Women Rights: Islam and the West

Epigraph:

“But whoso does good works, whether male or female, and is a believer, such shall enter Heaven, and shall not be wronged even as much as the little hollow in the back of a date-stone.” (Al Qur’an 4:124/125)

Suffragists_Parade_Down_Fifth_Avenue,_1917

Suffragists parade down Fifth Avenue, 1917. Advocates march in October 1917, displaying placards containing the signatures of more than one million New York women demanding the right to vote. The Muslim Times has the most extensive collection on women rights especially the Muslim women rights

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

It took the West centuries to recognize many of the women rights that Islam gave to them in the seventh century. Below there is a Wikipedia page with several hundred entries of different rights that women received in mostly the Western countries from 18th century onward. Some of the more dramatic and important developments I have highlighted in green color.  One historic fact that many remember and is highlighted in the picture above that American women did not win the right to vote until 1920.

gender-hands-1260x840

The Muslim Times has the best collection of articles on Women Rights, especially the Muslim women’s rights.  Every Quranic verse and Islamic teaching should be reexamined in light of above quoted fundamental verse as epigraph, about gender equality, for our age, which was predicted by the Quran itself

The irony of the fate is that what was the most progressive faith for almost a thousand years is now lagging behind. How can Islam be brought at par with the highest Western standards of gender equality in the 21st century is briefly examined here?

In the seventh century Arabia, being a parent of a daughter was for many such an embarrassment or vulnerability that some killed their baby daughters at the time of birth. Women had hardly any rights in the society. It was in that backdrop that the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may peace be on him, through the holy Quran, defined gender equality, in all spheres of life. He gave women rights to inherit property, give testimony in courts and to marry only with completely free choice. Rights which were denied to European women for a thousand years after Muhammad, as you will see in the highlighted events in green, in the Wikipedia Timeline below.

The prophet was the most liberal person in the 7th century Arabia and one can predict that if he were to reappear, he will be the most liberal person in the 21st century global village.

Many of the Muslims, given their antiquated culture, have denied women the rights which are clearly spelled out in the Quran. Other conservative scholars have insisted on the literal understanding of some of the Quranic teachings about women that were most progressive in the 7th century, but, now seem to be lagging behind the present day context.

But, if we recall that the Prophet Muhammad brought a message of justice, compassion, inclusion, religious freedom, women rights, gender equality and human rights and begin to interpret some of the specific teachings for women in Islam, in the light of this broader landscape, the Muslim women can freely begin to participate in the 21st century society, without giving up Hijab as a personal choice or the beautiful family values of Islam. 

Suggested reading to support my above thesis

Gender Equality in the Holy Qur’an – In the Beginning Man and Woman Were Equal

Reading the Quran and the Bible Literally Means Demons and Jinns Will Rule Humans

Explaining Misinterpretations of the Holy Text to a Christian Audience

The Holy Quran Does Not Exhaust Any Subject in Any One Chapter

Hijab: Quran is to be Understood in the Context of Time – Every One Knows It But Does Not Say It

The Bible And The Quran Are Pretty Similar When It Comes To Justice

What Every Muslim, Christian and Jew needs to know: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath

Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran

Hollywood Actress Emilie Francois, Now a Muslim, Speaks of Social Justice in Islam

Timeline of women’s legal rights (other than voting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of women’s legal rights (other than voting) represents formal changes and reforms regarding women’s rights. That includes actual law reforms as well as other formal changes, such as reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents. The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women’s suffrage. The timeline excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism: for that, see Timeline of feminism.

Before the 19th century[edit]

1718
  • Russia: Gender segregation is banned.[1]
  • Sweden: Female taxpaying members of the cities’ guilds are allowed to stand for election during the age of liberty; this right is banned (for local elections) in 1758 and (general elections) in 1771.[2]
  • United States: Province of Pennsylvania (now U.S. state of Pennsylvania)- Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1720
  • Sweden: The Guild Regulation of 1720 secures the right of women to apply for a permit to work within all guild professions, trades and handicrafts.[4]
1722
  • Russia: Ban against forced marriages.[1]
1734
  • Sweden: In the Civil Code of 1734, men are banned from selling the property of their wife without her consent, and both spouses regardless of gender are secured the right to divorce upon adultery, while the innocent party are secured custody of the children.[5]
  • Sweden: Unmarried women, normally under the guardianship of their closest male relative, are granted the right to be declared of legal majority by dispensation from the monarch.[6]
1741
  • Sweden: The requirement of guild membership for innkeepers is dropped, effectively opening the profession to women.[7]
1749
  • Sweden: Women are given the right to engage in the trade of knick-knacks,[8] and the permit to be active as a street seller in Stockholm, a very common profession for poor women, are to be foremost issued in favor of women in need of self-support.[9]
1753
  • Russia: Married women granted separate economy.[10]
1754
1772
  • Sweden: The permit to engage in Tobacco trade is foremost to be granted to (widowed and married) women in need to support themselves.[8]
1776
1778
  • Sweden: Barnamordsplakatet; unmarried women are allowed to leave their home town to give birth anonymously and have the birth registered anonymously, to refrain from answering any questions about the birth and, if they choose to keep their child, to have their unmarried status not mentioned in official documents to avoid social embarrassment.
1779
  • Spain: The guild restrictions which prevented females from holding certain professions are abolished.[12]
1784
  • Spain: Women are by royal decree allowed to accept any profession compatible with their “sex, dignity and strength”.[12]
1791
  • France: Equal inheritance rights (abolished in 1804).[13]
1792
  • France: Divorce is legalized for both sexes.[14] (Abolished for women in 1804.)
  • France: Local women-units of the defense army are founded in several cities; although the military was never officially open to women, about eight thousand women were estimated to have served openly in the French armée in local troops (but not in the battle fields) between 1792 and 1794, but women were officially barred from the armée in 1795.[15]
1798
  • Sweden: Married business women are given legal majority and juridical responsibility within the affairs of their business enterprise, despite being otherwise under guardianship of their spouse.[7]

19th century

1800–1849

1804
  • Sweden: Women are granted the permit to manufacture and sell candles.[8]
1810
  • Sweden: The right of an unmarried woman to be declared of legal majority by royal dispensation are officially confirmed by parliament.[16]
  • Sweden: Amendment to the Guild Regulation of 1720 secures the right of all women of legal majority to apply and be granted a permit to work within all guild professions, trades and handicrafts without having to fulfill the normal requirement of male applicants, because of their greater difficulty to support themselves.[17]
1811
  • Austria: Married women are granted separate economy and the right to choose profession.[18]
  • Sweden: Married businesswomen are granted the right to make decisions about their own affairs without their husband’s consent.[14]
1817
  • England: Public whipping of women abolished (public whipping of men followed in 1868).[19]
1821
  • United States, Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1823
  • Argentina: The charitable Beneficial Society is charged by the government to establish and control (private) elementary schools for girls (they retain the control of the schools for girls until 1876).[20]
1829
  • India: The Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 bans the practice of Sati in British Bengal (the ban is extended to Madras and Bombay the following year).
  • Sweden: Midwives are allowed to use surgical instruments, which are unique in Europe at the time and gives them surgical status.[21]
1833
  • Guatemala: Divorce legalized (rescinded in 1840 and reintroduced in 1894).[22]
1835
  • United States, Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
  • United States, Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1839
1840
  • Republic of Texas: Married women allowed to own property in their own name.[23]
  • United States, Maine: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Maryland: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
1842
  • Norway: Unmarried women are given the right to engage in small scale commerce (though only within the country).[24]
  • Sweden: Compulsory Elementary school for both sexes.[25]
  • United States, New Hampshire: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1843
  • United States, Kentucky: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1844
  • United States, Maine: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Maine: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Massachusetts: Married Women granted separate economy.[26]
1845
  • Denmark: Married women, despite being minors, are given the right to make a will without the approval of their husbands.[27]
  • Sweden: Equal inheritance for sons and daughters (in the absence of a will).[28]
  • United States, New York: Married women granted patent rights.[3]
  • United States, Florida: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
1846
  • Sweden: All Trade- and crafts works professions previously controlled by the guilds are opened to all women of legal majority through the Fabriks och Handtwerksordning and the Handelsordningen.[29][30]
  • United States, Alabama: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Kentucky: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Ohio: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Michigan: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1847
  • Belgium: Elementary school for both genders
  • Costa Rica: The first high school for girls, and the profession of teacher is open to women.[31]
1848
  • United States, State of New York: Married Women’s Property Act grant married women separate economy.[32]
  • United States, Pennsylvania: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Rhode Island: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
1849
  • India: Secondary education is made available by the foundation of the Bethune School.[33]
  • United States, Alabama: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
  • United States, Connecticut: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
  • United States, Missouri: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]

1850–1874[edit]

1850
  • France: Elementary education for both sexes, but girls are only allowed to be tutored by teachers from the church.[18]
  • Haiti: The first permanent school for girls.[34]
  • Iceland: Equal inheritance.[35]
  • United States, California: Married Women’s Property Act grant married women separate economy.[36]
  • United States, Wisconsin: Married Women’s Property Act grant married women separate economy.[36]
  • United States, Oregon: Unmarried women are allowed to own land.[18]
1851
  • Guatemala: Full citizenship are granted economically independent women (rescinded in 1879).[37]
  • Canada, New Brunswick : Married women granted separate economy.[38]
1852
  • Nicaragua: Josefa Vega are granted dispensation to attend lectures at university, after which women are given the right to apply for permission to attend lectures at university (though not to an actual full university education).[39]
  • United States, New Jersey: Married Women granted separate economy.[26]
  • United States, Indiana: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Wisconsin: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1853
  • Colombia: Divorce is legalized (rescinded in 1856 and reintroduced in 1992).[22]
  • Egypt: The first Egyptian school for females is opened by the Copts minority.[40]
  • Serbia: The first secondary educational school for females is inaugurated (public schools for girls having opened in 1845–46).[41]
  • Sweden: The profession of teacher at public primary and elementary schools are opened to both sexes.[42]
1854
  • Norway: Equal inheritance.[18]
  • United States, Massachusetts: Married women granted separate economy.[36]
  • Chile: The first public elementary school for girls.[43]
1855
  • Ottoman Empire: Factory work are open to both sexes when the first women are employed at the textile factory at Bursa, at the same time allowing them to mix unveiled with men.[44]
  • United States, Iowa: University of Iowa becomes the first coeducational public or state university in the United States.[45]
  • United States, Michigan: Married women granted separate economy.[43]
1856
  • Denmark: Equal inheritance rights.[27]
  • Sweden: Women accepted as students at the Royal Academy of Music.[46]
  • United States, Connecticut: Married women granted patent rights.[3]
1857
  • Denmark: Legal majority for unmarried women.[18]
  • Denmark: Trades and crafts professions are opened to unmarried women.[47]
  • Great Britain: Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 makes divorce possible for both sexes.
  • Netherlands: Elementary education compulsory for both girls and boys.[48]
  • Spain: Elementary education compulsory for both girls and boys.[49]
  • United States, Maine: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[26]
  • United States, Oregon: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Oregon: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1858
  • Ottoman Empire: The first state school for girls is opened; several other schools for girls are opened during the following decades.[50]
  • Norway: Telegraph office professions open to women.[24]
  • Russia: Gymnasiums for girls.[1]
  • Sweden: Legal majority for unmarried women (if applied for: automatic legal majority in 1863).[28]
1859
  • Canada West: Married women granted separate economy.[38]
  • Denmark: The post of teacher at public schools are opened to women.[47]
  • Russia: Women allowed to audit university lectures (retracted in 1863).[1]
  • Sweden: The post of college teacher and lower official at public institutions are open to women.[51]
  • United States, Kansas: Married Women’s Property Act granted married women separate economy.[36]
1860
  • Norway: Women are allowed to teach in the rural elementary school system (in the city schools in 1869).[24]
  • New Zealand: Married women allowed to own property (extended in 1870).[18]
  • United States, New York: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[26]
  • United States, Maryland: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Maryland: Married women granted the right to control their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Maryland: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Massachusetts: Married women granted trade licenses.[3]
1861
  • France: Julie-Victoire Daubié becomes the first female student.
  • Iceland: Legal majority for unmarried women.[35]
  • India: Sati is banned in the entire India.[52][53]
  • Russia: The Scientific- and Medical Surgery Academy open laboratories for women (retracted in 1864).[1]
  • Sweden: The first public institution of higher academic learning for women, Högre lärarinneseminariet, is opened.
  • Sweden: The dentist profession is opened to women.[54]
  • United States, Illinois: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Ohio: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Illinois: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Ohio: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
1863
  • Denmark: Colleges open to women.[30]
  • Norway: Legal majority for unmarried women (at the same age as men in 1869).[28]
  • Serbia: The inauguration of the Women’s High School in Belgrade, first high school open to women in Serbia (and the entire Balkans).[41]
  • Sweden: The Post- and telegraph professions are opened to women.[55]
1864
  • Belgium: The first official secondary education school open to females in Belgium.[56]
  • Bohemia: Taxpaying women and women in “learned profession” eligible to the legislative body.[57]
  • Finland: Legal majority for unmarried women.[28]
  • Haiti: Elementary schools for girls are founded.[34]
  • Serbia: The University of Belgrade is founded: females are theoretically allowed from the start, though the first two female students did not graduate until 1891.[58]
  • Sweden: Women of legal majority (unmarried, divorced and widowed women) are granted the same rights within trade and commerce as men by the Decree of Extended Freedom of Trade (Sweden).[14]
  • Sweden: Husbands are forbidden to abuse their wives.[59]
  • Sweden: The gymnastics profession is open to women,[55] and female students accepted at the Gymnastiska centralinstitutet.[46]
  • Sweden: Women, previously only accepted with dispensation, are accepted as students at the Royal Swedish Academy of Arts.[60]
1865
  • Ireland: Married Women’s Property (Ireland) Act 1865
  • Italy: Legal majority for unmarried women.[61]
  • Italy: Equal inheritance.[61]
  • Italy: A married woman is allowed to become the legal guardian of her children and their property if abandoned by her husband.[61]
  • Romania: The educational reform grant all Romanians access to education, which, at least formally, gave also females the right to attend school from elementary education to the university.[62]
  • US, Louisiana: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1866
  • Norway: Unmarried women are given the same rights as men within commerce.[24]
1867
  • Portugal: The Civil Code of 1867 secure legal majority and freedom from guardianship for unmarried, legally separated or widowed women, allows for civil marriage and gives married women the option to secure their right to separate economy by agreement prior to marriage.[63]
  • Switzerland: Zürich University formally open to women, though they had already been allowed to attend lectures a few years prior.[64]
  • United States, Alabama: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, New Hampshire: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
1868
  • Croatia: The first high school open to females.[65]
  • United States, North Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Arkansas: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Kansas: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Kansas: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Kansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
  • United States, Georgia: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[3]
1869
  • Austria-Hungary: The profession of public school teacher is open to women.[18]
  • Costa Rica: Elementary education compulsory for both girls and boys.[31]
  • Great Britain: Girton College, Cambridge.
  • Ottoman Empire: The law formally introduce compulsory elementary education for both boys and girls.[50]
  • Russia: University Courses for women are opened, which opens the profession of teacher, law assistant and similar lower academic professions for women (in 1876, the courses are no longer allowed to give exams, and in 1883, all outside of the capital is closed).[18]
  • Sweden: Women allowed to work in the railway office.[55]
  • United States, Minnesota: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
1870
  • Argentina: The 1870 Civil Code secure legal majority for unmarried women and widows, though it confirms married women as minors.[66]
  • Finland: Women allowed to study at the universities by dispensation (dispensation demand dropped in 1901).[67]
  • Great Britain: Married Women’s Property Act 1870
  • India: Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870
  • Mexico: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Ottoman Empire: The Teachers College for Girls are opened in Constantinople to educate women to professional teachers for girls school; the profession of teacher becomes accessible for women and education accessible to girls.[50]
  • Spain: The Asociación para la Enseñanza de la Mujer is founded: promoting education for women, it establishes secondary schools and training colleges all over Spain, which makes secondary and higher education open to females for the first time.[69]
  • Sweden: Universities open to women (at the same terms as men 1873).[28] The first female student is Betty Pettersson.
  • United States, Georgia: Married women granted separate economy.[70]
  • United States, South Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, South Carolina: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Tennessee: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Iowa: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
1871
  • India: First training school for woman teachers.[33]
  • Japan: Women are allowed to study in the USA (though not yet in Japan itself).[71]
  • New Zealand: Universities open to women.[72]
  • United States, Mississippi: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Mississippi: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Mississippi: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Arizona: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Arizona: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1872
  • Austria-Hungary: Women allowed to work in the post- and telegraph office.[18]
  • Canada: Dominion Lands Act grant mothers without husbands homestead land.
  • Japan: Geisha and prostitutes are freed from guardianship and granted legal majority and the right to change profession.[73]
  • Japan: Compulsory elementary education for both girls and boys.[74]
  • Ottoman Empire: The first government primary school open to both genders.[75] Women’s Teacher’s Training School opened in Istanbul.[76]
  • Spain: María Elena Maseras is allowed to enlist as a university student with special dispensation: having been formally admitted to a class in 1875, she was finally allowed to graduate 1882, which created a Precedent allowing females to enroll at universities from this point on.[77]
  • Sweden: Women are granted unlimited right to choose marriage partner without the need of any permission from her family, and arranged marriages are thereby banned (women of the nobility, however, are not granted the same right until 1882).[78]
  • Switzerland: The universities of Bern and Geneva open to women (Lausanne follow in 1876 and Basel in 1890).[64]
  • United States, Pennsylvania: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, California: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Montana: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, California: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, California: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Wisconsin: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
1873
  • Egypt: The first public Egyptian primary school open to females: two years later, there are 32 primary schools for females in Egypt, three of whom also offered secondary education.[40]
  • Great Britain: Custody of Infants Act 1873; Mothers granted guardianship for children at divorce.
  • United States, Arkansas: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Kentucky: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, North Carolina: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Kentucky: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Arkansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Delaware: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Iowa: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Nevada: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Iowa: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Nevada: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Nevada: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States: The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”. The Act criminalized usage of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[79] erotica, contraceptives, abortifacients, sex toys, Personal letters alluding to any sexual content or information, or any information regarding the above items. In places like Washington D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, the act also made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell, give away, or have in possession any “obscene” publication.[79] Half of the states passed similar anti-obscenity statutes that also banned possession and sale of obscene materials, including contraceptives.[80] The law was named after its chief proponent, Anthony Comstock. Due to his own personal enforcement of the law during its early days, Comstock received a commission from the postmaster general to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Postal Services.[79]
1874
  • France: First trade union open to women.
  • Iran: The first school for girls is founded by American missionaries (only non-Muslims attend until 1891).[81]
  • Japan: The profession of public school teacher is opened to women.[82]
  • Netherlands: Aletta Jacobs becomes the first woman allowed to study medicine.
  • Sweden: Married women granted control over their own income.[28]
  • United States, Massachusetts: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, New Jersey: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Rhode Island: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, New Jersey: Married women granted trade licenses.[3]
  • United States, Colorado: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Illinois: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Minnesota: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Montana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Montana: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Colorado: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Colorado: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]

1875–1899[edit]

1875
  • Denmark: Universities open to women.[28]
  • India: First women admitted to college courses, although with special permission (at Madras Medical College).[33]
  • United States, Delaware: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
1876
  • Argentina: Girls are included in the national school system by the transference of the control of the private girls schools from the charitable Beneficent Society to the provincial government.[20]
  • Great Britain: Universities open to women.[83]
  • India: Women allowed to attend university exams at the Calcutta University.[33]
  • Italy: Universities open to women.[84]
  • Netherlands:Universities open to women.[84]
  • United States, New Hampshire: Married women granted trade licenses.[3]
  • United States, Wyoming: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Wyoming: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Wyoming: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1877
  • Chile: Universities open to women.[43][85]
  • Italy: Women can serve as witnesses to legal acts.[61]
  • Scotland: Married Women’s Property (Scotland) Act 1877.
  • United States, Connecticut: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Connecticut: Married women granted trade licenses.[3]
  • United States, Dakota: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Dakota: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Dakota: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1878
  • Austria-Hungary: Women allowed to attend university lectures as guest auditors.[86]
  • Bulgaria: Elementary education for both sexes.[87]
  • Finland: Equal inheritance.[28]
  • Great Britain: Women can secure a separation on the grounds of cruelty, claim custody of their children and demand spousal and child support. Abused wives granted separation orders.[88]
  • Great Britain: Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford
  • United States, Virginia: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
1879
  • Brazil: Universities open to women.[89]
  • France: Colleges and secondary education open to women.[18]
  • India: The first college open to women: Bethune College (the first female graduate in 1883).[33]
  • United States, Indiana: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Indiana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
1880
  • Australia : Universities open to women.[90]
  • Belgium: The university of Brussels open to women.[84]
  • Canada: Universities open to women.[citation needed]
  • Denmark: Married women granted the right to control their own income.[91]
  • France: Universities open to women.[18]
  • France: Free public secondary education to women.[92]
  • France: Public teachers training schools open to women.[92]
  • United States, Oregon: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Oregon: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
1881
  • France: Women allowed to open a bank account in their own name.[18]
  • Scotland: Married Women’s Property (Scotland) Act 1881
  • United States, Vermont: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Vermont: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Nebraska: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Nebraska: Married women granted trade license.[3]
  • United States, Nebraska: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, Florida: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[3]
1882
  • Great Britain: Married Women’s Property Act 1882
  • France: Compulsory elementary education for both genders.[93]
  • Norway: Women allowed to study at the university.[41]
  • Nicaragua: The first public secular education institution for women, Colegio de Senoritas, open.[94]
  • Poland: The Flying University provides academic education for women.
  • Serbia: Compulsory education for both sexes.[58]
1883
  • Belgium: Universities open to women.[84]
  • India: Bombay University open to women.[33]
  • Romania: Universities open to women.[95]
  • Victoria, Australia: Married women granted separate economy.[90]
1884
  • France: Equal divorce legalized for women and men.[96]
  • Switzerland: Legal majority for unmarried women (including widows).[43]
  • Norway: Universities open to women.[28]
  • Germany: Legal majority for unmarried women.[18]
  • Mexico: Legal majority for unmarried women and separate economy granted for married women.[97]
  • Ontario: Married women granted separate economy.[98]
  • Great Britain: Married Women’s Property Act 1884
1886
  • Costa Rica: A public academic educational institution open to women.[31]
  • France: Married allowed to open a bank account without the consent of her husband.[96]
  • France: Women eligible to public education boards.[99]
  • Great Britain: Guardianship of Infants Act 1886
  • Great Britain: Josephine Butler puts a stop to the prostitution reglement.
  • Guatemala: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Korea: The first educational institution for women, Ewha Womans University
1887
  • Albania: The first Albanian language elementary school open to female pupils.[100]
  • Costa Rica: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Costa Rica: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Mexico: Universities open to women.[85]
  • United States, Idaho: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, Idaho: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1888
  • Costa Rica: Married women are allowed to be guardians and execute wills.[31]
  • Denmark: Fathers are forced to pay support to illegitimate children.[91]
  • Serbia: Universities open to women,[67] the first two women graduating in 1891.[58]
  • Spain: Women are allowed to private university degrees by dispensation (Universities fully open to women in 1910).[67]
  • Norway: Legal majority for married women.[35]
  • Montenegro: Legal majority for unmarried women.[65]
1889
  • Argentina: Cecilia Grierson become the first female in Argentina to earn a medical university degree.
  • Egypt: The first teacher training college for women.[75]
  • Palestine: The first school open to girls founded by missionaries.[75]
  • Sweden: Women eligible to boards of public authority such as public school boards, public hospital boards, inspectors, poor care boards and similar positions.[28]
  • United States, State of Washington: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1890
1891
  • Albania: The first school of higher education for women is opened.[101]
  • Germany: Women are allowed to attend university lectures, which makes it possible for individual professors to accept female students if they wish.[86]
  • Portugal: The first medical university degree is granted to a woman.[102]
  • Switzerland: Secondary schools open to women.[64]
  • Switzerland: Trade unions open to women.[48]
  • United States: Marie Owens hired as a police officer in Chicago.
1893
  • France: Legal majority for unmarried, divorced and separated women.[96]
  • Ottoman Empire: Women are permitted to attend medical lectures at Istanbul University.[75]
  • Great Britain: Married Women’s Property Act 1893 grants married women control of property acquired during marriage.
1894
  • Norway: Married women given right to engage in commerce.[24]
  • Poland: Kraków University open to women.[103]
  • United States, Louisiana: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1895
  • Austria-Hungary : Universities open to women.[18]
  • Egypt: A public school system for girls is organized.[75]
  • France: Women eligible as administrators of public charity boards.[92]
  • Upper Canada: Women allowed to work as barristers.[citation needed]
  • Russia: A Women’s medical university are opened, which opens the profession of physician for women.[18]
  • United States, South Carolina: Separate economy allowed for married women.
  • United States, Utah: Married women granted separate economy.[3]
  • United States, State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[3]
  • United States, State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[3]
1896
  • Norway: Women are admitted at all secondary educational schools of the state.[24]
  • United States: The profession of lawyer opened to both sexes – already in 1869, however, the first American state allowed women to practice law.
1897
  • France: Women (regardless of marital status) eligible as witnesses in civil action.[96]
1898
  • France: Women eligible as administrators of commercial boards and mutual aid societies.[92]
  • Haiti: The Medical University accept female students in obstetrics.[34]
  • Serbia: Co-education, banned since the 1850s, is re-introduced, equalizing the schooling of males and females.[58]
1899
  • Denmark: Legal majority for married women.[91]
  • Iceland: Legal majority for married women.[18]

20th century[edit]

1900–1939[edit]

1900
  • Belgium: Legal majority for unmarried women.[104]
  • Egypt: A school for female teachers is founded in Cairo.[76]
  • France: Women allowed to practice law.[92]
  • Korea: The post office profession is open to women and thereby open the public work market for women.[105]
  • Tunisia: The first public elementary school for girls.[76]
  • Japan: The first Women’s University.[106]
  • Baden, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
  • Sri Lanka: Secondary education open to females.[108]
  • Sweden: Maternity leave for female industrial workers.[30]
1901
  • Bulgaria: Universities open to women.[87]
  • China: Girls are included in the education system.[56]
  • Cuba: Universities open to women.[85]
  • Denmark: Maternity leave for all women.[91]
  • Sweden: Women are given four weeks maternity leave.[59]
1902
1903
  • Bavaria, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
  • Sweden: Public medical offices open to women.[110]
1904
  • Mexico: Divorce is legalized.
  • Nicaragua: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Nicaragua: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Württemberg, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
1905
  • Argentina: University preparatory secondary education open to females.[20]
  • Iceland: Educational institutions open to women.[18]
  • Russia: Universities open to women.[18]
  • Serbia: Female university students are fully integrated in to the university system.[58]
1906
  • Finland: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Honduras: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Honduras: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Honduras: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Korea: The profession of nurse is allowed for women.[105]
  • Nicaragua: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Saxony, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
1907
  • France: Married women given control of their income.[111]
  • France: Women allowed guardianship of children.[92]
  • Great Britain: Matrimonial Causes Act 1907
  • Iran: Compulsory primary education for females.[81]
  • Iran: The first Iranian school for girls is established by Tuba Azmudeh, followed by others in the following years.[81]
  • Japan: Tohoku University, the first (private) coeducational university.
  • Norway: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Sudan: The first school open to Muslim girls.[75]
  • Uruguay: Divorce is legalized.[112]
  • United States: Section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907 provided for loss of citizenship by American women who married aliens.[113] Section 4 provided for retention of American citizenship by formerly alien women who had acquired citizenship by marriage to an American after the termination of their marriages. Women residing in the US would retain their American citizenship automatically if they did not explicitly renounce; women residing abroad would have the option to retain American citizenship by registration with a US.consul.[114] The aim of these provisions was to prevent cases of multiple nationality among women.[115]
1908
  • Belgium: Women may act as legal witnesses in court.[18]
  • Denmark: Juridical professions of lower rank open to women.[47]
  • Denmark: Unmarried women are made legal guardian of their children.[91]
  • Korea: Secondary education for females through the foundation of the Capital School for Girl’s Higher Education.[56]
  • Ottoman Empire: The Young Turks introduce several reform in favor of gender equality: the professions of doctor, lawyer, and civil servant as well as public places such as restaurants, theatres and lecture halls open to both genders.[50]
  • Peru: Universities open to women.[116]
  • Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine and Hesse, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
  • Sweden: First women are employed in the Swedish Police Authority.[117]
  • United States: Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision in United States Supreme Court history, as it was used to justify both sex discrimination and usage of labor laws during the time period. The case upheld Oregon state restrictions on the working hours of women as justified by the special state interest in protecting women’s health. The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation.
1909
  • France: Married women are given the legal right to be consulted by husband’s before he dispose of family property, and to press charges against the economic mismanagement of the husband.[96]
  • Sweden: Women granted eligibility to municipal councils.[118]
  • Sweden: The phrase “Swedish man” are removed from the application forms to public offices and women are thereby approved as applicants to most public professions and posts as civil servants.[110]
  • Mecklenburg, Germany: Universities open to women.[107]
1910
  • Ecuador: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Spain: Universities fully open to women.[77]
1911
  • Luxembourg: A new educational law gives women access to higher education, and two secondary education schools open to females.[119]
  • Portugal: Civil offices open to women.[102]
  • Portugal: Legal majority for married women[102] (rescinded in 1933).[120]
  • Portugal: Divorce legalized.[120]
  • Taiwan: In Taiwan from 1911 to 1915 foot binding was gradually made illegal.[121]
1912
1913
  • Japan: Public universities open to women.[82]
1914
  • Russia: Married women allowed their own internal passport.[1]
1915
  • Ottoman Empire: Women are permitted to unveil during office hours.[75]
1917
  • Cuba: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Cuba: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Greece: The first public secondary educational school for girls open.[41]
  • Netherlands: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Mexico: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Mexico: Divorce legalized.[68]
  • Uruguay: University education open to women.[85]
1918
  • New South Wales, Australia: The Women’s Legal Status Act 1918 formally legalize all professions for females.[56]
  • Czechoslovakia: Females are given the same rights as males in the new constitution and divorce is legalized for both sexes.[56]
  • Cuba: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Iran: Public schools for girls are opened in order to enforce the law of compulsory education for girls in practice.[81]
  • Nicaragua: The first female obtains a university degree.[94]
  • Soviet Russia: The first Soviet Constitution explicitly declares the equal rights of men and women.
  • Thailand: Universities open to women.[123]
1919
  • Puerto Rico: In 1919, Luisa Capetillo challenged mainstream society by becoming the first woman in Puerto Rico to wear trousers in public. Capetillo was sent to jail for what was then considered to be a crime, but, the judge later dropped the charges against her.
  • Italy: Married women granted separate economy.[61]
  • Italy: Public offices on lower levels are opened to women.[61]
  • Great Britain: The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919.
  • International: The Conventions concerning Employment of Women during the Night are conventions drafted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) which prohibit women from performing industrial work during the night. The first convention was adopted in 1919 (as C04, shortened Night Work (Women) Convention, 1919) and revised versions were adopted in 1934 (C41, Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1934) and 1948 (C89, Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948). A protocol (P89, Protocol to the Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised), 1948) to the convention was adopted in 1990 allowing for easing of the restriction under conditions. As of April 2011 the conventions had 27, 15, 46 (undenounced) ratifications respectively. The protocol was ratified 5 and denounced by 2.
  • International: Maternity Protection Convention, 1919 is an International Labour Organization Convention. It was established in 1919: “Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to “women’s employment, before and after childbirth, including the question of maternity benefit”,…The principles contained in the convention were subsequently revised and included in ILO Convention C103, Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 and the Maternity Protection Convention, 2000.
1920
  • China: The first female students are accepted in the Peking University, soon followed by universities all over China.[124]
  • Canada: Women gain the right to stand for election, with some restrictions/conditions.
  • Haiti: The apothecary profession open to women.[34]
  • Korea: The profession of telephone operator, as well as several other professions, such as store clerks, are open to women.[105]
  • Nepal: Sati is banned.[56]
  • Portugal: Secondary school open to women.[102]
  • Sweden: Legal majority for married women and equal marriage rights.[28]
1921
  • Belgium: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Belgium: The position of mayor, several lower public offices, such as financial adviser, open to women at local level.[104]
  • Denmark: Women are given access to all official professions and positions in society, with some excpetions.[27]
  • Thailand: Compulsory elementary education for both girls and boys.[123]
  • Monaco: The 1921 Women’s Olympiad was held, first international women’s sports event
1922
  • Belgium: The profession of lawyer is open to women.[18]
  • Iraq: The first woman university student in Iraq.[40]
  • Japan: Women are allowed to be present and political meetings and form political organizations.[125]
  • Peru: Women are allowed to serve in public welfare boards.[85]
  • Syria: Muslim women appear unveiled for the first time in public.[126]
  • United States: The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her United States citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to United States citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.[127] However, the Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an “alien eligible to naturalization.”[128] At the time of the law’s passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship.[129][130] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their United States citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her United States citizenship, just as under the previous law. The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her United States citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to United States nationality.
1923
  • Egypt: Veiling is discarded: unveiling is supported by a fatwa in 1937.[126]
  • Egypt: Compulsory education for both sexes.[75]
  • Sweden: The Law of Access formally grants women the right to all professions and positions in society, except for certain priest- and military positions.[131]
1924
  • Argentina: Women are secured the right to maternity leave and daycare and employers are banned from firing women because of pregnancy.[66]
  • Denmark: The first ever female minister in Western Europe is appointed, when Nina Bang is appointed Minister of Education by Thorvald Stauning.
1925
1926
  • Argentina: Married women granted separate economy[68] legal majority and the right to employment.[20]
  • Lebanon: The University of Beirut is open to women.[75]
  • Romania: Married women allowed to manage their own income.[63]
  • Turkey: The Civil Code of 1926 secures equal rights to women in inheritance, marriage (thereby abolishing polygamy and harems) and divorce.[132][133]
1927
  • Afghanistan: The monarch introduces compulsory education for the daughters of officials.[40]
  • Luxembourg: Women are explicitly approved to function as a witness in court.[134]
  • Mexico: Legal majority for married women.[22]
1928
  • Afghanistan: The first women are sent abroad to study (women banned from studying abroad in 1929).[40] Compulsory veiling, polygamy and forced concubinage is abolished (rescinded in 1929).[40]
  • Albania: The Civil Code of 1928 bans forced marriages and gives married women the right to divorce and equal inheritance.[101]
  • Bahrain: The first public primary school for girls.[75]
  • Egypt: The first Women students is admitted to Cairo University.[75]
  • Mexico: Equal marriage law.[68]
  • Southern Rhodesia: the marital power was abolished in 1928 by the Married Persons’ Property Act, which also abolished community of property.[135]
1929
  • Greece: Secondary education for females is made equal to that of males.[41]
  • Haiti: The lawyer profession open to women.[34]
  • Canada: Edwards v Canada (AG)[136]—also known as the Persons Case—is a famous Canadian constitutional case that decided that women were eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate. The case, put forward by the Government of Canada on the lobbying of a group of women known as the Famous Five, began as a reference case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that women were not “qualified persons” and thus ineligible to sit in the Senate. The case then went to the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire and Commonwealth. The Judicial Committee overturned the Supreme Court’s decision. The Persons Case was a landmark case in two respects. First, it established that Canadian women were eligible to be appointed senators. Second, it established what came to be known as the “living tree doctrine“, which is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to changing times.
1930
  • Peru: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Turkey: Equal right to university education for both men and women.[75]
1931
  • China: The new Civil Code grant equal inheritance rights, the right for women to choose marriage partner, equal right to divorce and right to control their own property after divorce.[43]
  • Spain: Legal majority for married women (rescinded in 1939).[137]
  • Spain: Equal right to profession (rescinded in 1939).[137]
  • Spain: Divorce is legalized (rescinded in 1939).[137]
  • United States: An amendment to the Cable Act allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian.[138]
1932
  • Bolivia: Divorce is legalized.[22]
  • Colombia: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Colombia: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Romania: Married women granted legal majority.[62]
1933
  • Colombia: Universities open to women.[139]
  • Luxembourg: A ban against firing women teachers after marriage.[119]
  • Some states in the Americas: The Convention on the Nationality of Women was adopted in 1933 by the Pan American Union in Montevideo, Uruguay.[140] It was the first international treaty ever adopted concerning women’s rights. The Seventh International Conference of American States agreed that “There shall be no distinction based on sex as regards nationality, in their legislation or in their practice”.[141] This agreement, which effected only the status of the member states in the Americas,[140] was the precursor to the United Nations own study on the subject of nationality begun in 1948.[142]
1934
  • Brazil: The constitution of 1934 grants all women quality before the law, maternity leave, access to all public professions.[85]
  • Haiti: The physician profession open to women.[34]
  • Iran: In order to prepare for an abolition of the veil and social gender segregation, women teachers and students are encouraged to appear unveiled: this is followed the next year by an order to male politicians to introduce their wives to representational gender mixed social life.[81]
  • Turkey: Women gain the right to stand for election.
1935
  • Iran: Women are admitted to Tehran University.[143] The access of university education to females is, in fact, also a reform regarding women’s access to professions, as it open numerous professions to women.[81]
  • Luxembourg: The profession of nurse and social worker, though de facto already in existence, are formally legalized and regulated for women.[119]
  • Thailand: Polygamy is banned and women are entitled to an equal share of common property after divorce.[144]
  • International: Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935 is an International Labour Organization Convention.

It was established in 1935, with the preamble stating:

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the employment of women on underground work in mines of all kinds,..

1936
  • Colombia: The national University open to women.[145]
  • Iran: Reza Shah Pahlavi set the mandatory unveiling of women—a highly controversial policy which nonetheless was significant for the desegregation of women.[143] In order to enforce the abolition of gender segregation, male civil servants were ordered to bring their wives to official ceremonies.[81]
  • Peru: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • United States: In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[146]
  • United States: The Cable Act was repealed.
1937
1938
1939
  • Sweden: Ban against firing a woman for marrying or having children.[59]

1940–1969[edit]

1942
  • Russia: Women formally accepted into the military.[1]
  • Venezuela: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Venezuela: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
1943
  • Iran: Compulsory primary education for both males and females.[75]
1945
  • ‘British Guiana’-Guyana: Women gain the right to stand for election.
1946
  • Burma: Myanmar: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Uruguay: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Uruguay: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Sudan: Sudan was the first country to outlaw FGM in 1946, under the British. However, currently there is no national law forbidding FGM there.
1947
  • Sweden: Equal salary for both sexes.[59]
1948
  • Sweden: Maternity pay.[59]
  • United States: Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more, unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in this case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit, Michigan district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state’s power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.
1949
  • Ecuador: Legal majority for married women.[68]
1950
  • China: Statute grants women equal right to property, to seek divorce and to inheritance.
1951
  • Bahrain: First secondary education school open to females.[75]
1953

International: The Convention on the Political Rights of Women was approved by the United Nations General Assembly during the 409th plenary meeting, on 20 December 1952, and adopted on 31 March 1953.

The Convention’s purpose is to codify a basic international standard for women’s political rights.

1955
  • Qatar: First public school for girls.[75]
1957
  • Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).
1958
  • Sweden: Women allowed to become priests.[28]
1959
  • Afghanistan: Veiling is not banned but the compulsory veiling is abolished and women in official positions, as well as the wives and daughters of male officials, are asked to discard the veil in public.[40]
  • Iraq: The new personal status law provide equal inheritance rights, raise women’s age of marriage to 18, prohibit men’s right to divorce unilaterally and virtually abolish polygamy.[40]
1960
  • Afghanistan: The University of Kabul open to women.[40]
  • Canada: Women gain the right to stand for election, with no restrictions/conditions.
1961
  • El Salvador: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Kuwait: Mandatory veiling is abolished for female public servants.[75]
  • India: The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Indian civil law
  • United States: Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), was an appeal by Gwendolyn Hoyt, who had killed her husband and received a jail sentence for second degree murder. Although she had suffered mental and physical abuse in her marriage, and showed neurotic, if not psychotic, behavior, a six-man jury deliberated for just twenty-five minutes before finding her guilty.[149] They sentenced her to 30 years of hard labor. Hoyt claimed that her all-male jury led to discrimination and unfair circumstances during her trial. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, Supreme Court of the United States held the Florida jury selection statute was not discriminatory.
1962
  • Brazil: Legal majority for married women.[150]
  • Kuwait: The right to education and employment are secured to all citizens regardless of gender.[75]
1963
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex […][153] For the first nine years of the EPA, the requirement of equal pay for equal work did not extend to persons employed in an executive, administrative or professional capacity, or as an outside salesperson. Therefore, the EPA exempted white-collar women from the protection of equal pay for equal work. In 1972, Congress enacted the Educational Amendment of 1972, which amended the FLSA to expand the coverage of the EPA to these employees, by excluding the EPA from the professional workers exemption of the FLSA.
1964
  • Afghanistan: The 1964 constitution state the equal right of women to education, employment and rights within marriage.[40]
  • United States: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[154]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer “who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year” as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[155] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[156] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business”, and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321(1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School – Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)). There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

  • Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
  • Federally recognized Native American tribes
  • Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
  • Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

The Convention reaffirms the consensual nature of marriages and requires the parties to establish a minimum marriage age by law and to ensure the registration of marriages.[158]

1965
  • France: Married women obtained the right to work without their husbands’ consent.[159]
  • Kuwait: Compulsory education for both boys and girls.[75]
  • United States: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[160] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a ConnecticutComstock law” that prohibited any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy”, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.”

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention “privacy”, Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

  • United States: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided in 1965 that segregated job advertising—”Help Wanted Male” and “Help Wanted Female”—was permissible because it served “the convenience of readers”.[161] Advocates for women’s rights founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) in June 1966 out of frustration with the enforcement of the sex bias provisions of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11375.[162]
1966
1967
  • Great Britain: Abortion Act 1967
  • France: The Neuwirth Act of 1967 authorizes contraception.[163]
  • United States: Executive Order 11375, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 13, 1967, banned discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors.
  • England and Wales: In England and Wales, the only part of the United Kingdom where the law against being a common scold had any effect, section 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished it.
1968
1969
  • Portugal: Legal majority for married women.[120]
  • Sierra Leone: The Special Court for Sierra Leone‘s (SCSL) Appeals Chamber found the abduction and confinement of women for “forced marriage” in war to be a new crime against humanity (AFRC decision).[166][167]

1970–1999[edit]

1970
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Ecuador: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • France: The paternal authority of a man over his family was ended in 1970 (before that parental responsibilities belonged solely to the father who made all legal decisions concerning the children).[168]
  • United States: In 1970, Eleanor Holmes Norton represented sixty female employees of Newsweek who had filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Newsweek had a policy of only allowing men to be reporters.[169] The women won, and Newsweek agreed to allow women to be reporters.[169] The day the claim was filed, Newsweek’s cover article was “Women in Revolt”, covering the feminist movement; the article was written by a woman who had been hired on a freelance basis since there were no female reporters at the magazine.[170]
  • United States: The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs”, was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. Title X is legally designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these health care services. These services are provided to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost.[171] Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children. The other health services provided in Title X-funded clinics are integral in achieving this objective.[172]
  • United States: Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir. 1970) was a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1970. It is an important case in studying the impact of the Bennett Amendment on Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helping to define the limitations of equal pay for men and women.[173][174] In its rulings, the court determined that a job that is “substantially equal” in terms of what the job entails, although not necessarily in title or job description, is protected by the Equal Pay Act.[175] An employer who hires a woman to do the same job as a man but gives the job a new title in order to offer it a lesser pay is discriminating under that act.[175]
  • United Kingdom: The Equal Pay Act 1970 was an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament which prohibited any less favorable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment.
  • United States: In Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc. , a U.S. federal trial court ruled in a female flight attendant’s favor on whether airline marriage bans were illegal under Title VII. The court found that neither sex nor marital status was a bona fide occupational qualification for the flight attendant occupation. The court’s ruling was upheld upon appeal.[176][177]
1971
  • Egypt: The new constitution confirms equality before the law and women’s right to inheritance, property, education, employment and divorce.[40]
  • Switzerland: Women allowed to stand for election at federal level.[178]
  • United States: Barring women from practicing law was prohibited in the U.S. in 1971.[179]
  • United States: United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held that the District of Columbia’s abortion law banning the practice except when necessary for the health or life of the woman was not unconstitutionally vague.
  • United States: Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time in Reed v. Reed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited differential treatment based on sex.[180]
  • United States: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.
1972
  • Bolivia: Married women granted separate economy.[68]
  • Bolivia: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • Luxembourg: Legal majority for married women.[56]
  • United States: Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its late House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

1973
1974
  • United States: Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974), was an equal protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether unfavorable treatment to pregnant women could count as sex discrimination. It held that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The California insurance program at issue did not exclude workers from eligibility based on sex but did exclude pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities. The majority found that even though only women would be directly affected by the administrative decision, the classification of normal pregnancy as non-compensable was not a sex-based classification, and therefore the court would defer to the state so long as it could provide a rational basis for its categorization.
  • United States: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted in 1974, that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);[186] to the fact that all or part of the applicant’s income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The law applies to any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly participates in a credit decision, including banks, retailers, bankcard companies, finance companies, and credit unions.

Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the creditor’s net worth in class actions.[187]

  • Spain: Angela Hernandez (also known as Angela Hernandez Gomez and just Angela), of Spain, won a case in the Spanish Supreme Court allowing women to be bullfighters in Spain; a prohibition against women doing so was put in place in Spain in 1908.[188][189]
  • International: The Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict was adopted by the United Nations in 1974 and went into force the same year. It was proposed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, on the grounds that women and children are often the victims of wars, civil unrest, and other emergency situations that cause them to suffer “inhuman acts and consequently suffer serious harm”.[190]
1975
1976
1977
1978
  • Austria: reform to family law providing gender equality in parental rights over children, and ownership of property and assets, ending the legal authority of the husband.[195]
  • Afghanistan: Mandatory literacy and education of all females.[40]
  • Dominican Republic: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • ‘Rhodesia’-Zimbabwe: Women gain the right to stand for election.
  • Portugal: new family law providing for gender equality between husband and wife comes into force.[201]
  • United States: Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used. The court held that Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, set height and weight restrictions which have a disproportionately adverse effect on one gender. However, on the issue of whether women could fill close contact jobs in all male maximum security prisons the Court ruled 6–3 that the BFOQ defense was legitimate in this case. The reason for this finding is that female prison guards were more vulnerable to male sexual attack than male prison guards.[202]
1978

The Act covers discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” It only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.[204][205] Employers are exempt from providing medical coverage for elective abortions – except in the case that the mother’s life is threatened – but are required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[206]

  • United States: Judge John Sirica ruled the law banning Navy women from ships to be unconstitutional in the case Owens v. Brown. That same year, Congress approved a change to Title 10 USC Section 6015 to permit the Navy to assign women to fill sea duty billets on support and noncombatant ships.[207]
1979
  • Chile: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • West Germany: reform to parental rights law giving equal legal rights to the mother and the father, abolishing the legal authority of the father.[208]
  • International: The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international treaty, was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly.
  • United States: Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion. The Court, 8–1, elaborates on its parental consent decision of 1976. It implies that states may be able to require a pregnant, unmarried minor to obtain parental consent to an abortion so long as the state law provides an alternative procedure to parental approval, such as letting the minor seek a state judge’s approval instead. This plurality opinion declined to fully extend the right to seek and obtain an abortion, granted to adult women in Roe v. Wade, to minors.[209] The Court rejected this extension to minors by placing emphasis on the especially vulnerable nature of children, their “inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing.”[209][210]
  • United States: Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania’s 1974 Abortion Control Act. The section in question was the following:

(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Doctors who failed to adhere to the provisions of this section were liable to civil and criminal prosecution “as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted.” Franklin and others sued, arguing that the provision was both vague and overbroad. In a 6–3 decision written by Roe author Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that requiring a determination “if… the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe the fetus may be viable” was insufficient and impermissibly vague guidance for physicians who might face criminal liability if a jury disagrees with their judgment.

The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women were veterans.[211]

1980
1981
  • Spain: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • Italy: repeal of the law which provided for mitigated punishment in case of honor killings; prior to 1981, the law read: Art. 587: He who causes the death of a spouse, daughter, or sister upon discovering her in illegitimate carnal relations and in the heat of passion caused by the offence to his honour or that of his family will be sentenced to three to seven years. The same sentence shall apply to whom, in the above circumstances, causes the death of the person involved in illegitimate carnal relations with his spouse, daughter, or sister.[217][218]
  • United States: the full end of the legal subordination of a wife to her husband: Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[219]
  • United States: H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl’s parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.
  • United States: Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.
  • United States: Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (C.A. D.C. 1981), was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1982
1983
1984
  • Netherlands: gender equality in family law, abolishing the stipulation that the husband’s opinion prevailed over the wife’s regarding issues such as decisions on children’s education and the domicile of the family.[230][231]
  • Peru: Legal majority for married women.[68]
  • South Africa: The Matrimonial Property Act of 1984 abolished it prospectively (i.e. for marriages contracted after the act came into force) but not for marriages between black people.
  • Switzerland: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • Australia: Sex Discrimination Act 1984
  • United States: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell[232] held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.[233] The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education’s assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.[232] The Department of Education’s stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it made many institutions’ sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX.[234]
  • United States: Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit‘s application of a Minnesota antidiscrimination law, which had permitted the United States Junior Chamber (Jaycees) to exclude women from full membership.
  • United States: People v. Pointer[235] was a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, which is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge’s sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.
  • United States: In Tallon v. Liberty Hose Co. No. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984), it was ruled that a volunteer fire department may be held liable under section 1983 for violating a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.[236]
1985
  • France: A new reform in 1985 abolishes the stipulation that the father has the sole power to administer the children’s property.[168]
  • United Kingdom: the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.
  • United States: The “Mexico City Policy” came into effect, and it directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.
  • Japan: The Nationality Law was amended to allow Japanese mothers to pass Japanese nationality to their children.
1986
1987
  • Argentina: divorce is legalized; the new law also provides for gender equality between the wife and husband.[237]
  • Paraguay: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • United States: California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.
1988
  • Switzerland: legal reforms providing gender equality in marriage, abolishing the legal authority of the husband, come into force (these reforms had been approved in 1985 by voters in a referendum.[238][239][240]
  • South Africa: Marital power is abolished prospectively for marriages of black people under the civil law, but not for marriages contracted under customary law.
  • Brazil: husband no longer “head of the household” (which gave him certain legal powers over his wife).[151]
  • Rwanda: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • United States: The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect.[241]
  • Canada: R v Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman’s right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
1989
  • United States: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade.
  • United States: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of employer liability for sex discrimination. The Court held that the employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision regarding employment would have been the same if sex discrimination had not occurred. The accounting firm failed to prove that the same decision to postpone Ann Hopkins‘s promotion to partnership would have still been made in the absence of sex discrimination, and therefore, the employment decision constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework as an evidentiary framework for proving discrimination under a disparate treatment theory even when lawful reasons for the adverse employment action are also present.[242]
  • United States: The first “Restroom Equity” Act in the United States was passed in California in 1989.[243] It was introduced by then-Senator Arthur Torres after several long waits for his wife to return from the bathroom.[243]
  • Canada: Brooks v Canada Safeway Ltd [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on employer discrimination of pregnant employees. The Court found that Safeway violated the provincial Human Rights Act by failing to provide equal compensation for those who missed work due to pregnancy. This decision overturned the controversial case of Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada,
1990
  • United States: Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative. The law was declared valid with the judicial bypass, but the ruling struck down the two-parent notification requirement.
1991
1992
  • United States: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion were challenged. Notably, the case was a turn from the Roe v. Wade decision to tie an abortion’s legality to the third trimester, associating the legal timeframe with fetal viability. In theory, its aim was to make the woman’s decision more thoughtful and informed.[248] The Court’s plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right. Applying its new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.
  • United States: In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the United States Supreme Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued “any number” of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that “fighting words” could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
  • Italy: In Rome in 1992, a 45-year-old driving instructor was accused of rape. When he picked up an 18-year-old girl for her first driving lesson, he allegedly raped her for an hour, then told her that if she was to tell anyone he would kill her. Later that night she told her parents and her parents agreed to help her press charges. While the alleged rapist was convicted and sentenced, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 1998 because the victim wore tight jeans. It was argued that she must have necessarily have had to help her attacker remove her jeans, thus making the act consensual (“because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them…and by removing the jeans…it was no longer rape but consensual sex”). The Italian Supreme Court stated in its decision “it is a fact of common experience that it is nearly impossible to slip off tight jeans even partly without the active collaboration of the person who is wearing them.”[249] This ruling sparked widespread feminist protest. The day after the decision, women in the Italian Parliament protested by wearing jeans and holding placards that read “Jeans: An Alibi for Rape.” As a sign of support, the California Senate and Assembly followed suit. Soon Patricia Giggans, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women, (now Peace Over Violence) made Denim Day an annual event. As of 2011 at least 20 U.S. states officially recognize Denim Day in April. Wearing jeans on this day has become an international symbol of protest. As of 2008 the Italian Supreme Court has overturned their findings, and there is no longer a “denim” defense to the charge of rape.
  • Botswana: Attorney General v Dow was a Botswanan High Court case. The plaintiff, Unity Dow, was a citizen of Botswana, married to a non-citizen, whose children had been denied citizenship under a provision of the Citizenship Act of 1984. This Act conferred citizenship on a child born in Botswana only if “a) his father was a citizen of Botswana; or b) in the case of a person born out-of-wedlock, his mother was a citizen of Botswana.” The plaintiff claimed that this provision violated guarantees of the Constitution of Botswana. The High Court agreed, holding that the provision infringed:
  • the right to liberty;
  • the right not to be expelled from Botswana;
  • the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment; and
  • the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex.

The Court concluded that the right to liberty had been infringed because the provision hampered a woman’s free choice to marry a non-citizen and, in fact, undermined marriage. The Court also decided that the right not to be expelled from Botswana was infringed because, if the plaintiff’s resident permit was not renewed, she would be forced to leave Botswana if she desired to stay with her family. Finally, the Court stated that the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment was infringed because any law discriminating against women constitutes an offense against human dignity.

This decision was subsequently upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal.[250]

1993
  • South Africa: Marital power is repealed for all civil marriages, whenever they were contracted.[147] The marital power persisted, however, in the Transkei (which was nominally independent from 1976 to 1994) but it was held to be unconstitutional for civil marriages by the High Court in 1999.[147]
  • United States: Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Several abortion clinics (most known was the Alexandria Health Clinic) sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from voicing their freedom of speech in front of the clinics in Washington D.C.[251]

Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic reported that the protesters violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits protests to deprive “any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.”[252]

  • United States: The “Mexico City Policy“, which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was rescinded by President Clinton.
  • United States: On October 22, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[253] The Act contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest.[254]
  • United States: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) is a United States federal law requiring covered employers to provide employees job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. Qualified medical and family reasons include: personal or family illness, family military leave, pregnancy, adoption, or the foster care placement of a child.[255]
1994
1995
1996
  • Burkina Faso: A law prohibiting FGM was enacted in 1996 and went into effect in February 1997.
  • Central African Republic: In 1996, the President issued an Ordinance prohibiting FGM throughout the country. It has the force of national law.
  • Namibia: The marital power is abolished in 1996 by the Married Persons Equality Act.
  • Angola: Abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceedings.[151]
  • Guatemala: the Guatemalan Constitutional Court struck down the adultery law, which was gendered, based both on the Constitution’s gender equality clause and on human rights treaties including CEDAW.[263]
  • United States: Fauziya Kasinga, a 19-year-old member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM; this set a precedent in US immigration law because it was the first time FGM was accepted as a form of persecution.[264]
  • United States: United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute (VMI)’s long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision. (Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at VMI at the time, recused himself.)
  • Italy: Italy amended its rape laws, toughening the punishment for sexual assault and reclassifying it from a moral offense to a criminal felony.[265]
1997
1998
  • South Africa: Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 – women in customary marriages no longer legal minors.[151]
  • Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination. The court held that “an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim.”
  • United States: Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. was the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States. It was filed in 1988 on behalf of Lois Jenson and other female workers at the EVTAC mine in Eveleth, Minnesota on the state’s northern Mesabi Range, which is part of the Iron Range. On December 23, 1998, just before the trial was set to begin, fifteen women settled with Eveleth Mines for a total of $3.5 million.
  • Côte d’Ivoire: A December 18, 1998 law provides that harm to the integrity of the genital organ of a woman by complete or partial removal, excision, desensitization or by any other procedure will, if harmful to a woman’s health, be punishable by imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 360,000 to two million CFA Francs (approximately US$576–3,200). The penalty is five to twenty years incarceration if a death occurs during the procedure and up to five years’ prohibition of medical practice, if this procedure is carried out by a doctor.
  • Tanzania: Section 169A of the Sexual Offences Special Provisions Act of 1998 prohibits FGM in Tanzania. Punishment is imprisonment of from five to fifteen years or a fine not exceeding 300,000 shillings (approximately US$250) or both. But the Tanzania 1998 Act protects only girls up to the age of 18 years.
  • Togo: On October 30, 1998, the National Assembly unanimously voted to outlaw the practice of FGM.
1999
  • United States: A United States House of Representatives appropriations bill (HR 2490) that contained an amendment specifically permitting breastfeeding[271] was signed into law on September 29, 1999. It stipulated that no government funds may be used to enforce any prohibition on women breastfeeding their children in federal buildings or on federal property.
  • United States: A federal law enacted in 1999 specifically provides that “a woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a federal building or on federal property, if the woman and her child are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.”[272]
  • Senegal: A law that was passed in January 1999 makes FGM illegal in Senegal.[273]

21st century

2000

The Protocol was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 6 October 1999, and in force from 22 December 2000. As of October 2016, the Protocol has 80 signatories and 108 parties.[276]

2001
  • United States: The “Mexico City Policy“, which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was reinstated by President George W. Bush, who implemented it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.
2002
2003
2004
  • Chile: Divorce is legalized.[285][286]
  • Botswana: the marital power is abolished by the Abolition of Marital Power Act.
  • Mozambique: abolition of the requirement that married women must have their husbands’ permission to initiate judicial proceeding.[151]
  • South Africa: Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; SA Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the RSA and Another,[287] an important case in South African customary law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 2 and 3 March 2004, with judgment handed down on 15 October. Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Moseneke J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, and Yacoob J were the presiding judges. The court held that section 23 of the Black Administration Act, in applying the system of male primogeniture, was incompatible with sections 9 (equality) and 10 (dignity) of the Constitution.
  • Pakistan: On December 8, 2004, under international and domestic pressure, Pakistan enacted a law that made honor killings punishable by a prison term of seven years, or by the death penalty in the most extreme cases.[288] Women and human rights organizations were, however, skeptical of the law’s impact, as it stopped short of outlawing the practice of allowing killers to buy their freedom by paying compensation to the victim’s relatives, which was problematic because most honor killings are committed by close relatives.[289]
2005
  • United Kingdom (Scotland): the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005
  • Mexico: Supreme Court rules that forced sex in marriage is rape (marital rape).[290]
  • International: In 2005 the United Nations Human Rights Committee ordered Peru to compensate a woman (known as K.L.) for denying her a medically indicated abortion; this was the first time a United Nations Committee had held any country accountable for not ensuring access to safe, legal abortion, and the first time the committee affirmed that abortion is a human right.[291] K.L. received the compensation in 2016.[291]
  • Ethiopia: On May 9, 2005 the new Ethiopian Penal Code came into effect, which removed the marital exemption for kidnapping and rape, largely due to a campaign by Equality Now inspired by Woineshet Zebene‘s case.[292][293]
  • India: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Domestic Violence Act”) was passed in order to provide a civil law remedy for the protection of women from domestic violence in India.[294]
  • United States: McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004)[2], was a case in which the principal original litigant in Roe v. Wade,[295] (1973) Norma McCorvey, also known as ‘Jane Roe’, requested the overturning of Roe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that McCorvey could not do this; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2005,[296] rendering the opinion of the Fifth Circuit final.
  • United States: The lawsuit Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (No. C03-2817), filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch “violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment.”[297][298] The female and Latino, African-American, and Asian American plaintiffs charged that they were either not hired despite strong qualifications or if hired “they were steered not to sales positions out front, but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs, stocking and cleaning up.”[299] In April 2005, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement, valued at approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits to the class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination.[299][300] The settlement, rendered as a Consent Decree, also requires the company to institute a range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.[297][300] Implementation of the Consent Decree continued into 2011. Abercrombie did not admit liability.[299]
  • United States: New York City Council passed a law in 2005 requiring all new establishments falling under the terms of the legislation to maintain roughly a two-to-one ratio of women’s bathroom stalls to men’s stalls and urinals. Existing establishments were required to come into compliance when they undergo extensive renovations, while restaurants, schools, hospitals, and municipal buildings were excluded.[301][302]
  • Some countries in Africa: The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, better known as the Maputo Protocol, guarantees comprehensive rights to women including the right to take part in the political process, to social and political equality with men, to control of their reproductive health, and an end to female genital mutilation.[303] As the name suggests, it was adopted by the African Union in the form of a protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Maputo, Mozambique. The protocol was adopted by the African Union on 11 July 2003 at its second summit in Maputo.[304] On 25 November 2005, having been ratified by the required 15 member nations of the African Union, the protocol entered into force.[305]
  • United States: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
2006

Darlene Jespersen was a 20-year employee at Harrah’s Casino in Reno, Nevada. In 2000, Harrah’s advanced a “Personal Best” policy, which created strict standards for employee appearance and grooming, which included a requirement that women wear substantial amounts of makeup. Jespersen was fired for non-compliance with its policy. Jespersen argued the makeup requirement was contrary to her self-image, and that the requirement violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[314][315]

In 2001, Jespersen filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which found against her claim. The district court opined that the policy imposed “equal burdens” on both sexes and that the policy did not discriminate based on immutable characteristics of her sex. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, but on rehearing en banc, reversed part of its decision. The full panel concluded, in contrast to the previous rulings, that such grooming requirements could be challenged as sex stereotyping in some cases, even in view of the decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. However, the panel found that Jespersen had not provided evidence that the policy had been motivated by stereotyping, and affirmed the district court’s finding for Harrah’s.[316][317][318]

  • United Kingdom: The Equality Act 2006 (c 3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom covering the United Kingdom. The 2006 Act is a precursor to the Equality Act 2010, which combines all of the equality enactments within Great Britain and provide comparable protections across all equality strands. Those explicitly mentioned by the Equality Act 2006 include age; disability; gender; proposed, commenced or completed gender reassignment; race; religion or belief and sexual orientation.

The changes it made were,

  • creating the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (merging the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission)
  • outlawing of discrimination on goods and services on the grounds of religion and belief (subject to certain exemptions)
  • allowing the Government to introduce regulations outlawing discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in goods and services, which led to the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006
  • creating a public duty to promote equality on the ground of gender (The Equality Act 2006, section 84, inserting section 76A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, now found in section 1 of the Equality Act 2010).
  • Canada: Stopps v Just Ladies Fitness (Metrotown) Ltd was a discrimination by sex case heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that was significant in Canadian law because it found that a women-only admission policy of a public gym was not discrimination.
  • Italy: After a few cases of infibulation practiced by complaisant medical practitioners within the African immigrant community came to public knowledge through media coverage, the Law n°7/2006 was passed on 1/9/2006, becoming effective on 1/28/2006, concerning “Measures of prevention and prohibition of any female genital mutilation practice”; the Act is also known as the Legge Consolo (“Consolo Act”) named after its primary promoter, Senator Giuseppe Consolo. Article 6 of the law integrates the Italian Penal Code with Articles 583-Bis and 583-Ter, punishing any practice of female genital mutilation “not justifiable under therapeutical or medical needs” with imprisonment ranging from 4 to 12 years (3 to 7 years for any mutilation other than, or less severe than, clitoridectomy, excision or infibulation). Penalty can be reduced up to 23 if the harm caused is of modest entity (i.e. if partially or completely unsuccessful), but may also be elevated up to 13 if the victim is a minor or if the offense has been committed for profit. An Italian citizen or a foreign citizen legally resident in Italy can be punished under this law even if the offense is committed abroad; the law will as well afflict any individual of any citizenship in Italy, even illegally or provisionally. The law also mandates any medical practitioner found guilty under those provisions to have his/her medical license revoked for a minimum of six up to a maximum of ten years.[319]
  • Pakistan: In March 2005, the Pakistani parliament rejected a bill which sought to strengthen the law against the practice of honor killing, declaring it to be un-Islamic.[320] The bill was eventually passed in November 2006.[321] However, doubts of its effectiveness remained.[322]
  • Israel: Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that women should be allowed to deliver eulogies and that the burial societies, or chevra kadisha, should not impose gender segregation in the cemetery.[323] The ruling was in response to an incident in Petach Tikvah in which a woman was stopped from eulogizing her father.[323] However, the court’s ruling was not backed up by the Religious Services Ministry until 2012, when Israel’s Chief Rabbinical Council ruled that women can deliver eulogies at funerals, but that it is up to the community rabbi to decide on a case-by-case basis.[323]
2007
  • Costa Rica: Law on Criminal Sanctions for Violence Against Women (Ley de Penalización de la Violencia Contra las Mujeres).[324]
  • New Zealand: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Act 2007
  • Egypt: FGM banned.[325]
  • Venezuela: enacts Organic Law on the Right of Women to a Life Free of Violence (Ley Organica Sobre el Derecho de las Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencia).[326]
  • England and Wales and Northern Ireland: The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 (applicable in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland) was passed, which enables the victims of forced marriage to apply for court orders for their protection.
  • Egypt: The June 2007 Ministry ban on FGM eliminated a loophole that allowed girls to undergo the procedure for health reasons.[327]
  • Eritrea: Eritrea outlawed all forms of female genital mutilation with Proclamation 158/2007 in March 2007.[328][329]
  • United States: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[330]
  • United States: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, stating that employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter’s claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected.[331] The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims,[332] or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.[333]
2008
  • International: In 2008, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1820, which noted that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide”.[334]
  • Guatemala: enacts Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence Against Women (Ley contra el Femicidio y otras Formas de Violencia Contra la Mujer).[335]
  • Colombia: enacts Law 1257 of 2008 for establishing rules of awareness, prevention and punishment of all forms of violence and discrimination against women (Ley 1257 de 2008, por la cual se dictan normas de sensibilización, prevención y sanción de formas de violenci a y discriminación contra las mujeres).[336]
  • Saudi Arabia: In 2008, women were allowed to enter hotels and furnished apartments without their mahram if they had their national identification cards.[337]
2009

The bill also:

  • Removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school;
  • Gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
  • Provided $5 million per year in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;
  • Requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (statistics for the other groups were already tracked).[346][347]
2010
  • United States: In United States v. Jardee[348] it was ruled that the threat of being subjected to the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban did not turn an otherwise “petty” crime into a “serious” one requiring a jury trial.
  • United States: Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act and required employers to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to breastfeed her child if it is less than one year old.[349] The employee must be allowed to breastfeed in a private place, other than a bathroom. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the break time.[349] Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not required to comply with the law if doing so would impose an undue hardship to the employer based on its size, finances, nature, or structure of its business.[350]
  • United States: Sex discrimination was outlawed in health insurance.[351]
  • United Kingdom: The Equality Act 2010[352] is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and has the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements.[353]

The primary purpose of the Act is to codify the complicated and numerous array of Acts and Regulations, which formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. This was, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age. It requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. In the case of gender, there are special protections for pregnant women. The Act does not guarantee transsexuals’ access to gender-specific services where restrictions are “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.[354] In the case of disability, employers and service providers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to their workplaces to overcome barriers experienced by disabled people. In this regard, the Equality Act 2010 did not change the law. Under s.217, with limited exceptions the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.

The resolution was sponsored by 60 countries.[361] Its adoption was praised by Human Rights Watch, which called it “a tremendous step toward ending this horrendous practice”.[362]

  • Israel: On September 28, 2010, the Israeli Supreme Court outlawed public gender segregation in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim neighborhood in response to a petition submitted after extremist Haredi men physically and verbally assaulted women for walking on a designated men’s only road. However, in January 2011, a ruling of the Israeli High Court of Justice allowed the continuation of the gender segregation in public buses on a strictly voluntary basis for a one-year experimental period.[363]
2011
  • El Salvador: enacts Law for a Life Free of Violence against Women (Ley Especial Integral para una Vida Libre de Violencia para las Mujeres).[364]
  • Afghanistan: In 2010 and 2011, the Afghan Supreme Court issued instructions to courts to charge women with “running away” as a crime. This makes it nearly impossible for women to escape forced marriages.
  • Scotland: The Forced Marriage etc. (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 gives courts the power to issue protection orders.
  • United States: Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case. The case was an appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in which the Supreme Court, by a 5–4 decision, reversed the district court’s decision to certify a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiff class included 1.6 million women who currently work or have worked for Wal-Mart stores, including the lead plaintiff, Betty Dukes. Dukes, a current Wal-Mart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Wal-Mart stores.[365]

The Court agreed to hear argument on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), which provides for class-actions if the defendant’s actions make injunctive relief appropriate, can be used to file a class action that demands monetary damages. The Court also asked the parties to argue whether the class meets the traditional requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.[366]

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the class should not be certified in its current form but was only 5–4 on the reason for that and whether the class could continue in a different form.

  • Guinea-Bissau: A law banning the practice of FGM nationwide was made in 2011.[367]
  • Iraqi Kurdistan: A 2011 Kurdish law criminalized FGM practice in Iraqi Kurdistan.
2012
  • Ireland: the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012,[368] bans FGM.
  • Nicaragua: enacts Law no 779- Integral Law against Violence against Women (Ley Integral contra la Violencia hacia la Mujer).[369]
  • The Special Court for Sierra Leone Trial Chamber in the Charles Taylor decision found that the term ‘forced marriage’ should be avoided and rather described the practice in war as ‘conjugal slavery’ (2012).[370]
  • United States: Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc)) was a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a provision of a South Dakota law that requires a doctor to inform a patient, prior to providing an abortion, that one of the “known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors” is an “increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”
  • United States: A provision of the Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective August 1, 2012, states that all new health insurance plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women’s Preventive Services – including: well-woman visits; gestational diabetes screening; human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women age 30 and older; sexually transmitted infection counseling; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling; FDA-approved contraceptive methods and contraceptive counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling; and domestic violence screening and counseling – will be covered without cost sharing.[371] The requirement to cover FDA-approved contraceptive methods is also known as the contraceptive mandate.[372][373]
  • Botswana: Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another is a 2012 case of the High Court of Botswana in which three sisters disputed their nephew’s right to inherit the family home under customary inheritance laws that favored male descendants.[374][375] The court ruled that these laws were unconstitutional, asserting for the first time the right of Batswana women to inherit property.[375]
2013
  • Switzerland: equality between husband and wife with regard to the choice of family name and citizenship law.[376]
  • Panama: enacts Law 82 – Typifying Femicide and Violence Against Women (Ley 82 – Tipifica el Femicidio y la Violencia contra las Mujeres).[377]
  • Swaziland: marital power is restricted, but not abolished: Sihlongonyane v Sihlongonyane (470/2013) [2013] SZHC 144 (18 July 2013).[378]
  • Ivory Coast: legal reforms provide for gender equality in marriage.[151]
  • Bolivia: enacts Law 348 – Integral law guaranteeing women a Life Free of Violence (Ley 348 – Ley Integral para Garantizar a las Mujeres una Vida Libre de Violencia).[379]
  • United States: enacts the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the United States for the purpose of undergoing FGM.[380]
  • Denmark: reforms its legislation on sexual offenses,[381][382][383] after having been harshly criticized by Amnesty International for lack of adequate laws in this area.[384][385]
  • International: The first United Nations Human Rights Council resolution against child, early, and forced marriages was adopted; the resolution recognizes child, early, and forced marriage as involving violations of human rights which “prevents individuals from living their lives free from all forms of violence and that has adverse consequences on the enjoyment of human rights, such as the right to education, [and] the right to the highest attainable standard of health including sexual and reproductive health,” and also states that “the elimination of child, early and forced marriage should be considered in the discussion of the post-2015 development agenda.”[386][387][388]
  • International: The U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 2122, which supported abortion rights for girls and women raped in wars, “noting the need for access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination.”[389] United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had recommended to the U.N. Security Council earlier in 2013 (in September) that girls and women raped in war should have access to “services for safe termination of pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination and in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.” In March 2013 Ban Ki-moon had also recommended to the Council that women raped in war have access to abortion services.[389]
  • Turkey: Turkey’s parliament ended a ban on women lawmakers wearing trousers in its assembly.[390]
  • France: An old bylaw requiring women in Paris, France to ask permission from city authorities before “dressing as men”, including wearing trousers (with exceptions for those “holding a bicycle handlebar or the reins of a horse”) was declared officially revoked by France’s Women’s Rights Minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem.[391] The bylaw was originally intended to prevent women from wearing the pantalons fashionable with Parisian rebels in the French Revolution.[391]
  • Saudi Arabia: Saudi women were first allowed to ride bicycles, although only around parks and other “recreational areas”.[392] They also had to be dressed in full body coverings and be accompanied by a male relative.[392]
  • Saudi Arabia: The Saudi government sanctioned sports for girls in private schools for the first time.[393]
  • India: India introduced an amendment to the Indian Penal Code through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, making acid attacks a specific offence with a punishment of imprisonment not less than 10 years and which could extend to life imprisonment and with fine.[394]
  • India: India’s top court ruled that authorities must regulate the sale of acid. The Supreme Court’s ruling on July 16, 2013 came after an incident in which four sisters suffered severe burns after being attacked with acid by two men on a motorbike. Acid which is designed to clean rusted tools is often used in the attacks and can be bought across the counter. But the judges said the buyer of such acids should in future have to provide a photo identity card to any retailer when they make a purchase. The retailers must register the name and address of the buyer.[395]
  • Israel: The Religious Judges Law in Israel was amended to say that at least four women must be included in the religious judges’ nomination committee, including a female advocate in the religious courts, and that the total number of committee members shall be eleven.[396]
  • Israel: In May 2013, after Women of the Wall, led by Anat Hoffman, had engaged in civil disobedience to exercise freedom of religion, a judge ruled that a 2003 Israeli Supreme Court ruling prohibiting women from carrying a Torah or wearing prayer shawls at the Western Wall had been misinterpreted and that Women of the Wall prayer gatherings at the Western Wall should not be deemed illegal.[397]
2014

For such companies, the Court’s majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5–4 vote.[407] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[408]

2015
  • Gambia: In 2015, Gambia’s president Yahya Jammeh banned FGM.[412]
  • Brazil: enacts law against femicide.[413]
  • Nicaragua: new Family Code which provides for gender equality comes into force,[414] replacing the old family law which gave the husband authority.[151][415]
  • Nigeria: bans FGM.[416][417]
  • Northern Ireland: The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015[418] criminalizes forced marriage (section 16 – Offence of forced marriage).[419]
  • United Kingdom: The first conviction for forced marriage in the United Kingdom occurred in June 2015, with the convicted being a man from Cardiff.[420]
  • Canada: In 2015, the Canadian Parliament enacted 2 new criminal offences to address the issue of forced marriage.[421] Forcing a person to marry against their will is now a criminal offence under the Criminal Code,[422] as is assisting or aiding a child marriage, where one of the participants is under age 16.[423]
  • United States: The Obama administration issued a new rule stating that a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection, and that the Department will then notify a third-party insurer of the company’s objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company’s female employees at no additional cost to the company.[424]
  • United States: Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC and DOES 1-20 was a lawsuit filed in 2012 in San Francisco County Superior Court under the law of California by executive Ellen Pao for gender discrimination against her employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Overlapping with a number of condemning studies on the representation of women in venture capital, the case was followed closely by reporters, advocacy groups and Silicon Valley executives.[425] Given the tendency for similar cases to reach settlements out of court, coverage of Pao v. Kleiner Perkins described it as a landmark trial once it began in February 2015.[426][427] On March 27, 2015 the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts.
  • United States: A policy update in 2015 required all Indian Health Services-run pharmacies, clinics, and emergency departments to have Plan B One-Step in stock, to distribute it to any woman (or her representative) who asked for it without a prescription, age verification, registration or any other requirement, to provide orientation training to all staff regarding the medication, to provide unbiased and medically accurate information about emergency contraception, and to make someone available at all times to distribute the pill in case the primary staffer objected to providing it on religious or moral grounds.[428]
  • United States: In the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (2015), the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant’s policies that cause a disparity.[429] The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on sex.[430]
  • Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.[431] In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions.[431]
2016
  • Algeria: An Algerian law came into effect punishing violence against women and sexual harassment.[432]
  • Australia: Hizb ut-Tahrir was ordered to stop forcibly segregating men and women at its public events after a NSW tribunal found the practice constituted sexual discrimination.[433]
  • International: In 2016 the International Criminal Court convicted someone of sexual violence for the first time; specifically, they added rape to a war crimes conviction of Congo Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo.[434]
  • Saudi Arabia: According to a directorate issued by the justice minister, Walid al-Samaani, clerics who register marriage contracts would have to hand a copy to the bride “to ensure her awareness of her rights and the terms of the contract”.[435]
  • United States: Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations.[436] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case “to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits” for reconsideration in light of the “positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs”.[437] Because the Petitioners agreed that “their religious exercise is not infringed where they ‘need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'”, the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to “resolve any outstanding issues”.[438] The Supreme Court expressed “no view on the merits of the cases.”[439] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases “some lower courts have ignored those instructions” and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court’s actions in this case.[440]
  • United States: Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that reckless misdemeanor domestic violence convictions trigger gun control prohibitions on gun ownership.[441][442][443]
  • United States: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016, when the Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. It has been called the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.[444]
  • United States: The Survivors’ Bill of Rights Act of 2016 was passed by the United States Congress in September 2016 and signed into law by US President Barack Obama on October 7, 2016.[445] The law overhauls the way that rape kits are processed within the United States and creates a bill of rights for victims. Through the law, survivors of sexual assault are given the right to have a rape kit preserved for the length of the case’s statute of limitations, to be notified of an evidence kit’s destruction, and to be informed about results of forensic exams.[445]
  • Germany: Germany’s parliament passed a new law saying that it is rape to have sex with a person who says “No” to the sex. Under the previous law, sex was not considered rape unless the victim fought back.[446] The new law also classifies groping as a sex crime, makes it easier to deport migrants who commit sex offences, and makes it easier to prosecute assaults committed by a large group.[446]
  • Tanzania: The Tanzanian High Court — in a case filed by the Msichana Initiative, a lobbying group that advocates for girls’ right to education — ruled in favor of protecting girls from the harms of early marriage.[447][448]
  • Gambia: During a feast ending the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the Gambian President Yahya Jammeh announced that child and forced marriages were banned.[448][449]
  • Pakistan: Pakistan repealed the loophole which allowed the perpetrators of honor killings to avoid punishment by seeking forgiveness for the crime from another family member, and thus being legally pardoned.[450]
  • Israel: It was announced that the High Court of Justice had given the Justice Ministry 30 days to formulate new regulations to allow women to compete equally with men for the position of director of rabbinical courts.[451]
  • Israel: The Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court ordered a man jailed for thirty days for helping his son refuse to give his daughter-in-law a divorce for eleven years.[452]
2017
  • United States: The “Mexico City Policy” was reinstated by President Trump.[453] Trump not only reinstated the policy but expanded it, making it cover all global health organizations that receive U.S. government funding, rather than only family planning organizations that do, as was previously the case.[454]
  • United States: A new law ended former President Obama’s executive order, which would have mandated companies trying to get contracts with the federal government to show compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.[455] That executive order had been enjoined by a federal judge in October 2016.[456]
  • Russia: Vladimir Putin signed a law which decriminalizes a first offense of domestic violence which does not seriously injure the person, making that offense a less serious administrative offense in Russia.[457]
  • Sweden: Maria Teresa Rivera became the first woman in the world granted asylum because of being wrongly jailed for disregarding a ban on abortion.[458] She disregarded the ban in El Salvador and was given asylum in Sweden.[458]
  • United States: In 2017 a rule about abortions was overturned by new legislation.[459] Late in 2016, the Obama administration issued the rule, effective in January 2017, banning U.S. states from withholding federal family-planning funds from health clinics that give abortions, including Planned Parenthood affiliates; this rule mandates that local and state governments give federal funds for services related to sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy care, fertility, contraception, and breast and cervical cancer screening to qualified health providers whether or not they give abortions.[460] However, this rule was blocked by a federal judge the day before it would have taken effect.[461]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ “Closely held” corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are “closely held”, and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by “closely held” corporations. See Blake, Aaron (June 30, 2014). “A LOT of people could be affected by the Supreme Court’s birth control decision – theoretically”. The Washington Post.
  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Barbara Alpern Engel (2004). Women in Russia, 1700–2000. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Jump up^ Åsa Karlsson-Sjögren : Männen, kvinnorna och rösträtten: medborgarskap och representation 1723–1866 (Men, women and the vote: citizenship and representation 1723–1866)(Swedish)
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aqar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bxby bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd dedf dg dh di dj B. Zorina Khan (November 20, 2013). The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521747202.
  4. Jump up^ Du Rietz, Anita, Kvinnors entreprenörskap: under 400 år, 1. uppl., Dialogos, Stockholm, 2013
  5. Jump up^ Sweriges Rikes Lag. Gillad och Antagen på Riksdagen Åhr 1734
  6. Jump up^ Qvist, Gunnar, Fredrika Bremer och kvinnans emancipation, 1969
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b Mot halva makten – elva historiska essäer om kvinnors strategier och mäns motstånd Redaktör: Ingrid Hagman. Rapport till Utredningen om fördelningen av ekonomisk makt och ekonomiska resurser mellan kvinnor och män Stockholm 1997
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b c Carl Grimberg: Svenska folkets underbara öden / IX. Den sociala och kulturella utvecklingen från Oskar I:s tid till våra dagar samt De politiska förhållandena under Karl XV:s, Oscar II:s och Gustaf V:s regering 1859–1923 (1913–1939)
  9. Jump up^ “Spanska citroner till salu”, ur Historisk Tidskrift 134:1, 2014
  10. Jump up^ Marrese, Michelle Lamarche (2002). A Woman’s Kingdom: Noblewomen and the Control of Property in Russia, 1700–1861. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3911-6.
  11. Jump up^ Clare Haru Crowston (2001). Fabricating Women: the Seamstresses of Old Regime France, 1675–1791. Duke University Press.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Adams, Jerome R. (1995). Notable Latin American Women: Twenty-nine Leaders, Rebels, Poets, Battlers and Spies, 1500–1900. MacFarland.
  13. Jump up^ Desan, Suzanne (2004). The Family on Trial in Revolutionary France. University of California Press.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mansdominans i förändring, om ledningsgrupper och styrelser: betänkande by Sverige Utredningen om kvinnor på ledande poster i näringslivet (SOU 2003:16). Stockholm: Edita Norstedts Tryckeri AB. 2003. ISBN 91-38-21953-0.
  15. Jump up^ Herman Lindqvist : Revolution (Revolution!) (Swedish)
  16. Jump up^ Christine Bladh (Swedish): Månglerskor: att sälja från korg och bod i Stockholm 1819–1846 (1991)
  17. Jump up^ Du Rietz, Anita, Kvinnors entreprenörskap: under 400 år, 1. uppl., Dialogos, Stockholm, 2013
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Richard J Evans (1979). Kvinnorörelsens historia i Europa, USA, Australien och Nya Zeeland 1840–1920 (The Feminists: Women’s Emancipation Movements in Europe, America and Australasia, 1840–1920) Helsingborg: LiberFörlag Stockholm. ISBN 91-38-04920-1 (Swedish)
  19. Jump up^ “Punishments at the Old Bailey: Corporal Punishment”. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey: London’s central criminal court, 1674 to 1913. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Carlson, Marifran (2003). ¡Feminismo!: The Woman’s Movement in Argentina from its Beginnings to Eva Perón.
  21. Jump up^ (Swedish) Stig Hadenius, Torbjörn Nilsson & Gunnar Åselius: Sveriges historia. Vad varje svensk bör veta (History of Sweden: “What every Swede should know”)
  22. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Sloan, Kathryn A. (2011). Women’s Roles in Latin America and the Caribbean. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-38108-9.
  23. ^ Jump up to:a b Boswell, Angela (2000). “Married Women’s Property Rights and the Challenge to the Patriarchal Order: Colorado County, Texas”. In Coryell, Janet L. Negotiating Boundaries of Southern Womanhood: Dealing With the Powers That Be. University of Missouri Press. p. 92.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Lønnå, Elisabeth. (2015, 31. mars). Kvinners Rettigheter I Norge Fra 1814 Til 1913. I Store norske leksikon.
  25. Jump up^ “Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek: Kampen om kunskapen av Christina Florin, professor i kvinnohistoria”. Ub.gu.se. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  26. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Roberts, Evan (14–16 September 2006), Women’s Rights and Women’s Labor: Married Women’s Property Laws and Labor Force Participation, 1860–1900, Economic History Association annual meeting, Pittsburgh (PA)
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b c Inger Dübeck: Kvinders retlige stilling. I Den Store Danske. Hentet 7. october 2015
  28. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m Lilla Focus Uppslagsbok (Little Focus Encyclopedia) Focus Uppslagsböcker AB (1979) (Swedish)
  29. Jump up^ Du Rietz, Anita, Kvinnors entreprenörskap: under 400 år, 1. uppl., Dialogos, Stockholm, 2013
  30. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek: Viktiga årtal”. Ub.gu.se. 2011-12-21. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  31. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Ilse Abshagen Leitinger (1997). The Costa Rican Women’s Movement: A Reader. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  32. Jump up^ New York State (1848), Married Women’s Property Act (PDF)
  33. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Bharati Ray:Women of India: Colonial and Post-colonial Periods, 2005
  34. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f “Femmes d’Haiti: Repères chronologiques”. Haiticulture.ch. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  35. ^ Jump up to:a b c Pylkkänen, Anu (1997). “Women and politics in Scandinavia”. SJFE: Women and Law in Europe. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  36. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Beard, Charles Austin; Beard, Mary Ritter (1921). History of the United States. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 9781606202166.
  37. Jump up^ Morgan, Robin, ed. (1996). Sisterhood is Global: the International Women’s Movement Anthology. The Feminist Press at The City University of New York.
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b Ward, Peter (1990). Courtship, Love, and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century English Canada. McGill–Queen’s University Press.
  39. Jump up^ Victoria González-Rivera: Before the Revolution: Women’s Rights and Right-Wing Politics in Nicaragua, 1821–1979, 2012
  40. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Rubin, Barry, ed. (2012). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. ISBN 978-0765680945.
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Goodman, Joyce; Albisetti, James C.; Roger, Rebecca, eds. (2010). Girls’ Secondary Education in the Western World: From the 18th to the 20th Century. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-61946-3.
  42. Jump up^ Inger Hultgren (Swedish): Kvinnors organisation och samhällets beslutsprocess (1982)
  43. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Smith, Bonnie G., ed. (2008). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Volume 1. Oxford University Press.
  44. Jump up^ Khalapyan, Hasmik. “Theater as career for Ottoman Amenian women”. In Köksal, Duygu; Falierou, Anastasia. A Social History of Late Ottoman Women: New Perspectives. Brill. p. 34.
  45. Jump up^ May, A. J. “Enter the ladies”. University of Rochester History.
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b Sundbärg, Gustav (1901). “Statsförfattning och förvaltning”. Sveriges land och folk. p. 250. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Kvinders adgang til uddannelse og erhverv 1857–1995”. Archived from the original on April 4, 2012. Retrieved November 28, 2011.
  48. ^ Jump up to:a b Kaethe Schirmacher (1912). The Modern Woman’s Rights Movement. Carl Conrad Eckhardt (trans.). Macmillan.
  49. Jump up^ Katharina Rowold (2011). The Educated Woman: Minds, Bodies, and Women’s Higher Education in Britain, Germany, and Spain, 1865–1914. Routledge.
  50. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Women in the Ottoman Empire by Eric R Dursteler, Oxford Reference Online
  51. Jump up^ Sidansvarig: KvinnSam. “Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek: Årtalslistor”. Ub.gu.se. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  52. Jump up^ Sati: A Historical Anthology by Andrea Major – 2007- Page xvii On Mewar and Queen Victoria’s 1861 proclamation.
  53. Jump up^ Brown, Lindsay; Thomas, Amelia (2008). Rajasthan, Delhi & Agra. Lonely Planet. p. 43. ISBN 9781741046908.
  54. Jump up^ Österberg, Carin et al., Svenska kvinnor: föregångare, nyskapare (Swedish women: predecessors, successors) Lund: Signum 1990. (ISBN 91-87896-03-6) (Swedish)
  55. ^ Jump up to:a b c Axianne Thorstenson (1918), Kvinnornas Stallning Inom Yrkena (PDF), Trykeri-A.-B. Ferm
  56. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bonnie G. Smith: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History: 4 Volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA, 2008
  57. Jump up^ P. Orman Ray (August 1918). “Woman Suffrage in Foreign Countries”. The American Political Science Review. 12 (3): 469–474. doi:10.2307/1946097. JSTOR 1946097.
  58. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Natalija Matić Zrnić, Jill A. Irvine & Carol S. Lilly: Natalija. Life in the Balkan Powder Keg 1880–1956. Central European University Press. 2008
  59. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Palmquist, Christer; Widberg, Hans Kristian (2004). Millenium Samhällskunskap A (in Swedish). Bonniers. p. 317. ISBN 9789162259952.
  60. Jump up^ Österberg, Carin: Svenska kvinnor; Föregångare Nyskapare (Swedish women; Predecessors, pioneers) Signum, Lund (1990) (Swedish)
  61. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Judith Jeffrey Howard, “The Civil Code of 1865 and the Origins of the Feminist Movement in Italy”, in The Italian Immigrant Woman in North America, eds. Betty Boyd Caroli, Robert F. Harney and Lydio F. Thomasi (Toronto: The Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1977)
  62. ^ Jump up to:a b “Engendering Socialism: A History of Women and Everyday Life in Socialist Romania”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  63. ^ Jump up to:a b Blanca Rodriguez Ruiz & Ruth Rubio-Marín: The Struggle for Female Suffrage in Europe: Voting to Become Citizens. BRILL, 2012
  64. ^ Jump up to:a b c Creese, Mary R. S.; Creese, Thomas M. (2004). Ladies in the Laboratory II: West European Women in Science, 1800–1900. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-4979-8.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b Vujnovic, Marina (2009). Forging the Bubikopf Nation: Journalism, Gender, and Modernity in Interwar Yugoslavia. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-4331-0628-6.
  66. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynn Walter: Women’s Rights: A Global View. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001
  67. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Clark, Linda L. (2008). Women and Achievement in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 9780521650984.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af Deere, Carmen Diana; León, Magdalena (2001). Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  69. Jump up^ Jennifer Jenkins Wood (2014). Spanish Women Travelers at Home and Abroad, 1850–1920: From Tierra del Fuego to the land of the Midnight Sun. Bucknell University Press.
  70. Jump up^ Lebsock, Suzanne D. (May 1977). “Radical Reconstruction and the Property Rights of Southern Women”. The Journal of Southern History. Southern Historical Association. 43 (2): 195–216. doi:10.2307/2207345. JSTOR 2207345.
  71. Jump up^ Duke, Benjamin (2009). The History of Modern Japanese Education: Constructing the National School System 1872–1890. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4403-8.
  72. Jump up^ Hughes, Beryl; Ahern, Sheila (1993). Redbrick and Bluestockings: Women at Victoria, 1899–1993. Victoria University Press. ISBN 0-86473-244-9.
  73. Jump up^ Dalby, Liza (2008). Geisha. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25789-4.
  74. Jump up^ Routledge international encyclopedia of women, by Cheris Kramarae
  75. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Talhami, Ghada (2012). Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa.
  76. ^ Jump up to:a b c Nashat, Guity; Tucker, Judith E. (1999). Women in the Middle East and North Africa: Restoring Women to History. Indiana University Press. p. 83. ISBN 0-253-33478-0.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b Consuelo Flecha: Las primeras universitarias en España, 1872–1910. Narcea Ediciones, 1996
  78. Jump up^ “1139–1140 (Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 9. Fruktodling – Gossensass)”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  79. ^ Jump up to:a b c Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Rereading Sex. New York: Random House, 2002.
  80. Jump up^ Beisel, Nicola. Imperiled Innocents. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.
  81. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Farzaneh Milani: Veils and Words: The Emerging Voices of Iranian Women Writers. Syracuse University Press, 1992
  82. ^ Jump up to:a b Robertson, Jennifer (2008). A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan. Wiley. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  83. Jump up^ Burns, William E. (2010). A Brief History of Great Britain. Facts On File. ISBN 978-0-8160-7728-1.
  84. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lange, Helene (2010). Higher Education of Women in Europe. ISBN 978-3-86741-434-0.
  85. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Miller, Francesca (1991). Latin American Women and the Search for Social Justice. University Press of New England.
  86. ^ Jump up to:a b Gary, Cauleen Suzanne (2008). Bildung and Gender in Nineteenth-century Bourgeois Germany: A Cultural Studies Analysis of Texts by Women Writers.
  87. ^ Jump up to:a b “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  88. Jump up^ “Key dates – UK Parliament”. Parliament.uk. 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  89. Jump up^ A companion to gender history by: Teresa A. Meade, Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks
  90. ^ Jump up to:a b “The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  91. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e “Kvinde- og familiepolitiske tiltag og love 1683–2002”. Archived from the original on 29 May 2012.
  92. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Arnot, Margaret L.; Usborne, Cornelie, eds. (1999). Gender And Crime In Modern Europe. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1857287455.
  93. Jump up^ Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2011). Western Civilization (Eighth ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-495-91327-6.
  94. ^ Jump up to:a b “Josefa Toledo De Aguerri: Her Life And Her Legacy”. Historia.fcs.ucr.ac.cr. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  95. Jump up^ Waste of talents: turning private struggles into a public issue Women and Science in the Enwise countries (2003)
  96. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e McMillan, James F. (2000). France and Women, 1789–1914: Gender, Society and Politics.
  97. Jump up^ Therborn, Göran (2004). Between Sex and Power. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 0-415-30077-0.
  98. Jump up^ Married women and property law in Victorian Ontario by Anne Lorene Chambers, Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History
  99. Jump up^ Margaret L. Arnot and Cornelie Usborne, eds., Gender and Crime in Modern Europe (UCL Press, 1999), 220
  100. Jump up^ Henry Philip (EDT) David, Joanna (EDT) Skilogianis, Henry Philip (EDT) David: From Abortion to Contraception, 1999
  101. ^ Jump up to:a b c Sharp, Ingrid; Stibbe, Matthew, eds. (2011). Aftermaths of War: Women’s Movements and Female Activists, 1918–1923. ISBN 978-90-04-19172-3.
  102. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Morgan, Robin, ed. (2016). Sisterhood is Global: The International Women’s Movement Anthology.
  103. Jump up^ Zapolska’s women: three plays : Malka Szwarcenkopf, The man and Miss Maliczewska, by Gabriela Zapolska, Teresa Murjas
  104. ^ Jump up to:a b Joyca Leplae (October 2000), Milestones in the history of women in Belgium(PDF), Brussel: RoSa, archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-15
  105. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jung-Kim, Jennifer J. (2005). Gender and Modernity in Colonial Korea (Ph.D.). University of California, Los Angeles.
  106. Jump up^ Fujimura-Fanselow, Kumiko; Kameda, Atsuko, eds. (1995). Japanese Women: New Feminist Perspectives on the Past, Present, and Future. The Feminist Press at the City University of New York.
  107. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Mazón, Patricia M. (2003). Gender and the Modern Research University: The Admission of Women to German Higher Education, 1865-1914. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-4641-9.
  108. Jump up^ Jayawardena, Kumari (1995). The White Woman’s Other Burden: Western Women and South Asia During British Rule. Psychology Press.
  109. Jump up^ Cixi Outlaws Foot Binding“, History Channel
  110. ^ Jump up to:a b “Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek: Akademikeryrken”. Ub.gu.se. 2010-11-17. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  111. Jump up^ Holmes, Diana (1996). French Women’s Writing, 1848–1994. The Athlone Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-485-91004-7.
  112. Jump up^ Lavrin, Asunción (1995). Women, Feminism and Social Change in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, 1890–1940. University of Nebraska Press. p. 29. ISBN 0-8032-2897-X.
  113. Jump up^ Tsiang 1942, p. 114
  114. Jump up^ Tsiang 1942, p. 115
  115. Jump up^ Martin, David A. (Spring 2005). “Dual Nationality: TR’s ‘Self-Evident Absurdity'”. UVA Lawyer. Retrieved 2012-06-12.
  116. Jump up^ Kelly, Gail P.; Slaughter, Sheila (eds.). Women’s Higher Education in Comparative Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-0800-X.
  117. Jump up^ Dahlgren, Johanna (2007). Kvinnor i polistjänst (PDF). Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (in Swedish) (Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University). ISBN 978-91-7264-314-7. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  118. Jump up^ “417-418 (Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 15. Kromat – Ledvätska)”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  119. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jules Mersch: Biographie nationale du pays de Luxembourg depuis ses origines jusgu’a nos jours: collection présentée par Jules Mersch, Volym 6. Imprimerie de la Cour Victor Buck, 1962
  120. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Portugal – Women”. Countrystudies.us. Retrieved 2013-10-07.
  121. Jump up^ Hu, Alex. The Influence of Western Women on the Anti-Footbinding Movement. Historical Reflections, Vol. 8, No. 3, Women in China: Current Directions in Historical Scholarship, Fall 1981, pp. 179–199.”
  122. Jump up^ Wang Ke-wen (1998). “Anti-Footbinding Movement”. In Wang Ke-wen. Modern China: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism. New York & London: Garland Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-0815307204.
  123. ^ Jump up to:a b Mishra, Patit Paban (2010). The History of Thailand. Greenwood.
  124. Jump up^ “Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Education: Health to Hypertension”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  125. Jump up^ Allen, Pongsun Choi (January 1958). “Changes in the Status of Japanese Women”(PDF). The Ohio Journal of Science. 58 (1): 39–42.
  126. ^ Jump up to:a b Thompson, Elizabeth (2000). Colonial Citizens: Republican Rights, Paternal Privilege and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231106603.
  127. Jump up^ Tsiang, I-Mien (1942). The question of expatriation in America prior to 1907. Johns Hopkins Press. p. 115. OCLC 719352.
  128. Jump up^ Smith, Marian L. (1998), “Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940”, Prologue Magazine, 30 (2), retrieved 2009-01-03
  129. Jump up^ For Teachers: A Brief Introduction to Asian American History, Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program, retrieved 2009-01-03
  130. Jump up^ Timeline of Asian American History, Digital History: University of Houston, archived from the original on 2009-04-22, retrieved 2009-01-03
  131. Jump up^ Lilla Focus Uppslagsbok (1979)
  132. Jump up^ Birtek, Faruk; Dragonas, Thalia, eds. (2005). Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey. Routledge. ISBN 0-203-31146-9.
  133. Jump up^ Bacchetta, Paola; Power, Margaret (2002). Right-Wing Women: From Conservatives to Extremists Around the World. Psychology Press.
  134. Jump up^ Ancel, Marc (1938). La condition de la femme dans la société contemporaine: état actuel des législations concernant les droits politiques, l’activité professionnelle, la capacité civile, la situation de la femme dans la famille et la condition de la femme au regard du droit pénal (in French). Recueil Sirey.
  135. Jump up^ Lee, Robert Warden (1946). An introduction to Roman-Dutch law (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 64–68. Retrieved 25 January 2012.
  136. Jump up^ Henrietta Muir Edwards and others v The Attorney General of Canada [1929] UKPC 86, [1930] A.C. 124 (18 October 1929), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
  137. ^ Jump up to:a b c Fees, Evelyn Wyoming. Making women matter: Spain’s long road toward gender equality (M.A.). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  138. Jump up^ Gardner, Martha Mabie (2005), The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration, and Citizenship, 1870-1965, Princeton University Press, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5ISBN 0-691-08993-0, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5
  139. Jump up^ Female well-being: toward a global theory of social change, by Janet Mancini Billson,Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban
  140. ^ Jump up to:a b “The World’s First Treaty of Equality for Women – Montevideo, Uruguay, 1933”. Organization of American States. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Commission of Women. 1933. Archived from the original on 26 February 2016. Retrieved 3 March 2016.
  141. Jump up^ “Convention on the Nationality of Women”. Organization of American States. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Commission of Women. 26 December 1933. Retrieved 3 March 2016.
  142. Jump up^ Green 1956, p. 750.
  143. ^ Jump up to:a b Esfandiari, Haleh (2004). “The Role of Women Members of Parliament, 1963–88”. In Beck, Lois; Nashat, Guity. Women in Iran from 1800 to the Islamic Republic. University of Illinois Press. pp. 136–162. ISBN 978-0-252-07189-8.
  144. Jump up^ Suwana Satha-Anand: Women’s Studies in Thailand: Power, Knowledge, and Justice, 2004
  145. Jump up^ Modernization in Colombia: the Laureano Gómez years, 1889–1965 by James D. Henderso
  146. Jump up^ “Biographical Note”. The Margaret Sanger Papers. Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1995. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
  147. ^ Jump up to:a b c Boberg’s law of persons and the family (2nd ed.). Cape Town: Juta Law. 1999. pp. 161–164. ISBN 9780702151163.
  148. Jump up^ “Conventions and ratifications”. International Labour Organization. 27 May 2011.
  149. Jump up^ Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 29.
  150. Jump up^ Ferreira-Pinto, Cristina (2004). Gender, Discourse, and Desire in Twentieth-Century Brazilian Women’s Literature. Purdue University. p. x.
  151. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank (2013). Women, Business and the Law 2014: Removing Restrictions to Enhance Gender Equality, Key Findings (PDF). London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ISBN 9-781-4729-0643-4.
  152. Jump up^ “The Equal Pay Act Turns 40”. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012.
  153. ^ Jump up to:a b “Equal Pay Act of 1963”. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  154. Jump up^ “Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21”. finduslaw. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
  155. Jump up^ Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company, 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).
  156. Jump up^ “Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Finduslaw.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
  157. Jump up^ Status at 1/25/13 Archived June 12, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  158. Jump up^ Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages – text Archived June 18, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  159. Jump up^ “Virtual Special Issue: Women in France” (PDF). Modern & Contemporary France. Routledge. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04.
  160. Jump up^ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
  161. Jump up^ Herbers, John (September 28, 1965). “Help Wanted: Picking the Sex for the Job”. The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2012.
  162. Jump up^ National Organization for Women: “The Founding of NOW, accessed March 25, 2012
  163. ^ Jump up to:a b “Le site officiel du tourisme français : vos vacances en France”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  164. Jump up^ “Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity – HUD”. Portal.hud.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
  165. Jump up^ Scharf, Michael P.; Mattler, Suzanne. “Forced Marriage: Exploring the Viability of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s New Crime Against Humanity”. SSRN 824291Freely accessible. Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-35.
  166. Jump up^ Valerie Oosterveld. “IntLawGrrls”. intlawgrrls.com.
  167. ^ Jump up to:a b Ferrand, Frédérique, National report: france (PDF), Commission on European Family Law
  168. ^ Jump up to:a b “Newsweek Agrees to End Sex Discrimination Policy”. Eugene Register-Guard, via Google News. Associated Press. August 28, 1970.
  169. Jump up^ Lynn Povich (2013). The Good Girls Revolt: How the Women of Newsweek Sued their Bosses and Changed the Workplace. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610393263.
  170. Jump up^ Office of Population Affairs Clearinghouse. “Fact Sheet: Title X Family Planning Program.” Archived April 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. January 2008.
  171. Jump up^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs. “Family Planning.”
  172. Jump up^ Gaye, Luna (1990). “Understanding gender-based wage discrimination: legal interpretation and trends of pay equity in higher education”. Journal of Law & Education (19): 371. …first cases to discuss the Bennett Amendment, and consequently to consider the relationship between the EPA and Title VII, was Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co…
  173. Jump up^ Moore, Mary Virginia; Yohannan T. Abraham (1994). “The legal and juridical posture”. Public Personnel Management. 23. Retrieved 2008-10-11. VII was examined in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co….
  174. ^ Jump up to:a b Woody, Robert Henley (1984). The Law and the Practice of Human Services. Jossey-Bass Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 0-87589-602-2.
  175. Jump up^ K Barry. “Timeline of Discrimination”. Femininity in Flight. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  176. Jump up^ “SPROGIS v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. | 308 F.Supp. 959 (1970)”. Leagle.com. 2015. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  177. Jump up^ “[1971] Volksabstimmung über das Frauenstimmrecht auf Bundesebene”. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  178. Jump up^ “Nettie and Florence Cronise, Ohio’s first female lawyers, honored in Tiffin”. Associated Press. 10 November 2013. Archived from the original on 11 November 2013.
  179. Jump up^ “Reed v. Reed – Significance”. law.jrank.org.
  180. Jump up^ “Matrimonial Causes Act 1973”. legislation.gov.uk.
  181. Jump up^ See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (“We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.”).
  182. Jump up^ Technically, the case was decided under the Fifth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause, not under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the latter applies not to the federal government but to the states. However, because Bolling v. Sharpe, through the doctrine of reverse incorporation, made the standards of the Equal Protection Clause applicable to the federal government, it was for practical purposes an addition not to due process, but rather to equal protection jurisprudence.
  183. Jump up^ USAID Public website USAID’s Family Planning Guiding Principles and U.S. Legislative and Policy Requirements Archived March 29, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved September 10, 2012
  184. Jump up^ R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6.
  185. Jump up^ Dlabay, Les R.; Burrow, James L.; Brad, Brad (2009). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 470. ISBN 978-0-538-44561-0. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from denying a person credit because of age, race, sex, or marital status.
  186. Jump up^ Regulation B, Equal Credit Opportunity 12 CFR 202.14(b) as stated in Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending, Federal Reserve System of Boston.
  187. Jump up^ “Interview | Ella Es el Matador (She Is the Matador) | POV”. PBS. Retrieved 2015-10-01.
  188. Jump up^ Campbell Lennie (December 18, 1973). “Spanish Woman Wants To Be Matador; Ires Officials”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 2015-04-07.
  189. Jump up^ Kinnear, Karen L. (2011). Women in Developing Countries: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 182. ISBN 9781598844252.
  190. Jump up^ Solsten, Eric; Meditz, Sandra W., eds. (1988), “Social Values and Attitudes”, Spain: A Country Study, Washington: Government Printing Office for the Library of Congress
  191. Jump up^ Rosselli, Annalisa. “The Policy on Gender Equality in Italy” (PDF). Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Parliament.
  192. Jump up^ “Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences” (PDF). United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council. 15–25 January 2012.
  193. ^ Jump up to:a b Greenhouse, Linda (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun. New York: Times Books. pp. 183, 217–218. ISBN 0-8050-8057-0.
  194. ^ Jump up to:a b Contemporary Western European Feminism, by Gisela Kaplan, p. 133
  195. ^ Jump up to:a b Full text opinion from Justia.com
  196. Jump up^ Young, Julia L. (1977). “Constitutional Law: Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion”. Washburn Law Journal. 16: 463–464. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
  197. ^ Jump up to:a b c Abortion Funding Ban Has Evolved Over The Years
  198. ^ Jump up to:a b The Hyde Amendment at 35: a new abortion divide
  199. Jump up^ Grebe, Cornelius. Reconciliation Policy in Germany 1998–2008: Construing the ‘Problem’ of the Incompatibility of Paid Employment and Care Work. p. 92. ISBN 978-3-531-16915-6. However, the 1977 reform of marriage and family law by Social Democrats and Liberals formally gave women the right to take up employment without their spouses’ permission. This marked the legal end of the ‘housewife marriage’ and a transition to the ideal of ‘marriage in partnership’.
  200. Jump up^ Women in Portugal, by Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General Information, p. 32
  201. Jump up^ Cushman, C., 2001, Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. CQ Press. pp. 122-8
  202. Jump up^ Text of the Act from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  203. Jump up^ Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  204. Jump up^ Pregnancy Discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  205. Jump up^ Congress and the Nation, s.vv. “1798,” “Pregnancy Disability.” Vol. V, 1977-1980, p. 797
  206. Jump up^ “Timeline of Women in the US Navy”. Navy Personnel Command.
  207. Jump up^ Comparative Law: Historical Development of the Civil Law Tradition in Europe, Latin America, and East Asia, by John Henry Merryman, David Scott Clark, John Owen Haley, p. 542
  208. ^ Jump up to:a b Wharton, Linda J. (2009). “Roe at Thirty-Six and Beyond: Enhancing Protection for Abortion Rights Through State Constitutions”. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law. 15 (3): 469–534.
  209. Jump up^ Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 643 (1979)
  210. ^ Jump up to:a b “Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court Summary”. The Oyez Project. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  211. Jump up^ Glazer-Raymo, Judith (1999). Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 94.
  212. Jump up^ Clark, VèVè; Garner, Shirley Nelson; Higonnet, Margaret; et al., eds. (1996). Antifeminism in the academy. Routledge. pp. 210–211.
  213. Jump up^ Kohlstedt, Sally G.; Fischer, Suzanne M. (2009). “Unstable Networks Among Women in Academe: the Legal Case of Shyamala Rajender”. Centaurus. 51 (1): 37–62. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.2008.00131.x. PMID 19618550.
  214. Jump up^ Leap, Terry L. (1993). Tenure, discrimination, and the courts. Cornell University. p. 186.
  215. Jump up^ 448 U.S. 297 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  216. Jump up^ Barazzetti, Donatella; Garreffa, Franca; Marsico, Rosaria (2007). “Daphne Project ‘Proposing new indicators: Measuring violence’s effects. GVEI'” (PDF).
  217. Jump up^ “Omicidio e lesione personale a causa di onore”. Diritto24. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  218. Jump up^ “Kirchberg v. Feenstra :: 450 U.S. 455 (1981)”. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  219. Jump up^ “Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan”. Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
  220. Jump up^ Orange, Richard; Topping, Alexandra (27 June 2014). “FGM specialist calls for gynaecological checks for all girls in Sweden”. The Guardian. Retrieved 17 October 2014. The pilot in Norrköping, which grabbed headlines when it was wrongly reported that an entire school class of girls had been subjected to FGM, 28 in the most severe fashion […] Sweden was the first country in the world to ban FGM in 1982, and in 1999 the ban was extended to include circumcision carried out in other countries.
  221. Jump up^ Johnsdotter, Sara (2004). FGM in Sweden: Swedish legislation regarding “female genital mutilation” and implementation of the law. Sweden: Lund University. Research Report in Sociology 2004:1 Pdf
  222. Jump up^ “Lag (1982:316) med förbud mot könsstympning av kvinnor” (in Swedish). The Riksdag. Retrieved 17 October 2014.
  223. Jump up^ “Current situation of female genital mutilation in Sweden” (PDF). European Institute for Gender Equality. Retrieved 3 January 2015.
  224. Jump up^ Marcos, Anastasios C.; Bahr, Stephen J. (2001). “Hellenic (Greek) gender attitudes”. Gender Issues. 19 (3): 21–40. doi:10.1007/s12147-001-0009-6.
  225. Jump up^ Reuters (January 26, 1983). “Greece approves family law changes”. The New York Times.
  226. Jump up^ Demos, Vasilikie. (2007) “The Intersection of Gender, Class and Nationality and the Agency of Kytherian Greek Women.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. August 11.
  227. Jump up^ “The History of Passports in Australia”. Archived from the original on 14 June 2006. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  228. Jump up^ FindLaw
  229. Jump up^ “Dutch gender and LGBT-equality policy 2013–2016”. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2013.
  230. Jump up^ “2015 Review Report of the Netherlands Government in the context of the twentieth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women and the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action” (PDF). Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 2014.
  231. ^ Jump up to:a b “Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984)”. The Oyez Project.
  232. Jump up^ “Title IX.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Nov. 2009
  233. Jump up^ Suggs, Welsh. A Place on the Team. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2005.
  234. Jump up^ 151 Cal.App.3d 1128 (1984)
  235. Jump up^ Tallon v. Liberty Hose Co. No. 1 , 485 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984). (A volunteer fire department may be held liable under section 1983 for violating a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.)
  236. Jump up^ Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce, and the Family Under Latin. American Dictatorships and Democracies, by Mala Htun, pp 102
  237. Jump up^ “Switzerland profile – Timeline”. BBC News. 1 January 2016. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  238. Jump up^ Markus G. Jud (2004). “Switzerland’s Long Way to Women’s Right to Vote”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  239. Jump up^ Women’s movements of the world: an international directory and reference guide, edited by Sally Shreir, p. 254
  240. Jump up^ “Legislative History of Title IX” Archived June 24, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. National Organization for Women. June 27, 2007.
  241. Jump up^ Goldstein, Leslie. “Gender Stereotyping and the Workplace: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989).” 2006. The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2006. 167-75. Print.
  242. ^ Jump up to:a b Banks, Taunya Lovell (1990–1991). “Toilets as a Feminist Issue: A True Story”. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal. UC Berkeley. 6 (2): 263–289.
  243. Jump up^ “[1991] UKHL 12”. BAILII. Retrieved 19 December 2010.
  244. Jump up^ Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1991)
  245. Jump up^ Presser, Arlynn Leiber; Bertin, Joan (June 1990). “Women at Work: Should ‘Fetal Protection’ Policies Be Upheld”. ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 76 (6): 38–39.
  246. Jump up^ “Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.”. Legal Momentum. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  247. Jump up^ Morris, Danielle Keat. “Fordham International Law Journal Planned Parenthood v. Casey: From U.S. “Rights Talk” to Western European “Responsibility Talk””.
  248. Jump up^ Faedi, Benedetta (2009). “Rape, Blue Jeans, and Judicial Developments in Italy”. Columbia Journal of European Law. Archived from the original on 28 August 2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
  249. Jump up^ Botswana High Court (1992). “Link Unity Dow v. Attorney-General (Botswana) [June 1991]”. Journal of African Law. 36 (1): 91–92. PMID 12321083.
  250. Jump up^ Colman McCarthy. “Scalia Outreasons Stevens in Bray Case: METRO Edition.” Star Tribune: 14.A. 1993. Print.
  251. Jump up^ United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 : Hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on S. 636 … may 12, 1993. United States:, 1993. Print.
  252. Jump up^ Pub.L. No. 103-112, 107 Stat. 1082 (1993).
  253. Jump up^ Id. § 509, 107 Stat. at 1113 (the 1994 Hyde Amendment).
  254. Jump up^ “Family and Medical Leave Act,” Stephen Bruce. HR Daily Advisor. [1] Retrieved on 20 September 2011.
  255. Jump up^ “Landmark Title IX Cases in History” Gender Equity in Sport. February 23, 2006.
  256. Jump up^ United States. Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act – Statute. , Web. November 21, 2009. <http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/facestat.php>.
  257. Jump up^ U.S. Code Collection.” Cornell University Law School, Web. November 23, 2009. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248->.
  258. Jump up^ Sarah DeCapua, Malawi in Pictures, 2009, pg 7.
  259. Jump up^ “Malawi-vroue mag broek dra”. Beeld. Johannesburg. 1 December 1993. p. 9. Retrieved 6 December 2015.
  260. Jump up^ The other two being Miron v Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513.
  261. Jump up^ “Hate Crime Sentencing Act”. Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
  262. Jump up^ “Statement by the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice”. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 18 October 2012. Archived from the original on 6 March 2015.
  263. Jump up^ Dugger, Celia W. (16 June 1996). “June 9–15; Asylum From Mutilation”. The New York Times.
  264. Jump up^ Stanley, Alessandra (16 February 1999). “Ruling on Tight Jeans and Rape Sets Off Anger in Italy”. The New York Times.
  265. Jump up^ Kieler, Marita (2002). Tatbestandsprobleme der sexuellen Nötigung, Vergewaltigung sowie des sexuellen Mißbrauchs widerstandsunfähiger Personen (PDF) (Dissertation). Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  266. Jump up^ Zabus 2004, p. 110.
  267. Jump up^ Greenhouse, Linda (February 20, 1997). “High Court Upholds 15-Foot Buffer Zone At Abortion Clinics”. The New York Times.
  268. Jump up^ PUBLIC LAW 104-208
  269. Jump up^ Criminal Resource Manual 1117 Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
  270. Jump up^ “Breastfeeding Amendment”.
  271. Jump up^ “Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000”. Retrieved 13 July 2012.[permanent dead link] section 647.
  272. Jump up^ “Senegal: Report on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC)”, Released by the Office of the Senior Coordinator for International Women’s Issues, US Department of State.
  273. Jump up^ “Security Council, unanimously adopting resolution 1325 (2000), calls for broad participation of women in peace-building post-conflict reconstruction”. United Nations. 31 October 2000.
  274. Jump up^ Wallis, Lucy (25 March 2015). “Shattering the ‘highest, hardest’ glass ceiling”. BBC News. Retrieved 2015-04-17.
  275. Jump up^ “Parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”. United Nations. Retrieved 11 October 2016.
  276. Jump up^ “History”. Legal Momentum. 2015-07-07. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  277. Jump up^ Roland Buerk (28 July 2006). “Bangladesh’s acid attack problem”. BBC News. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  278. Jump up^ Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School; Committee on International Human Rights of the New York City bar Association; Cornell Law School international Human Rights Clinic; The Virtue Foundation (2011). “Combating Acid Violence In Bangladesh, India, and Cambodia” (PDF). Avon Foundation for Women. pp. 1–64. Retrieved 6 March 2013.
  279. Jump up^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate (HTML); * same, from the U.S. Government Printing Office (PDF)
  280. Jump up^ Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. (“The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as ‘intact D&E,’ ‘dilation and extraction’ (D&X), and ‘intact D&X’ ….For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E….A straightforward reading of the Act’s text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.”)
  281. Jump up^ Ras-Work, Berhane (2009). “Legislation to address the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM)” (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  282. Jump up^ PRIORITIES IN CHILD SURVIVAL, EDUCATION AND PROTECTION – Niger UNICEF (2007)
  283. Jump up^ See Nev. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 726-27 & n.1 (2003)
  284. Jump up^ “Chileans granted right to divorce”. BBC News. 7 May 2004. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  285. Jump up^ “Chile introduces right to divorce”. BBC News. 18 November 2004. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  286. Jump up^ 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC).
  287. Jump up^ Shahid Qazi and Carol Grisanti Shahid Qazi; Carol Grisanti. “Honor Killings Persist in ‘Man’s World'”. MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-01-01.
  288. Jump up^ Sarwar, Beena (17 October 2004). “Pakistan: No compromise on murder”. Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
  289. Jump up^ Malkin, Elisabeth; Thompson, Ginger (17 November 2005). “Mexican Court Says Sex Attack By a Husband Is Still a Rape”. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  290. ^ Jump up to:a b “United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion as a Human Right”. The Huffington Post. 25 January 2016.
  291. Jump up^ Kristof, Nicholas D.; WuDunn, Sheryl (2009). Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Knopf. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-307-26714-6.
  292. Jump up^ “Women’s Action 22.4”. Equalitynow.org. Retrieved 2010-07-30.
  293. Jump up^ Anita Rao & Svetlana Sandra Correya (2011). Leading Cases on Dowry. New Delhi: New Delhi: Human Rights Law Network.
  294. Jump up^ 410 U.S. 113
  295. Jump up^ Supreme Court docket 04-967
  296. ^ Jump up to:a b “EEOC Agrees to Landmark Resolution of Discrimination Case Against Abercrombie & Fitch,” Press Release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nov. 18, 2004.
  297. Jump up^ “The Look of Abercrombie & Fitch: Retail Store Accused Of Hiring Attractive, Mostly White Salespeople,” CBS 60 Minutes segment on Gonzalez case, Dec. 5, 2003.
  298. ^ Jump up to:a b c Greenhouse, Steven (17 November 2004). “Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled”. The New York Times.
  299. ^ Jump up to:a b “Abercrombie settles 3 bias suits: Retailer to pay $40 million; judge has to rule on plan,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 17, 2004.
  300. Jump up^ A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to equal access to bathroom facilities, New York City Council
  301. Jump up^ Confessore, Nicholas (26 May 2005). “Council Passes a Bill to Shorten the Line at the Ladies’ Room”. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
  302. Jump up^ The Maputo Protocol of the African Union, brochure produced by GTZ for the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
  303. Jump up^ African Union: Rights of Women Protocol Adopted, press release, Amnesty International, 22 July 2003
  304. Jump up^ UNICEF: toward ending female genital mutilation, press release, UNICEF, 7 February 2006
  305. Jump up^ “Combating domestic violence :: General Secretariat for Gender Equality”. Isotita.gr. Retrieved 2016-05-18.
  306. Jump up^ Buhle Angelo Dube (February 2008), The Law and Legal Research in Lesotho, Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law, archived from the original on 2010-06-20
  307. Jump up^ There were, however, two people in California in 2004 charged with “conspiring” to commit an act of FGM. Adem was the first American prosecuted for actually performing the procedure.
  308. Jump up^ Broussard, Patricia A. (2008). “Female genital mutilation: exploring strategies for ending ritualized torture; shaming, blaming, and utilizing the Convention against Torture”. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Durham: Duke University School of Law. 15: 19–48. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
  309. Jump up^ Luscombe, Belinda (2010-05-11). “Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting?”. Time. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
  310. Jump up^ Staff (1 November 2016). “Adem gets 10 years in prison for mutilation”. Gwinnett Daily Post. Retrieved 3 June 2016.
  311. Jump up^ “Man Convicted in Daughter’s Mutilation”. The New York Times. Associated Press. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
  312. Jump up^ “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance”. Federal Register. 71 (206). October 25, 2006. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  313. Jump up^ Moldover, Judith A. (April 28, 2006). “9th Circuit: Cosmetics cause of action OK’d”. HR Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  314. Jump up^ Selmi, Michael (2007). “The Many Faces of Darlene Jespersen”. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. 14: 467.
  315. Jump up^ Chandler, Susan; Jones, Jill B. (2011-07-28). Casino Women: Courage in Unexpected Places. Cornell University Press. pp. 79–. ISBN 9780801450143. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  316. Jump up^ Publishers, Aspen (2008-05-02). Employment Law: Keyed to Courses Using Rothstein and Liebman’s Employment Law. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 92–. ISBN 9780735571860. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  317. Jump up^ Cooper, Frank Rudy; McGinley, Ann C. (August 2012). Multidimensional Masculinities and Law: Feminist and Critical Race Lenses. NYU Press. pp. 54–. ISBN 9780814723500. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  318. Jump up^ Italian Law n°7 1/9/2006, Disposizioni concernenti la prevenzione e il divieto delle pratiche di mutilazione genitale femminile, accessed 23 March 2009.
  319. Jump up^ “Pakistan rejects pro-women bill”. BBC News. 2005-03-02. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
  320. Jump up^ Yasin, Asim. “Pakistan’s Senate Approve Women Protection Bill”. OhmyNews. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
  321. Jump up^ Justice (Retd) Muhammad Taqi Usmani “The Reality of ‘Women Protection Bill'”. http://www.livingislam.org. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
  322. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Israeli Chief Rabbinical Council OKs eulogies by women – Religion”. Jewish Journal.
  323. Jump up^ “Penalización de la Violencia Contra las Mujeres”.
  324. Jump up^ Abdelhadi, Magdi (28 June 2007). “Egypt forbids female circumcision”. BBC News. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  325. Jump up^ “Ley Organica Sobre el Derecho de las Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencia”(PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-07-01. Retrieved 2015-06-16.
  326. Jump up^ Hauslohner, Abigail (28 June 2007). “Egypt strengthens ban on female genital cutting”. Reuters.
  327. Jump up^ “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Individual Country Reports”, U.S. State Department, 1 June 2001.
  328. Jump up^ “Eritrea bans female circumcision”. BBC News. 4 April 2007.
  329. Jump up^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
  330. Jump up^ Weinberg, Jeremy A. (2009). “Blameless ignorance? The Ledbetter Act and limitations periods for Title VII pay discrimination claims” (PDF). New York University Law Review. 84 (6): 1756.
  331. Jump up^ Frank, Ted (February 4, 2008). “The Ledbetter Case and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act”. American Enterprise Institute. Archived from the original on May 1, 2008. The Supreme Court’s Ledbetter ruling specifically noted that the plaintiff could have sued instead under the Equal Pay Act, observing that plaintiff “having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.” 550 U.S. 618 (2007)
  332. Jump up^ See the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S. 369 (2004), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1205.ZS.html.
  333. Jump up^ “SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE HALT TO ACTS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE”. un.org.
  334. Jump up^ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/domesticviolence/guatemala.violence.08.pdf
  335. Jump up^ http://www.sdmujer.gov.co/images/pdf/ley1257.pdf
  336. Jump up^ Canlas, Jomar (25 January 2008). “Saudi prince assures RP govt they respect rights of women”. The Manila Times. Archived from the original on 27 January 2008. Retrieved 25 January 2008.
  337. Jump up^ http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/Ley_de_Proteccion_Integral_de_Mujeres_Argentina.pdf
  338. Jump up^ “Uganda bans female genital mutilation”. BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  339. Jump up^ “Statement released after the President rescinds ‘Mexico City Policy'”. whitehouse.gov. 25 January 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-03-11. Retrieved 2011-03-11.
  340. Jump up^ Gettleman, Jeffrey; Arafat, Waleed (7 September 2009). “Sudan Court Fines Woman for Wearing Trousers”. The New York Times.
  341. Jump up^ http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/Co-publications/Femicide_A%20Gobal%20Issue%20that%20demands%20Action.pdf
  342. Jump up^ “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally”. Mercurynews.com. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  343. Jump up^ “Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill”. nytimes.com. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  344. Jump up^ “President Obama Signs Hate Crime Prevention Act”. Fox News. October 28, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  345. Jump up^ “Human Rights Campaign”. hrc.org. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
  346. Jump up^ “Hate Crimes Protections 2007”. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved December 9, 2009.
  347. Jump up^ “Order striking jury trial”. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
  348. ^ Jump up to:a b Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Government Printing Office. Page 459.
  349. Jump up^ Landau, Elizabeth (April 9, 2010). “Breastfeeding rooms hidden in health care law”. CNN.
  350. Jump up^ Grady, Denise (March 29, 2010). “Overhaul Will Lower the Costs of Being a Woman”. The New York Times.
  351. Jump up^ “Equality Act 2010”. The National Archives. Retrieved 13 October 2016.
  352. Jump up^ see EU Directive 2000/78/EC, 2000/43/EC, 2006/54/EC
  353. Jump up^ Equality Act sch.3, part 7, para 28
  354. Jump up^ Shear, Michael D. (March 24, 2010), “Obama signs executive order on abortion out of sight of media glare”, The Washington Post, Retrieved March 24, 2010
  355. Jump up^ “White House Defends Abortion-related Executive Order, Even as Obama Signs it”, Fox News, March 24, 2010, Retrieved March 24, 2010
  356. Jump up^ “Obama issues executive order on abortion”, UPI.com, March 21, 2010, Retrieved March 21, 2010
  357. Jump up^ Montgomery, Lori & Murray, Shailagh (March 21, 2010) “In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion”, The Washington Post, Retrieved March 21, 2010
  358. Jump up^ “Amnesty International 2010 report on Pakistan”
  359. Jump up^ “Security Council adopts text requesting detailed information on suspected perpetrators of sexual violence during armed conflict”. United Nations. December 16, 2010.
  360. Jump up^ “Security Council steps up fight against sexual violence in conflict”. United Nations News Centre. December 16, 2010.
  361. Jump up^ “UN votes to name alleged rapists in war”. Associated Press. December 16, 2010.
  362. Jump up^ Izenberg, Dan; Mandel, Jonah (January 6, 2011). “Court scraps ‘mehadrin’ buses”. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2011-03-08.
  363. Jump up^ “Ley Especial Integral para una Vida Libre de Violencia para las Mujeres” (PDF). Instituto Salvadoreño para el Desarrollo de la Mujer.
  364. Jump up^ AAUW Stands with the Women of Wal-Mart During U.S. Supreme Court Hearing, American Association of University Women.
  365. Jump up^ 10-277 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Questions Presented, Supreme Court of the United States.
  366. Jump up^ “New law prohibits practice of female genital mutilation in Guinea-Bissau | At a glance: Guinea-Bissau”. UNICEF. Retrieved 2015-07-18.
  367. Jump up^ “Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012”. Irish Statute Book. Office of the Attorney General.
  368. Jump up^ “Ley Integral contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres y de Reformas a la Ley” (PDF).
  369. Jump up^ Frulli, Micaela (2008). “Advancing International Criminal Law: The Special Court for Sierra Leone Recognizes Forced Marriage as a ‘New’ Crime Against Humanity”. Journal of International Criminal Justice. 6 (5): 1033–1042. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqn063. SSRN 2014731Freely accessible.
  370. Jump up^ “Next Steps to Comply with Health Care Reform”. The National Law Review. Schiff Hardin LLP. 2012-10-10. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
  371. Jump up^ “Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women”.
  372. Jump up^ Kliff, Sarah (1 August 2012). “Five facts about the health law’s contraceptive mandate”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
  373. Jump up^ “Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another”. Southern Africa Litigation Centre. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  374. ^ Jump up to:a b “Botswana women allowed to inherit”. BBC News. 12 October 2012. Archivedfrom the original on 12 October 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  375. Jump up^ http://www.parlament.ch/sites/kb/2013/Rapport_de_la_commission_CAJ-N_13.2020_2014-11-13.pdf
  376. Jump up^http://www.mef.gob.pa/es/direcciones/oficinaInstitucionalRecursosHumanos/Documents/Ley%20del%20Femicidio.pdf
  377. Jump up^ “Sihlongonyane v Sihlongonyane (470/2013) [2013] SZHC 144 (18 July 2013);”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  378. Jump up^ “Observatorio de Igualdad de Género – de América Latina y el Caribe” (PDF) (in Spanish). Cepal.org. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  379. Jump up^ Hassan, Yasmeen (3 January 2013). “As Global Consensus Accelerates, Obama Strengthens Federal Law Protecting Girls in the Fight Against Female Genital Mutilation”. The Huffington Post.
  380. Jump up^ “Voldtægt”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  381. Jump up^ “Slut med “konerabat” for voldtægt”. http://www.b.dk. 3 June 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  382. Jump up^ “Straffeloven – Bekendtgørelse af straffeloven – retsinformation.dk”. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  383. Jump up^ Amnesty International. “Case closed rape and human rights in the nordic countries”(PDF).
  384. Jump up^ Amnesty International (2011). “Denmark: Human rights violations and concerns in the context of counter-terrorism, immigration-detention, forcible return of rejected asylum-seekers and violence against women” (PDF).
  385. Jump up^ Stuart, Hunter (16 October 2013). “Country With The Most Child Brides Won’t Agree To End Forced Child Marriage”. Huffington Post.
  386. Jump up^ “UN Takes Major Action to End Child Marriage”. Center for Reproductive Rights.
  387. Jump up^ Girls Not Brides. “States adopt first-ever resolution on child, early and forced marriage at Human Rights Council”. Girls Not Brides.
  388. ^ Jump up to:a b “UN Security Council Takes a Historic Stand Supporting Abortion Access for Women Raped in War / Library / Homepage”. AWID. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  389. Jump up^ “Turkey lifts ban on trousers for women MPs in parliament”. Yahoo! News. 14 November 2013.
  390. ^ Jump up to:a b Gibson, Megan (4 February 2013). “It Is Now Legal for Women to Wear Pants in Paris”. Time. New York.
  391. ^ Jump up to:a b Ramdani, Nabila (3 April 2013). “Saudi women are allowed to cycle – but only around in circles | Life and style”. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 30 August 2013.
  392. Jump up^ Christa Case Bryant (5 May 2013). “Saudi Arabia sanctions sports for girls for the first time”. CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 30 August 2013.
  393. Jump up^ “Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013” (PDF). Government of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 April 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  394. Jump up^ “India’s top court moves to curb acid attacks”. Al Jazeera English. 2013-07-18. Retrieved 2013-09-21.
  395. Jump up^ Israel Hayom | In a first, women to sit on rabbinic judges selection panel
  396. Jump up^ Rudoren, Jodi (December 25, 2012). “Israel to Review Curbs on Women’s Prayer at Western Wall”. The New York Times. Retrieved December 25, 2012.
  397. Jump up^ “Tunisia assembly passes new constitution”. BBC News. 27 January 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  398. Jump up^ https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf
  399. Jump up^ “Liste complète”. Bureau des Traités. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  400. Jump up^ “Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014”. legislation.gov.uk.
  401. Jump up^ Okunuki, Hifumi (29 October 2014). “‘Maternity harassment’ verdict benefits women, men – and our humanity”. The Japan Times. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  402. ^ Jump up to:a b PTI (28 June 2014). “Wife’s jeans ban is grounds for divorce, India court rules”. GulfNews.com. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  403. Jump up^ Willis, David (June 30, 2014). “Hobby Lobby case: Court curbs contraception mandate”. BBC News. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
  404. Jump up^ O’Donoghue, Amy Joi (Jul 5, 2014). “Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control”. Deseret News. Retrieved Jul 30, 2014.
  405. Jump up^ >Haberkorn, Jennifer; Gerstein, Josh (Jun 30, 2014). “Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate”. Politico. Retrieved Jun 30, 2014.
  406. Jump up^ See:
  407. Jump up^ LoGiurato, Brett (July 3, 2014). “Female Justices Issue Scathing Dissent In The First Post-Hobby Lobby Birth Control Exemption”. Business Insider.
  408. Jump up^ Lee Moran (14 March 2012). “Moroccans demand change to Islamic penal code after girl, 16, kills herself because judge forced her to marry her RAPIST”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 15 March 2012.
  409. Jump up^ “Morocco repeals ‘rape marriage law’ ” http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/01/morocco-repeals-rape-marriage-law-2014123254643455.html
  410. Jump up^ United States v. Castleman (2014) , March 26, 2014.
  411. Jump up^ “Gambia’s Yahya Jammeh bans female genital mutilation”. BBC News. 25 November 2015. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  412. Jump up^ “Brazil femicide law signed by President Rousseff”. BBC News. 10 March 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  413. Jump up^ “La Gaceta: Diario oficial” (PDF). 8 October 2014. Archived from the original (PDF)on April 4, 2015. Retrieved April 12, 2015.
  414. Jump up^ http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/codigonicaragua.pdf
  415. Jump up^ D’Urso, Joseph (29 May 2015). “FGM campaigners: Nigeria ban welcome, but work not over”. Reuters. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  416. Jump up^ Topping, Alexandra (29 May 2015). “Nigeria’s female genital mutilation ban is important precedent, say campaigners”. the Guardian. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
  417. Jump up^ “Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”. legislation.gov.uk.
  418. Jump up^ “Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”. legislation.gov.uk.
  419. Jump up^ “Forced marriage jail first as Cardiff man sentenced”. BBC News. 10 June 2015. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
  420. Jump up^ Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, SC 2015, c 29, ss 9, 10.
  421. Jump up^ “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 293.1”. Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2015-09-29.
  422. Jump up^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 293.2
  423. Jump up^ 07/10/2015 12:45 pm EDT (July 10, 2015). “White House Finds Way Around Hobby Lobby Birth Control Decision”. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
  424. Jump up^ Primack, Dan (2014-02-06). “Venture capital’s stunning lack of female decision-makers”. Fortune. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
  425. Jump up^ Manjoo, Farhad (March 27, 2015). “Ellen Pao Disrupts How Silicon Valley Does Business”. The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2015. Ms. Klein argued that the Kleiner trial would become a landmark case for women in the workplace, as consequential for corporate gender relations as Anita Hill’s accusations in 1991 of sexual harassment during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
  426. Jump up^ Gannes, Liz (2015-02-18). “What’s at Stake in the Ellen Pao Case”. Recode. Retrieved 2015-10-16.
  427. Jump up^ Rankin, Kenrya. “This Policy Gives Native Women Equal Access to Emergency Contraception”. Colorlines. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
  428. Jump up^ Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 16-17, 19-20.
  429. Jump up^ “Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity – HUD”. Portal.hud.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
  430. ^ Jump up to:a b “Slip opinion from Young v. United Parcel Service” (PDF). Retrieved 2015-04-05.
  431. Jump up^ Ouali, Aomar (2 February 2016). “New Algerian law punishes violence against women”. Business Insider. Associated Press.
  432. Jump up^ Visentin, Lisa (March 5, 2016). “Islamic group ordered to stop segregating men and women”. The Sydney Morning Herald.
  433. Jump up^ Sieff, Kevin (March 21, 2016). “In historic ruling, international court cites rape in war crimes conviction of ex-Congo official”. The Washington Post.
  434. Jump up^ “Saudi Arabia gives women the right to a copy of their marriage contract”. The Guardian. 3 May 2016.
  435. Jump up^ Liptak, Adam (March 23, 2016). “Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate”. The New York Times.
  436. Jump up^ Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14–1418, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3, 5 (2016) (per curiam).
  437. Jump up^ Zubik, slip op. at 3–4.
  438. Jump up^ Zubik, slip op. at 4.
  439. Jump up^ Zubik, slip op. at 2–3 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
  440. Jump up^ “How Bad Does Domestic Violence Have to Be Before You Can’t Have a Gun?”. 2016-02-22. Retrieved 2016-06-27.
  441. Jump up^ Johnson, Carrie (June 27, 2016). “Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights”. NPR.
  442. Jump up^ Lopez, German (27 June 2016). “The Supreme Court quietly handed gun control advocates a small victory”. Vox.com.
  443. Jump up^ Green, Emma (November 13, 2015). “A New Supreme Court Challenge: The Erosion of Abortion Access in Texas”. Atlantic. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
  444. ^ Jump up to:a b “Text – H.R.5578 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Survivors’ Bill of Rights Act of 2016”. Congress.gov. Retrieved 2016-10-13.
  445. ^ Jump up to:a b “Germany rape law: ‘No means No’ law passed”. BBC News. 7 July 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  446. Jump up^ “Dispatches: Tanzanian High Court Rules Against Child Marriage | Human Rights Watch”. Hrw.org. Retrieved 2016-07-11.
  447. ^ Jump up to:a b “Gambia and Tanzania outlaw child marriage”. BBC News. 2015-12-16. Retrieved 2016-07-11.
  448. Jump up^ “Gambia’s leader says ban on child marriage ‘as from today'”. Bigstory.ap.org. Retrieved 2016-07-11.
  449. Jump up^ “‘Honour killings’: Pakistan closes loophole allowing killers to go free”. BBC News. 6 October 2016. Retrieved 2016-10-13.
  450. Jump up^ Ettinger, Yair (January 8, 2016). “Israel High Court Rules to Let Women Compete With Men for Rabbinical Court Role”. Haaretz.
  451. Jump up^ Ettinger, Yair (March 15, 2016). “In Historic Ruling, Israeli Rabbinical Court Jails Father for Abetting Son’s Refusal of Divorce”. Haaretz.
  452. Jump up^ Hellmann, Jessie (January 23, 2017). “Trump reinstates ban on US funds promoting abortion overseas”. The Hill. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
  453. Jump up^ Gardenswartz, Jacob (January 26, 2017). “Trump’s global abortion gag rule goes much further than any previous administration”. Vox. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
  454. Jump up^ Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington (2017). “‘Death by a thousand cuts’: LGBT rights fading under Trump, advocates say | US news”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  455. Jump up^ “Trump revokes executive order, weakens protections for LGBT workers”. Thinkprogress.org. 2017-01-30. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  456. Jump up^ Sebastian, Clare; Mortensen, Antonia (February 7, 2017). “Putin signs law reducing punishment for domestic battery”. CNN. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  457. ^ Jump up to:a b Moloney, Anastasia. “Sweden welcomes Salvadoran woman wrongly jailed for abortion in asylum first”. Reuters. Retrieved 2017-04-05.
  458. Jump up^ “Trump Moves Against Planned Parenthood by Signing GOP Bill”. Bloomberg. 2017. Retrieved 2017-04-13.
  459. Jump up^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/us/politics/obama-administration-planned-parenthood.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=1
  460. Jump up^ Gorman, Steve (2016-12-31). “U.S. judge blocks transgender, abortion-related Obamacare protections”. Reuters. Retrieved 2017-01-02.

External links[edit]

1 reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s