å February 2017

As I read Carole Pateman’s writing in “The Sexual Contract”, it was clear that women were put into very low standards to men. Through the fields of ‘civil society’, which contains nothing but in my opinion, insecure elite, narcissistic, dominating men, they would create an original contract that merely excluded women on her rights. It was also clear that in the only incorporation a women had in the civil society was to comply and obey as a wife and a women, she was to please her man when he wanted to, because “rape didn’t exist within a marriage”, and do her job as a wife especially having his child. Because she was excluded in such contract, the man had all the rights to the women’s body. As contract theorist Locke would lay his statement that “every man has a property in his own person” (pg. 13).

Many social contract theorists would argue and believed that men owned their property also through women, women were not considered equal to a man. It seemed that marriage contract was more to avoid that woman’s weren’t just their slaves but their wife, in other words in my opinion, a marriage contract was a cleaner way to do it. Although entering marriage through a marriage contract, women were still excluded on their rights, Pateman would write “what it means to be an ‘individual’, a maker of contracts, and civilly free, is revealed by the subjection of women with the private sphere” (pg. 11), in other words women were categorized as in the natural but private sphere, which indicated what was private; where a woman a placed in a place where she is mostly likely not seen and not validated, but yet natural to the civil society still excluded the woman to having the same power as a man through the contract, they apparently were not considered “individual”. The only right a woman had was her child, a child who will then eventually have a contract to obey his mother.

It seems beyond me that what is naturally in listed for us as a human being, is controlled by such contract. Women are the ones who should be validated not only for their womanhood but also just primarily as human beings, it becomes more clear as to why many feminist have fought to break down the issue on woman’s right on their body, choice and what they should do after during marriage, in participation on politics have become a strong and vocal on what’s right.

Maria Libreros

Prof. Dr. Elizabeth Bullock

Women’s Rights as Human Rights

IAS 31154

Ass. # 2 The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman

In her book The Sexual- Contract, Carole Pateman made emphasis in  the different ways society respond to sexual differences, and how inequality is based on sexual differences. Pateman also explains how The Social Contract is also a sexual-social pact (p.3). To comprehend this she had to analyze The Social Contract of Philosopher like Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes that were well used to create the Civil Rights, even though those theories focused on the power of men over women.

Pateman’s point of view is that even when there are civil rights and freedom for every human been, the way the social contract were presented the women had been let aside because of sexual difference showing what is to be a man and what is to be a woman (p.16). The social contract says that all men are born free and equal, and it also says all men are individuals. The way women are incorporated into society is through married-contract by subjection to man power and becoming his sexual property without questions or any authority. In this way Carole observed that everything were circulating around a patriarchal society where men is the most important individual in society that she was disappointed with.

Pateman sustained that in the contract the only free individuals are allowed to be part of it, but women are mentioned anywhere, therefore women are not individuals. In this sense women must subjugated by nature by men but were not considered slaves. However, Hobbes was the only theorist that differ from all others. He wrote that there was no different between men and women in the state of nature, and attributes and capacities are equal independently of sex; sexual relations should be by consent through contract or by force, but in this case women would have the right to kill the men (p.44). Here, again observed that men were in power. If, for any circumstances a wife leave the husband it was mean that men did not have the power absolute over his wife.

Even though, women had to struggle to have equal rights and society turn a little in women favor there are still a long way to go regarding sex differences or sex power. As an example, this differences are still observed in some cultures where women still been subjugated by men, by society, in politics, religions. I believe that the day this can change is when all men and women will have the same rights independently of sex.

Women’s role in society at large has always been explained away as somehow “natural” – a term, we should keep in mind, whose meaning is largely derived from the ideology of whoever happens to be employing it. Of course, if something is “natural” then how can anyone question it? In the case of women, “natural” also seems to implies something that should be taken for granted and not terribly important. They are unquestionable truths with which we should barely even bother to reckon. But, Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract begins to reckon with these seemingly common sense ideas and challenges the notions about women that society holds so dear.
To break down some of the ways that we can begin to understand this, Pateman offers up the yin and yang of private vs. public or, as they tend to be described by theorists, natural vs. civil. Pateman reminds us that the terms are actually defined in opposition to each other. That is, what defines the private is precisely that it is not public and vice versa. If we agree with that supposition (and, it does seem nearly impossible to argue against) then, this has implications for the way private – generally, defined by what happens within the bounds of domesticity – and the public – generally, defined by what happens in the world outside of the home – both depend on and interact with one another.
What we find is that all sorts of antiquated ideas about how women should contribute to society are deeply ingrained, even today. And, according to Pateman, the questions of the relationship of the private to the public are not sufficiently grappled with even by political theorists who should have something to say about it. But, because this private (i.e. within the home) is generally thought of as the domain of women it is consistently undervalued. This, despite the fact that, in general terms, the raising of children – all of the responsibility that the word “raise” entails – the general maintenance of the household – all of the responsibility that the word “maintenance” entails – is thought of, at best, as playing a supporting role.
Yet, if we go back to the notion that the public and private cannot exist without the other, we are then forced to say that women – accepting that this is an antiquated version of the role of women – make possible the existence of the public. Whatever happens, then, in civil society is only possible because of the private. In this sense, while the private is separate, it bleeds into and creates the conditions for the public.

The incorporation of women into a sphere that “is and is not civil society” is achieved  through a marriage contract. When a women enters into a marriage contract she is giving her husband rights over her body. Marriage gives the men  sexual access to the woman’s body. According to the social contract, women were never included in the original pact.  They were completed written out of the contract that fortified liberties and rights for men. The contract in essence is an agreement made by men for men.

In the state of nature men and women have equal control over their children. In the state of nature women also have the same instinct to survive ( self-preservation) and even though women were not left out of the state of nature Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau believed that men and women are different and that “women are born into subjugation” (Pateman, 1988 p.41)  and that males have a natural right over women.

According to Hobbes mothers had rights over their children in the state of nature and not fathers. That in the state of nature women did have to consent to sexual intercourse, because it was in the state of nature that she was equal is status, “as free and  equal individuals” (Pateman, 1988 p. 48) to men but once she has children her position changes  because now she must protect herself and her child which places her at a weakness.

The social contract deliberately leaves women out of sharing in liberties, and political rights because the contract in itself is about male sex rights to women’s bodies. The contract is about  sexual access to the female body. Women are not” individuals” an individual is a man. Women’s bodies are thought to be only  reproductive sites. Women are not human beings they are something different ,not male . The pact was voluntarily agreed and consented to by men for men.

Although in the state of nature women have power over their offspring and the instinct to survive, women are believed  not to  possess natural freedoms, they are not born free and therefore do not possess the attributes or capabilities to be an individual capable of entering into  a contract or to be owners of their own bodies.  When a woman enters into a marriage she has to consent to the marriage. If  I understand correctly, consent requires a certain level of freedom, she would have to be recognized as an individual.

When a woman enters into a marriage contract she is simultaneously free but also subordinate. In the marriage contract the male guarantees  his access to conjugal relations.  She is part of civil (public)  society because she entered into a marriage contract but she is also not part of civil  society because once she enters into the marriage contract her husband has rights over her.

Carole Pateman describes that its is a masculine attribute for civil freedom and it depends on patriarchal right (pg.2). It is my interpretation that she means because the contract is written by men, women weren’t considered as an individual to add into it. Pateman claims that women naturally have no freedom nor are born free. My guess is that women are incorporated into a civil society, but only by their husbands. Pateman discusses how women are included in the sexual and marriage contract but not the civil society contract. It seems that if woman are only identifiable by their husbands. So in a way they are in civil society just indirectly, more as a subordinate than an individual.

Pateman states that no one can at the same time be a citizen and human property. So where do women lie? There lies some sort of exploitation here. In the text it states that workers and wives can be exploited because they are both are subordinates under the employment and marriage contract. It’s as though women are constituted as property and not an individual. The text states that even sons are given rights in a civil society due to their birth right into the patriarchy.

Pateman discussed that women aren’t left out in the state of nature because it would defeat the purpose of the sexual contract. She claims that there is a ”private sphere” within the context of the civil society that is separate from civil society. Woman are included in the private sphere and men are included in the civil sphere. The sexual contract that women are included in exists in the state of nature and has nothing to do with civil society. Men are allowed to pass back and forth through the sphere and this is due to the law of the sex-right through the patriarchal civil society.

Pateman further discusses how in the book ”History of Sexuality” by Michel Foucault in the seventeen century men had taken charge of women’s lives and bodies through a new discipline and mechanism of subordination. The difference between sexual and political difference is a key component to civil society. Men governing women’s lives and bodies seems to be the proper order of nature. She argues that since men are the natural overseers of women, patriarchy is seen as a private matter that can only be conquered if the public policies and laws treated women as equals to men.

In the sexual contract by Carole Pateman she explains how some theorist left out some information in the sexual contract. The theorist that written the contract wrote it to only benefit themselves. It benefited people of patriarchy men and fathers. I feel that women were not incorporated into the civil socostly as equal individuals. Men had power over women. Under the sexual contract women were subjects to men. Men could have access to their bodies anytime they please. Also under the contract men had policital rights over women. Women were subordinated to me and did not have any rights within the contract. The marriage contract only allowed women to come together with men to give birth. Both parents could not have rights over the child so they were given to the mother. The child would only obey the mother.

Different theorist had their own views of the social and sexual contract. One believed that women should be excluded from the original contract because it is made from man. Another theorist thought that women should be seen as an individual and men shouldn’t have rights over them. Marriages were seen as businesses and husbands and wives were business partners. The wife had to adapt herself to her husband , but the husband did not have power over her. If the wife obey her husband then in return he will protect her. In the nature state a women status as being seen as an individual was completely cut out.

Other theorist believed that women were not born free or equal individuals but seen as property and subjects to men. The equality between men and women disappeared. Who ever owned property had to protect it and if protected than that individual can do whatever they want to the property. They can sell it, rent it or even trade it to whom ever they want to.

Women were not incorporated in the civil society as equal individuals but incorporated as subjects, property, and subordinates. They were incorporated to make the men feel powerful and have rights over someone who wasn’t strong as them. These theorist wrote these contracts so that it would give themselves power and other men power as well. It wouldn’t look right if men had power over other men because they were seen as equals and they were born free. So it would make sense to have power over someone who wasn’t on the same level as men. This incorporation gave men power over someone who wasn’t born free but born weak.

To my understanding the meaning of civil society is a patriarchy society which is seen through the lens of male superiority. The woman is subordinate to men as stated by Pateman, “Civil freedom is a masculine attribute and depends upon patriarchal right” (2). A women’s only right or should I say incorporation in the civil sphere would be to serve her husband. To fulfill her ‘wifely’ duties, in signing a marriage contract she is binding herself to a man as his property. She has no say as she is subjected by contract to her husband. Women are not seen as individuals and are not “civilly free”. Pateman states, “What it means to be an ’individual’, a maker of contracts and civilly free, is revealed by the subjection of women within the private sphere” (11).

This contradicts the idea of individual (referring to equality), if women are believed to be subordinate to men, why is a contract needed if it is already ‘understood’ that they are not viewed as individuals? In a sphere that is not civil, a woman would indeed need a contract because she would be an equal individual with the same rights as a man. According to The Sexual Contract, “Nor does Locke, for example, explain why the marriage contract is necessary when women are declared to be naturally subject to men, There are other ways in which a union between a man and his natural subordinate could be established, but, instead Locke holds that it is brought into being through contract, which is an agreement between two equals” (54). In a sphere that is not civil a woman would be free, it would have already be known and recognized that she too is equal and entitled to the innate rights that men hold. When I think about how far women have come in fighting inequality I can’t help but feel somber about how hard we fought and still are fighting for equal rights. Woman would have the choice to go into contract with another person or choose not to. There wouldn’t have to be laws and contracts stating that women are equal to men because it would be natural.  I used to think that it is natural for a person to be kind and loving that we are taught to hate but I’m not so sure anymore… Why do we need declarations stating our rights, why do we contacts and laws if we are all equal amongst one another?ual

I’ve just finished reading through your responses to the chapters we read from Lynn Hunt’s work, Inventing Human Rights (2007). Before commenting on the substance of your posts, I want to make a few comments about the more formal aspects of your writing.

Please make sure to proofread before you publish. I don’t deduct points for spelling and grammar so long as a post is legible. However, if there are numerous spelling and / or grammatical errors, you will receive partial credit. Sometimes posts appear in wingdings. This happens when students use a web-based platform (like google docs) to compose their post and accidentally copy html coding when transferring the content to WordPress. To prevent this from happening, I recommend writing and editing in Microsoft Word. Or, you can review your post in WordPress using the text editor (above) and remove any html coding that appears (HTML coding is everything that appears in brackets <> ). Be sure everything is written in your own words, and any paraphrased text includes a citation. Finally, the only category assigned to your post is the assignment for that week. For example, this week you should have tagged your post with the category on the right: “assignment 01.”

——————————————-

As many of you noted in your responses this week, Lynn Hunt (2007) is interested in examining the political, as well as what she refers to as the social and cultural practices, that accompanied the emergence of discourses on human rights. What is emerging, she argues, is nothing short of a new way of understanding human relations. Returning to works by Jefferson, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke and others, Hunt notes the precursors to human rights: discourses on “natural rights” and “the rights of man.” But related to these discourses, she underlines an increasing sense of autonomy and empathy that was developing in Western Europe and North America during this period. Pointing to the work of J. B. Schneedwind, she considers how moral autonomy is treated during this time as a capacity developing in the lives of those capable of participating in the new forms of government available in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As we discussed at length in our discussion last night, who was viewed as “capable” and on what terms is a question that, for Hunt, is secondary to the project of considering what prompted this shift towards expressing the universal qualities of mankind.

Greater awareness of the distinctions between individual persons begins to take shape at the same time that there was an emerging sense of the qualities that bind all (property owning / white) men together. In the declarations Hunt examines, there is evidence of mankind’s demonstrable capacity to behave rationally, evidence that authorizes their creation and exercise of a new social contract. Different from how social relations were organized prior to this period, this focus on relations, that are defined in terms of the capacity for rational thought rather than by god the sovereign, becomes the foundation for a new form of governance. Prior to this, people looked to the sovereign power (god’s representative on earth) to explain life. Along with an evolving understanding of the rights of men, there was during this period an emerging sense of “rationality,” a way of living in the world that, whether addressed explicitly or not, was often joined to race, class, gender, and sexuality, as a justification for those who were enfranchised and disenfranchised.

In chapter three, Hunt points to some of the disagreements among liberal political theorists during this period. Different arrangements of “natural rights” allow us to think critically about the way liberal civil society was organized. Writing in 1625, Hugo Grotius, for example, said natural rights were connected to life, the body, freedom and honor (2007:118). But, Hunt stresses, John Locke defined natural rights in terms that stressed a natural right to property, and, therefore, whether intentionally or not, engineered rights in terms that did not challenge slavery. As we move forward, we will think more on how the connection of rights to property underlines how participation in governance is unfolding during this period.

Due Sunday, February 12th, by midnight. Word count: 400 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. If you paraphrase, make sure to include the proper citation.

In The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman explains that while women have no part in the original contract with civil society described liberal political theorists, they are not left out of the “state of nature.” In your own words, how would you explain the incorporation of women into a sphere that “is and is not in civil society”?