿童权利公约》第 2 条),并有权由父母抚养(第 9 条)。支助系统应当是加强家庭的有效公共政策,以便儿童能够按照其最大利益继续由母亲照看,并使母亲能够按照《宪法》的规定,在与其他人平等的基础上行使其母性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Family strengthening, for all?
By means of the epistemology of intersectionality, three categories are brought together and questioned in the implementation of public policies for family strengthening in the child protection system: childhood, gender and disability. Women with disabilities, considered strangers to traditional hegemonic and patriarchal mandates, challenge the exercise of motherhood under criteria that are overvalued and demanded compared to women with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities. They challenge the prevailing mandate of hegemonic motherhood, which does not conceive of other designs for the exercise of the constitutional and conventional right to family life. States have the obligation to design support systems (arts. 12 and 19 CRPD) so that women with disabilities are not separated from their children because of their disability. Children and adolescents have the right not to be discriminated against because of the condition/situation of their parents (art. 2 CRC) and to be raised by them (art. 9). Support systems should be effective public policies for strengthening families so that children can remain in the care of their mothers in accordance with their best interests and so that mothers can exercise their maternity on an equal footing with other persons, as mandated by the Constitution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信