å March 2017

Silvia Federici, in The Caliban and the Witch, puts forth a compelling argument in which capitalism depends on and enforces sexism. Imposing the separation of the public and private sphere, starting with common land being privatized and resulting with women losing control over their bodies and being legally infantilized, capitalism requires the subjugation of women to succeed. We will first look at the loss of the commons and the resulting loss of economy and agency for women.

Federici argues that women were more dependent on the commons than men were, not only for economy but also their social life. Prior to land being privatized, women worked alongside men tending to land and were able to sustain themselves through their labor. Additionally, the commons were used for women to socialize in a safe space with one another. Once land was privatized, women were relegated to the home, isolated from one another, and had no access to wages. This resulted in chronic poverty and dependence on men for their economic well-being. This is not to say that the privatization of the commons and move to wage earning was without hardship for men. The value of labor was so little it led to devastating poverty, which in turn led to a reduction in population as families that could not feed themselves were no longer having children. To counter the fall in population, women’s bodies were soon regulated, transferring control of women’s bodies from the women themselves to the state and men in general.

The state countered the stress on population size by emphasizing the importance of marriage, family, and reproduction. As a result, women’s bodies were highly regulated. Abortion and birth control were outlawed and demonized and the priority of the fetus took precedence over the life of the mother. In some countries, providing housing for unwed mothers was illegal.   Mid-wives, neighbors, and family members were reduced to spies, reporting ‘suspicious’ activity to the government: women entertaining men in the home, walking about by themselves, suspected sexual activity without the goal or procreating. Women were required to register their pregnancies and faced death should an unregistered pregnancy result in death for the infant prior to being baptized. Women were reduced to their role in procreating and lost all sense of agency.

Centuries later, we still find ourselves fighting for the same rights. The advent of capitalism devalued women’s labor, particularly labor performed in the home, and criminalized women’s bodies. Understanding Federici’s argument that capitalism requires on the subjugation of women, we cannot help but wonder if we will ever have fully equal rights under a capitalist system.

In The Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici, she begins saying how in Europe land privatization was the beginning of the Capitalism. In the 16th century, for example, European merchant got land from the Canary Islands to convert this land in a sugar plantation giving to Europe an easy way to increase their wealth.

After reading this chapter it is clear that the degradation of women that Federici refers is the treatment women had during this period of transition to a Capitalism. The state felt it was the owners of the women body. Since the beginning, there was a sexual division of labor making women more dependent on men. For example, the state and the people who hired women to do any kind of labor established the wage based on men’s labor. As a result, women’s wage was lower and they still had to dependent on men all the time(Pg. 75). From this unpaid labor or not equal wage the State was able to get more wealth.

As the book mentions the reduction of wage affected not just men who had to work more and get less money but also affected women’s wage in a tremendous way. “In the 14th century, they had received the half pay of a man for the same task; but by the mid-16th century, they were receiving only one-third of the reduced male wage” (pg. 77). This reduction in wages caused several women to choose prostitution as a way to earn money and support their families.  Of course, this was another way to minimize women since prostitution was not considered as a job.

Something that surprised me to read was how women were judged and punished if something happened to their children. During the  16th and 17th century there were forms of surveillance for women during pregnancy and maternity. If for some reason the baby was born dead or died during childbirth the only guilty person was the mother. This was considered  infanticide and  the mother had to receive a punishment as be executed.(Pg.88)

In this chapter by Silvia Federici, we found how women’s bodies were controlled by the State. Women were considered machines that only served to work and as the author mentions “produce children for the state” (Pg.92). Women could not have any important employment and there were forced to get jobs as domestic servants, farmhands, spinners, knitters and even all these occupations were considered not important and not “productive”.

Finally, because there were no jobs prostitution became a form women used to survive and this was also judged with punishments, for example in Madri if a woman was in the prostitution she could receive a hundred lashes (pg.94).

In light of our discussion last night about the midterm exam, I re-read your posts this morning on Hunt and Moyn.

In assignment 1, many of you focused on the promise of “human rights” that Hunt attributes to documents like the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Others of you cannot move beyond the contradictions of these documents that proclaim equality yet do not address all of humanity. Both of these issues are addressed by Hunt. The midterm asks you to consider the relationship of “human rights” to “the rights of man,” a relationship that is treated differently by Lynn Hunt and Samuel Moyn. To understand Hunt’s argument, I recommend reviewing pages 18-19.

Re-reading your responses to Moyn, for assignment 4, several of you underline his point that “the rights of man” are joined to the creation of states and nations. This is a point that he stresses when he argues that human rights should be distinguished from the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. He argues that we must pay attention to the political and economic circumstances surrounding the broader appeal for human rights that emerged in the 1970s. (One place he makes this argument is on page 12. You might also re-read pages 42-43.) Human rights are different from the rights of man, as Moyn explains in conclusion to chapter 1, as they refer to rights that would be placed above the state and nation.

In the chapter we read from her book, Transnational America, Inderpal Grewal begins by underlining that human rights discourse is a relatively new idea: “the only way to address issues of social justice, oppression, and inequality within states and across them” (2005:121). As you consider the relationship of her work to Moyn’s and Hunt’s, I encourage you to re-read pages 123-124 (especially the questions she raises on these pages). Here Grewal considers human rights discourse as a way of understanding relationships among states in a global world. She refers to these relationships as “techniques of governmentality,” a term that signals her view that “human rights” have some positive but also negative implications. I also recommend looking again at pages 126-130. On these pages she notes that the idea of “women’s rights as human rights” gained currency among diverse groups, including the U.S. State Department and rebel groups around the world.

I hope this helps guide you as you begin to prepare for the midterm. Please bring your questions about the exam to class next week or post them on WordPress.

Due Sunday, March 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 Caliban and the Witch, Silvia Federici argues that as a social-economic system, capitalism is committed to sexism and racism (2004:17). In your own words, describe the degradation of women that Federici points to in chapter one of her work. How does she connect that degradation to accumulations of wealth in a capitalist political economy?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3094897/Readings_S17/Midterm_WRHR_3_17.pdf

Toni Mitchell

Assign 5-

They say knowledge is power and indeed it is, but it seems as though the more I read the more upsetting it is to unfold the truth. V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi pealed back a layer of our Declaration in regards to the arguments surrounding the lack of focus placed on gender identity and its influence upon the political realm. In the essay “Are women human? Its Not an Academic Question”, Peterson and Parisi express the need for heterosexism as oppose androcentrism when examining the relationship between women and human rights. Heterosexism is basically the assumption that everyone is or should be heterosexual and that heterosexuality is the only normal, natural sexual orientation. Which brings me to my next point, if androcentrism is defined as the focus of men and heterosexism focused on the distinction of men and women; don’t they fall on hand in hand? Either way it is the man of power who gets the final draw.

I must admit that I grew up recognizing heterosexism is the “normal” way of life and for one to in be involve with the same sex or identify themselves as another sex was against the norms. It wasn’t until I’d recognize the true state of freedom did I then begin to see no barrier in regards to gender (there goes that word again), race, social/economical background. The term Heterosexism itself not only discriminates against other sexual preferences but also the discussion of human rights as to pertains to woman and man. The tittle of the essay itself raises the question of whether or not women are considered human beings. The marital contract for instance is the perfect example of how men continuously manipulate the female species. As a female, one is expected to aspire to idea of marriage. Think about it; a majority of little girls by the age of three want to be princesses living in a castle with handsome prince. If you pay closer attention, it is always the princess who needs saving. Once again unconsciously promoting the degradation of women.

We as a society will associate the terms heterosexuals with reproduction and abortion with murder a way to further institutionalize women. We lay the burden of [the] continuation of life based upon the male and female being with each other as if there aren’t other way to conceive a child. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the current president of the united states seems pro Antiabortion. In my opinion the only person who should have a say in abortion is the woman, for it is her body. It is the one thing she has claim over; ones own property. Isn’t property what make one “human”?

In today’s society, people have been taught that heterosexualism is a way of life. For men and women to be identify as a “normal” couple.  Since the beginning of time, “the Bible” has stated this in its writing as first came man and then a woman. This as been taught over and over it has been passed down by generations. The word “heterosexism” means “it can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only normal and therefore superior”.

Women rights are marginalized in three generations of rights. The first right is civil and political liberties. This is criticized by women and is consider “men’s rights”. The second generation rights , economic, social and cultural rights and to be a limited degree cultural rights. But the second generation rights fail to address, economic, social and cultural issues.(pg. 147). Women are consider “secondary”, what they do is not important or taken serious by men. The third generation of rights, seeks to preserve the integrity of a particular cultural, ethic or indigenous group through the right of self- determination (pg. 151) . This group is emphasized on culture instead of the rights of the identities of the people. The groups rights would be problematic for promoting women’s rights. Women should have the right to reproductive rights, fair job wages, own their property, free education (to learn to read and write).

In some cultures today, women have no rights at all. They are only good to reproduce and take care of the family. That is their only sole purpose. I work as a Caseworker for senior center, some men and women see me and are surprise. I guess since I am a woman of color, minority. A lot of women praise me and some tell me they wish they could of went to school and learn to read and write. In my experience a lot of women because they are women are disproportionately affected with basic life needs ( income, healthcare and shelter). A lot of women in NYC are homeless. As I read this chapter “Are women human?” it is clear that men rights are the human rights under heterosexual social relations. And how rights for women are a problem. This oppression must continue to be eliminated and women must continue to change men views. During this time of 2017, I believe things are changing maybe not as quick but in time we will see good changes for women.

According to Parisi and Peterson, heterosexuality should be used in the discussion of human rights, instead of the argument of how it suppresses others. The latter is used in feminist theories, who seek to represent minority groups and consider heterosexuality the majority. However, there is validity in Parisi and Peterson’s argument. If one can ponder on it for a second without considering the oppression, heterosexuality is the basis for life, and understanding its links to humans will also explain the social issues and human rights one desires.

As stated in many discussions, heterosexuality is the more promoted sexual preference because of its biological benefits of reproduction (Parisi and Peterson, 132.) Thinking on it without bias or judgement, the only way for humans to reproduce properly is to engage in vaginal intercourse, between a man and woman. This biological benefit is the reason for many’s preference for heterosexuality. Thanks to this preference, society is more engaged in male domination, because it is the male, whose sperm infiltrates the woman’s egg, produces the action that will create the future child (Parisi and Peterson, 138.) Patriarchist societies and thoughts originate from this sole fact, which is the reason for women rights issue: since males are the ones who release the needed substance to create a child, they feel entitled and in power over women.

Breeding heterosexually has also led to a gender division in lifestyles. From politics to household work, heterosexuality has led to the very basis of human living. Males and females are delegated roles and have expectations for their birth given gender or sex. Due to this, humans are instantly shaped from infants into a specific gender role and expected to follow this (Parisi and Peterson, 139.) When people deviate from their culture’s standard for gender, they typically face the harshest punishments. This, for feminists and others, is a major violation in human rights and social issues, but can be explained from this heterosexual fact. An example is the marginalization of women’s rights for three generations: because women are expected to be nurturers and caregivers, their “want” for more freedom is looked upon as greedy and socially unacceptable, considering the actions deviate from the norm (Parisi and Peterson, 142.)

Feminists have every right to combat the theories behind heterosexuality and why it hurts many alternative lifestyles. However, it should be explained with heterosexuality as well. The biggest concern for many is why these other outlooks are considered repulsive and people violate it. If you can look at the beginning of mankind, heterosexuality explains it easily. To many, heterosexuality is the only way to go, because it has far more benefits for society than the individualism behind the LGBT community, who cannot produce more members of that culture. This is the reason behind human rights violation, and it should be explained so both sides of the aisle become educated.

In V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi’s article, Are women human? It’s not an academic question, they bring forth the question of whether or not women are considered to be human. In addition, they bring get forth the argument that when thinking about human rights, we must consider the fact that all the rights created and included are mainly androgentric. The very fact that the first concept of any kind of human rights to be created was called the rights of man is a perfect first example to help back up their argument.

Now, taking a look at Peterson and Parisi’s article, they start off by giving, what I believe to be, a very powerful sentence, “… women suffer more violations of human rights than any other group in the world, both in times of war and through traditional practices excused by culture”(Bahar 1996, 107: 132). Womens humans rights are the most violated out of any other ethnic or religious group that can be thought of.

Having that in mind, Peterson and Parisi bring about another argument which is that heterosexism is a more precise way to look at the relationship between gender differences and human rights. They state that heterosexism is now institutionalized and defined as the only “normal” form of sexual identity and orientation. They also state that with heterosexism, women are capable of taking on more masculine traitso and males could do the same. However, the typical male attributes and stereotypes such as “reason, agency and dependency” are considered more the norm and are more widely taken up than the female attributes and stereotypes (132). Thoseven attributes and stereotypes being the complete opposite of men which are “affect, non agency, and dependence” (132). The fact that men are held to a higher standard physically, mentally and emotionally is what has set them and their “stereotypical attributes” as the norm, generalizing it which is preventing the equality between men and women. However, this leaves out room for any other forms of sexual identity and orientations, such as homosexuals, Transgender people, etc.

Although, while the main distinction remains between men and women, it’s mainly all a man’s world. Women were always subordinate to men, and this argument of heterosexism is just another way to come to more or less the same conclusion. Even though women are supposedly made to be included in these basic human rights, they’re really not it’s just to make them feel like they are.

Though I haven’t studied it extensively, what I have learned about gender (and its construction) comes from Judith Butler. Peterson and Parisi quote her early on, explaining that institutionalized heterosexism symbiotically creates and supports ideas of masculinity and femininity (and that masculine traits are exclusive to the male sex, and visa versa) and dictates the creation of gender through these ideas. Leaving any other configurations (transgendered or homosexual persons) outside of mainstream (normative) society. Heterosexism also normalizes the nuclear family, disguising the contract of marriage as a natural life progression outside of the political realm, and obscuring female (female sex, not female gender) agency. When human rights supports this socialized system, it is to support this founding block of the subjugation of women, and it supports this system by respecting what certain definitions of “private” and “family” and declaring human rights in the public realm.

To put it most simply, what I think Peterson and Parisi are arguing, when they say that we need to examine heterosexism to really explore gendered differences in human rights , is that the previous conversation has existed only within a box of heterosexism. Theorists have been examining sexism and other gendered differences without seeing gender as a construct. That is to say, without taking a step back to see the larger picture, and recognizing that many ideas and concepts that have been taken for granted as a natural way of being are in fact social constructs, and that we cannot unpack an issue like sexism without first unpacking why it is that we apply a gender to sex, and attempt to keep sex within a set of rules (i.e., a person of male sex is sexually attracted to women). Sex is so integral to the way that we think of “humans” (it is typically the first category we use when dividing groups), that is impossible to think of what human rights are, and who they serve without examining sex. But a thorough examination of how we examine sex requires breaking through our assumptions, the ideas we’ve assigned to sex. Those ideas happen to be heterosexism (though it could have happened other ways, similar to the current idea of what human rights are could have gone several different ways).

Peterson and Parisi take their argument a step further, as they move through different areas of theory (from political to social science) and examine how the works from each of these fields interacted to create this system. They are able to take feminist critiques of human rights and push them a step further. From a focus on androcentrism, deliberating the ways in which human rights have favored men, to heterosexism, we begin to look not just at the sexism in human rights, but the rules and structures that have put that sexism in place, and kept it there, rules that govern our society.