å Sunday, March 5th, 2017

In the reading of  “Are women Human? It’s not an academic question” by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi, made me realize the position women were placed in, how unfairly they were treated, how a gender and sexual identity would be controlled and created in what was normal. Peterson and Parisi first defends Heterosexuality “to sex/affective relations between people of the so-called opposite sex” (133) and then defined heterosexism “the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only ‘normal’ mode of sexual identity, sexual practice and social relations” (133). In other words through heterosexism it is clear that this was and is a tool created and implemented to create what would be considered normal (the norm), this was how it was preferred through the political and patriarchal system. From the beginning of a child’s life, the child would learn their purpose (the language), for example a child’s penis, which is considered the male dominance, this was the binary coding between masculine and feminine in which as a man (masculine) is defined by itself, this was clear that men were more viewed more human, in which the whole ordeal was androcentric.

It was considered that the norm was that men were the one in controlled, a woman was to bear for the children and comply with the needs of the men. Through heterosexism it became an advantage for the masculinity group reproduction, it promoted binary gender identities, such as it accepted a women’s subordinates to the males, it also promoted heterosexual relations with the males and children. But heterosexism however was also oppressive, both authors states “it privileges males/masculinity and male-defined interest of women qua women, and it denies/repressive all other sexual orientations and gender identifications” (138). This statement also represented that it not only denied women’s interest as a human being but also homosexuals and bisexuals, because of course that was not considered the norm within heterosexism.

Though three generation of rights, one of the many examples for instance, political and civil rights, women were excluded, because in reality they were not included in the human rights, therefore men embodied those human rights through the public sphere, but in the private sphere women were assigned to stay at home and comply to their women duties. Peterson and Parisi would also add on how women in the military would be denied war activities, they were at times excluded in combat which is still an issue today.

Gender inequalities was and still is an issue many women and men face today, women are still being treated unfairly and men are not able to be themselves freely because the norm does not include homosexuality. Although a lot has changed through the years, it seems that even with better changes the laws and rules are yet to be very conservative and old school.

In the article “Are Women Human” by V. Spike and Laura Parisi, the authors argue that we should analyze the relationship between gender difference and human rights from a heterosexism perspective. It is inextricably from the state making objectives, authority and power. First at all, heterosexism recognizes as normal the relationships between males and females, others forms of social reproductions are prohibited. The normalization of heterosexism imposes gender hierarchy, where males had agency, freedom and autonomy and women had no freedom of choice, nor have they authoritative status, their only role in the this heterosexual relations was to promote reproduction of one’s own group. it included the acceptance of women’s subordination to male defined interests (138), also the children were to be well taken care in culturally and sexually appropriate ways by their mothers, and taught groups’s symbols, beliefs of the group, rituals and so on. As a result of this, the reproduction of these race/ class groups institutionalized a division of power and labor. How families and groups were formed and the reproductive process had a lot to do with politics and power.

The author summarized the history of women and human rights. She talked about the first generation rights where women were completely excluded, so basically it was men’s rights. In terms of reproduction, men controlled women’s bodies and anyone out of the gender identifies feminine or masculine were not protected. Second generation rights again through heterosexism women were marginalized in economic, social and cultural practices. Not only that but also religious beliefs contributed to devalue women. Third generation rights women’s situation got worse. even though they belongs o certain groups, they did not benefit from the right determination that all the members had, and were opressed by other women belonging to other groups. So since the beginning of history, the state promoted heterosexist practices and gendered division of identify, power and authority (145).

Heterosexual relations brought a lot of violence agains women both physical and psychological. Rape is not considered violence since wives could not refuse to have sexual intimacy with their husbands. The state is complicit because it did not intervene in these abuses. Homosexual couples were persecuted because in some countries it was considered a disease that needed to be treated with therapy, therefore they were unable get married and  adopt child.

Religion played an influential role in regulating heterosexism too since women are assumed to fulfill traditional roles, be dependent on men. In conclusion according to the author in heterosexist relations only men are considered human.

We’ve been programmed for centuries to believe that a family consists of a man and woman, programmed to believe that men and women are classified on their innate body parts, having the appropriate reproductive organs.  In present day there are millions of people who are fighting for their individual rights, rights to identify how they feel on inside rather than what people see, and what society identifies as a true man or true woman. Before reading V.Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi’s argument on how heterosexism hinders human rights, I didn’t think how much affect heterosexism had on women rights. The categorization of a specific group (gender) is the first ingredient for discrimination. Peterson and Parisi mention the idea of family and what is expected and ‘appropriate’. If family is between a man and a woman, reproduction can only occur with both man and woman, that’s where heterosexism comes into play. People are shamed for their sexual orientation based on “family’, which in my opinion is bogus! So a relationship between two women is in fact, based on what society believes, inhumane, and against the idea of family. As stated, “Human rights discourse and practice reproduce this naturalization of heterosexism and the family, including gender inequalities within the family, by upholding the distinction between public/state and private/family sphere and focusing exclusively on states as both protectors and violators of individual rights”. One way of shaming homosexuality is the idea of family and reproduction. Heterosexism sets roles for both women and men, there is no “wiggle room”, you if you do not follow it you are not humane and therefore human rights do not apply to you.

Another factor on how heterosexism plays a huge part is it idealizes the male roles, what a man is “suppose” to be or more importantly what a man should not be. A man is strong, public sphere, doesn’t entwine in the private sphere at all. The woman is to raise the children and do household duties. Women are believed to be subordinate to a man in every way, heterosexism strips the rights away from birth and people are appointed rights based on their gender. “At the same time, heterosexism is oppressive it privileges males/masculinity and male-defines interests over females/femininity and interests of women qua women, and it denies/represses all other sexual orientations and gender identifications”. Based on history, we are born into our ‘roles’ based on our genitals and reproductive organs: we are identified as a woman because we have a vagina at birth and Vis versa for man. We in all actually have no real rights, there is a huge movement happening now in the LGBT community, and people are fighting for rights to identify, and what bathroom they can use etc. We need to keep pushing forward and continue to “remold” how we are classified and put into categories.

In their essay, “Are women human? It’s not an academic question,” V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi begin to probe just what we mean when we use the words “women” and “human.” While it is a relatively elementary feminist critique, they argue, that what we now think of as “human rights” tends to be male-centered (i.e. male is considered the normative qualifier), less examined is the tacit acceptance of the gender binary – and all that comes with it – when we limit our critique of human rights law to these narrow terms.
For Peterson and Parisi, understanding human rights theory as heterosexist rather than merely androcentric allows a more holistic criticism of human rights as exclusionary and does so without implicitly agreeing to the norms as set forth by the dominant power structure. After all, to say that international human rights law are only concerned with “men’s rights” begs the question of how to define “men.” The very concept of “men” is deeply enveloped in what the authors view as the dominant interpretation forced upon society of “masculine vs. feminine,” which is something they understand as immersed with the institutionalization of the modern state.
What’s at stake, it seems, for the authors is primarily a broadening of the critique of international human rights law with an argument that is more in sync with the feminist view that rejects the dominant notions of gender. Rather than critiquing human rights law on the basis that it centers on men, the authors are hoping to challenge it with a lens that allows all the variations of gender to come into focus. The pitfalls of a critique that focuses exclusively on androcentrism are multi-layered as once this acceptance of the gender binary is taken for granted, theoretical boundaries are limited to the dominant narrative – the archetypal Man v. Woman which, again, has its origins in the very structures of the state machinery.
If instead, the authors suggest, we take a view that understands and critiques human rights law as heterosexist, we allow ourselves to set the terms of the debate to one which includes a wide spectrum of gender and which refuses to accept concepts of masculinity or femininity. This seems a fundamental place to begin, otherwise we are incapable of incorporating a view that comprehensively challenges the myths that our society enforces about how human beings “ought” to identify and behave.

Peterson and Laura believed that heterosexism is a way of analyzing the relationship between gender differences and human rights. Human rights focuses on the domination of males and it is men’s rights, and women’s lives aren’t even recognized or protected by human rights instruments. If women chose to enjoy these rights they must become like men. Heterosexism refers to the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only normal mode of sexual identity, sexual practices and social relations (133). Human rights includes the practice of heterosexism and gender inequalities with the family. This includes group reproduction. Women are denied agency in the group and must comply with the male needs, their freedom is limited. The decision makers deny women of their personhood. These women can not be their own person because they are being told what to do how to do it and when to do it they are not free. They are even told when to have children and the amount they are allowed to have. Women are identified as a group based on the needs of men.

Heterosexism advantages men in many ways. It promotes gender identities which allows women to be excepted as subordinates to men. It privileges males interests over females interests. Women are only good for one thing and that is to reproduce. Women are the primary socializers of children and the family is the primary site of socialization. Gender hierarchy and heterosexism identifies and groups reproduction this divides women and men. Women cannot enjoy the freedom of their bodies or make any decisions when it comes to reproduction. They are not treated as humans. The masculinist culture only favors males. If a woman is pregnant with a female she must abort it. This is how they will began the male dominance by getting rid of all the women. They also believe in gender hierarchy which denies women equal human rights.

Women are not free to constitute groups in their own right but they may benefit from being member. These benefits includes being subordinated to the male group. Their interests are put on hold because they are subordinated within the heterosexist group. They don’t enjoy they rights of self determination that men do. Because male dominate the law making institutions a woman vulnerability is excluded. This means men are seen as humans and women are seen as others. So this means women are not seen as humans. What does other mean?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3094897/Readings_S17/MidtermExamRubric.pdf

In the paper “Are women human? It’s not an academic question” by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi, they argue that most of the time women critiques “human rights” as rights just for men, as a result women believe they do not have the same rights as men and they do not deserve the same role in society. In this chapter, Peterson and Parisi argue that first, it is very important to define what is the difference between androcentrism and heterosexism. Androcentrism is defined as “centered on, emphasizing, or dominated by males or masculine interests”. according to this definition, just men are considered humans with rights. On the other hand, the heterosexism defined as “relationship to sex difference (male and female bodies) and oppositional gender identities (masculine and feminine subjectivities) (Pg. 133) means the role of men or a woman influence at the moment of being part of the “human rights”

In order to analyze why women were marginalized because of their gender (female) the authors of this chapter considered women’s right according to the “three generations of human rights” (Pg 142). The first generation rights correspond to civil and political liberties were men were considered “humans” and women “others”. There was a gender inequality where women should be at home (private sphere) and were not able to work (public Sphere). Women were denied to have property and most of the time they were treated as property to men.

The second generation rights correspond to economic, social and cultural: where women’ job at home was not considered important and valuable. On the contrary, this is established as something with less value from a men’s work. In this case, also exists inequality of gender because if a woman has a job she gets less money that men. In the social aspect, women have a specific role as a housewife and mother. (Pg. 148)

Finally, the third generation corresponds to the rights of Collective/Groups rights. In this case, women do not have economic and political independence and they do not have their own identity. Women are not able to make decisions for themselves
As I was reading this chapter most of the points about how women are treated stood me out. It is really sad to see how big is the difference because of the genders (female/male). I believe the heterosexism has a big impact on gender difference and how human rights and are not the same for women and men.
I think even now women are treated as “things” rather than humans. Most of the time women are subject of oppressing in different situations as: domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment and everything looks normal just because we are women.

At the initiation of the essay “Are Woman human? It’s not an academic question”, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi, commence by briefing us of how the idea of “human” does not fulfill in itself to cover both men and women, but that its focal point has always been for the benefit of men. As supposed to viewing women as part of a “humans”, they are placed as second class citizens. Needless to say, they investigate of how “human” (gender binary) rights behaves when in regards of the concept of heterosexism(6).

The true nature of heterosexism as mentioned by the writer, is to set a sexual identity that is established by men to be attracted by opposite biological physical appearances. Not only is it a physical difference but that as such, their mutual different features attract each other to sexually lead the way of reproducing and socially forming a family. That there is no other way of which generations will be forming if such opposites do not attract, a norm of tradition set in the past to be continuously practiced. When one of the identified genders, women, are set to follow through heterosexism, under the patriarchal state, they are forced to not find alternatives of forming a social reproduction. Then, when that principle of behavior, placed under a patriarchal structure, starts becoming a disturbance among the traditional norms, we begin to detect a contractual interdependence of gender identity, social relations.

What begins to change in the identification of gender and of reproduction, also develops a division from within women and men identities. The formation of women then oppresses their other gender identity group under the notion of heterosexism. Yet when such heterosexist feminists are opposed to the notion, just as men are, laws begin to limit the behavior of women sexually, reproductively, socially and financially. Limiting also the extension of family formations. Also to the degree that because of such changes that are not in conformity with the normalization of gender identity, it leaves such group of women to not be protected under “human rights”. Leading to a risk of receiving derogatory actions and by not being protected by the law. Women of such, still under the private sphere become to enter the public sphere whether by choice or not, and suffer the threat of being marginalized financially and socially. The process of a new gender identity clearly raises a new approach of theoretical framing, of which then human rights should become more relevant to all and not just the privileged.

In their work “Are women human?” Peterson and Parisi first define heterosexism in their own way (because it’s true meaning is discrimination or prejudice by heterosexuals against homosexuals, which was incorporated into the piece as well at some point) which is to incorporate heterosexuality into a structured and formalized system, as the only norm for sexuality, and relations socially.

If you take the structure of family, in a patriarchy, it is the woman’s job to rear the children. Women are inherently deemed as the oppressed one to be dominated over by the males. The text discussed a “mother tongue” where through cultural transmissions one learns the world view, symbols, rituals, who is doing what labor, etc, which naturalizes heterosexism. Through this experience is where gender hierarchy is learned. The family is a microcosm of society; it is where social interested is developed, frustrated or thwarted.

In state making, the state circumscribed the female in every aspect in general. Their sexual behavior, their rights reproductively and its promotion was governed. The existing human rights are implicitly men’s rights. Thus, this leaves the woman having to be more like a man if she is to be on the receiving end of these rights. Women are more vulnerable in he private sphere and he states have made sure to kind of stick their hands into that realm as well, through their promotion of heterosexuality.

Women’s experiences and women’s issues are excluded from the law making processes because, within the patriarchy, the laws were made dominated by men. Thus the creation of human rights have been based on the experiences, bodies and perceptions of men. There is an artificial distinction between public-private spheres: home is where the woman dominates and public is where is the males dominate.

Laws have also made women’s honest contribution to society invisible. Women are seen are reproductive instead of productive in the eyes of the law. Women perform two thirds of the worlds labor but only receive the percent of the income to do so. The text expresses that since women’s identities are tied to their socially constructed roles as caregiver, emotional supporter, mother, their value as a earner of wage are not validated in the eyes of he law. Women are so undervalued in the workplace that even if the workplace is deemed unfit to work in for the woman (i.e. sexual harassment), nothing is done about it under the full extent of the law.

After reading the text I can see even more clearly how citizenship is sexualized and normalized as being heterosexual. But again to be a citizen implies that one must be male, white and heterosexual and to enjoy human rights you must be human which women are not thought to be human  they are believed to be the  other , “the marked and denigrated.” So to enjoy or exercise rights one must be a citizen which makes them human. Women and other groups (African Americans, immigrants, gays and lesbians) do not enjoy human rights protections because the institutionalization of heterosexism assumes men as the norm.

For Peterson in Parisi heterosexism is the best lens through which to see the structural inequalities that effect women and other vulnerable groups. Inequalities are produced and reinforced by the prevailing gender norms of society, which associate men and women with socially constructed gender identities.  These norms play a dominant role in the unequal relations between men and women. Women and other groups  are subordinate under heterosexism  and  face inequitable economic and health treatment, as well as an increased vulnerability to being victims of violence.

Heterosexism implies certain gender roles and responsibilities and protections. ” The heterosexual nuclear family unit becomes the primary social unit preserved and protected by the state, even as the state denies intervention in the private sphere” (Parisi, 1998, p. 144). Being that women are relegated to the private sphere they are not protected under human rights. They are subordinated in the private sphere and experience varying forms of human rights violations.

From what I’ve read so far, the language of various declarations of rights and the principles for which human rights framework  is derived was created to defend the rights of man and in particular elite men; male household heads. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  1948 declares: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honor or reputation”(United Nations) This article repeatedly uses the terms “man” and “his” and it also only seems to be talking about  how to protect the rights of the family from outside intrusion which is only addressing the public sphere. There is no mention of  woman or how she would be protected in the private or public sphere. Human rights are worded and built around male experiences and do not address the risks that women face (violence, unpaid labor, reproductive, political representation, etc). Heterosexism is precisely the way to analyze relationships of gender differences and human rights because  the early normalization and institutionalization of the man as property owners, man as citizens and man as breadwinner has continued to influence culture politics and  economics and continues to be the greatest factor impacting human rights discourse which continues to exclude women based on male ideals and norms.