derstood here is that the society and law itself has developed from the male psyche and hence exhibit only male characteristics and therefore only caters to the male viewpoint, hence the term ‘patriarchal society’. Can rights then, ever be deemed objective? According to Popper, ‘the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested’ However, inter-subjectivity is often exclusionary. It is distastefully interesting how the concept of rights, whether its freedom, equality or liberty , has always excluded women and referred to the rights of man. When we trace back the roots of the notion of citizenship, we realise that it emerged in the Greek era in the time of Aristotle, according to him, citizenship is only given to a ‘property owning individual very active in political life’ This quite obviously excluded the consideration of women, children and slaves. Rights as a concept has its roots in natural law theories, which has a moral and not a positivistic character. Locke however, talks of ‘man’ to refer to a right holder as a male, European, white, property owning persons, excluding women, children and slaves similar to the Greeks. It is worth noting that in the Bible, although it allows the concept of slavery, there is the idea of equality, ‘There is neither Jew, nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” This universality exists in the Kingdom of God, according to Vincent, and not in that of man. It seems rather strange to think of human rights as excluding the very humanity they are meant to protect. The difficulties experienced by the international community in establishing effective legal instruments to achieve gender equality, and to have states accept these obligatory clauses and to promote these in their own domestic systems, continue to be an obstacle in the course of feminist intervention. Even with acceptance, states still have to be reminded of their obligations.>