å March 2017

Human rights are in fact androcentric”, I found this quote very interesting because is basically saying that society or rather say, this world develops pretty much thinking that man was and still are the only focus point or centered. Human rights were made to only benefic man, it’s obvious because someone who was a male wrote those rights. Women were never included or protected by those human rights because they weren’t consider as being human beings. Man, created the ideology of being superior and dominant. Moreover, V. Spike and Laura Paris identify the meaning of heterosexism which, according to Spike and Paris it refers to as being the only one normal aspect of sexual identity, sexual relationships, and social relationships. Spike and Paris demonstrate the differences of man having their own right to do what they want and women having the right to do what they want. Heterosexist collectivities means women weren’t free to constitute groups in their own will or rights because they are mystifying within heterosexist groups. This another example of unfairness and inequality. In order for women to create a group, someone from the opposite sex needs to know and be in charge first. “Self-determination has meant the expression of men’s” (p.142), this is another example of women being discriminated by man. Women are being excluded because making laws is a job for man and still dominant by men. In class, we talked about who to blame for this issue, and we all agree that both gender, man and women are to blame. Its man fault to create an unrealistic ideology of thinking they are better, superior, and dominant. Its women fault to let all man think is this way and not stop it as soon as it happened. Private sphere of the home was the job of a women and public sphere of the workplace and government was a man job. All this issue is still happening, of course, at another level with time women have proof how capable they are. Women are excluded from the public sphere, which focus on human rights discourse and denials women equal rights. It’s extremely outrageous the experience women went through and until this day are. It shouldn’t be this way now because it’s very clear that women have the same capacity a man can have when it comes to making laws institutions, government, or politics. Slowly, but shortly things are and will change.

In their essay, “Are women human? It’s not an academic question”, Peterson and Parisi examine how human rights protect, or rather fail to protect, women by looking at human rights through the lens of heterosexism rather than androcentrism. Before we can examine their argument, it is beneficial to define both androcentrism and heterosexism. Androcentrism quite simply refers to rights as being centered on men and masculine characterisitics. Hetersexism, meanwhile, refers to normalizing the notion that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of relationships and basis for families. Now that we understand the terms, we can take a closer look at the authors’ argument.

Peterson and Parisi contend that human rights should be examined through the lens of heterosexism not only because heterosexism institutionalizes ideas of masculinity and femininity based on the socially constructed idea of gender, but it also renounces all but heterosexual couplings as the acceptable base for families and groups. The latter normalizes discrimination against non-heterosexual sexual identities and the former any gender outside of the two acceptable masculine and feminine gender identities. In addition to discrimination, analyzing human rights through heterosexism helps to explain how human rights fails to protect women while also hindering women from identifying with one another across groups based on culture, ethnicity, race, and class. Peterson and Parisi identify a number of ways in which this is done through the three generations of human rights, but we will examine the two overarching themes: the sepeartion of the public and private sphere and the role of group identity.

Peterson and Parisi assert that the socially constructed notion of binary gender identities is tied to heterosexualism which is in turn linked to the notion of the sovereign state and is then connected to human rights. At the same time, heterosexism enforces the separation of the public and private sphere. While the state is tasked with protecting against human rights violations, it focused almost solely on the public sphere. By keeping the public and private separated, the state fails to protect women where she is most vulnerable to violence and rights violations – in the private sphere. While there is minimal protection in the private sphere, there is plenty of regulation.

Heterosexism is connected to group reproduction, continuing the group, whether based on race, religion, ethnicity and so on. This subverts the personhood of women for two reasons – placing the identity of the group over the identity of the woman as an individual and by placing political control over women’s bodies. The former not only fails to recognize a woman as an individual but it also places the identity of the group in a higher place of importance than the identity as a women, which in turn hinders women identifying with women outside of their group. This then works to normalize inequality both within the groups (by gender) but also amongst the groups (by race, religion, etc). The latter removes agency away from women by taking away their ability to make their own decisions as it relates to their body and moving that decision making to either the state or their male partners.

Although written twenty years ago and while there have many gains in rights for the LGBTQ community, Peterson and Parisi make an incredibly compelling argument. The concepts they discuss surrounding gender identity, heterosexism, and group identity are so institutionalized it takes a dense twenty pages to just scratch the surface. We must understand how these ingrained cultural norms affect not only rights but our inability to organize across racial, ethnic, religious, and class lines.

Heterosexism clearly influenced the distinctions between man and woman. This discrimination prohibited any fair ideas about equal rights for men and women. Heterosexism prejudice was in favor of men in power. Often time this bias ideology affected most people without them even aware of what has happened. For instance, my mother always advised me to wear a skirt, close your legs and wear nail polish. Universally most people beliefs were developed from religion, culture and tradition. Unfortunately, many traditional practices were set up to benefit men. Heterosexism has influenced the conditions within society. Many people find it very difficult to remove themselves from lifestyles they are so deeply ingrained. As stated by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi, ” What has not been generally recognized [was] the bias that often underlies studies of both sex roles male dominance-an assumption that we know what ‘men’ and ‘women’ are, an assumption that male and female are predominantly natural objects rather than predominantly cultural constructions (pg.133). In my view, heterosexism has been intricately entangled within our lives. This integration makes it difficult to remove ourselves from situations. For example, some women may be in a verbally abusive marriage yet culturally she may be influenced not to leave the situation.
This idea about gender equality forces one to question the influence of culture, religion and tradition. Most people want to retain their deeply root ideas yet they understand male and female are natural objects rather than predominantly cultural constructs. As stated above. We are appeared to be tied to the unfair attitudes that religion, culture and tradition has established. Still today, we have the same problems with gender inequality. As stated in the New York Times, ” to be a woman in the United States is to feel unequal, despite great strides in gender equality, according to a wide-ranging poll about gender in postelection America released Tuesday. It’s catcalls on the street, disrespect at work and unbalanced responsibilities at home. For girls, it’s being taught, more than boys, to aspire to marriage, and for women, its watching positions of power go to men”. We closely examine how the same behaviors towards woman affects the decision we make.
Multiple factors have impacted distinct attitudes toward women. In the same way, gender difference was based on stereotypes human rights was influenced by the same set of conditions. Women were not acknowledged. Both gender inequality and human rights displayed how women were not equally accepted. Not only was heterosexism oppressive but human rights was oppressive too. Theories developed to devalue women occurred within two separate in distinct circumstances. Firstly, gender inequality existence at the same time human rights was not woman’s rights. As stated, ” we explored how [different] categories were made in historical time, and how that making normalized gendered identities and heterosexist practices that underpin existing human rights. In other words, discriminatory practices were integrated into the human rights scene. Presently we have one injustice after another injustice. For example, the Presidential election would have taken a turn around the corner. Had the single most qualified candidate been a man.

In society , for gender identity to become easier to understand, certain kinds of identities cannot exist.  The human rights sparks conversation and a reproduction of A naturalization of heterosexism and the family including gender inequalites within the family. Parish argues that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexual rather than focusing on the androcentrism of human rights discourse .  heterosexism became a naturalization in society .  A woman in a heterosexist home is treated unjustly , a heterosexist home is privileged by males and the males interest seem to over power a females interests.  This then denies or represses all other sexual orientations and gender identifications .  In heterosexism groups that are ran under patriarchal conditions involves a gendered class , race division of power and labor that institutionalizes inequalities within a heterosexist group.

Heterosexist principles of group reproduction , relegated women to reproductive roles.  Women are not treated as human in relation to economic, social and cultural practices.  According to the first generation of rights , women were always living under the conditions of patriarchy .  Man has always been a domination.  “Quite simply , it is therefore men’s bodies , experiences and perspectives that are reflected in human rights law.” (Pg. 143)   The masculinist state institutionalizes and sustains gender hierarchy which denies women equal human rights, both directly and indirectly. (Pg. 144)  Heterosexist families and masculine markets make the assumption that makes are the breadwinners, which continues to show the inequalities within a heterosexist household . Cultures that favors males , the preference for sons resulted into the abortion of females fetuses .  Worldwide , male privilege continues to let men make all the decision makings and have a special yet unjustly dominance over the female population.

what has not been generally recognized is the bias that often underlies studies of both sex roles and male dominance.  An assumption that we know what men and women are , an assumption that male and female are predominantly natural objects rather than predominantly cultural constructions. ( pg. 133) As we can see from the reading there is always an underlining truth when it comes to both sexes of male and female and that truth is the inequalites of both sexes . This domination that men has over a woman continues to take trend and be a part of our culture . Woman does not have the same rights as men , even when they are in a heterosexist relationship . A  woman in a heterosexist home is treated unjustly and a heterosexist home is privledge by males and a males interests while repressing the interests of women .

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