å March 2017

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.

Toni Mitchell
Assign #4
Samuel Moyn: The difference between human rights and the rights of a human.

The terms “Rights of a human” and “human rights” may be considered to be similar, but yet so different. In order to differentiate the two, I had to first find the true meaning of the word right itself. For most, a right may be defined as a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. But for specifically for whom are rights created. While reading the Samuel Moyn’s piece entitled the Last Utopia, I question if there were any changes at all. We are still tackling the same issues from the 1940’s. “All men are created equal’ is a term we loosely throw around without assessing it through the critical mind. While I do admit there are some major changes (I am living proof of it) in regards to physical enslavement, we are indeed still caged animals (too harsh?). “People think of history in the long term” Phillip Roth says, “but history, in fact is vert sudden” (Moyn,4).

Drawing from the reading, the rights of man were created were created by men (of course) and based upon what deemed necessary for society. And to be recognized as a man, it was required to have ownership of a property. This brings me back to my point about for whom are these rights created. if you weren’t a white male with property, are you then not human?

Human rights is a more of a modern term. The became popular after World War II. The idea of Human Rights is much like the one of Utopia. It is an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. Ironically, the tittle of Moyn’s book is called The Last Utopia and it is exactly that. The thought of the word alone introduces hope; the thought of everyone being equal, but it is not reality. It merely evokes hope and promote action (Moyn,1).

The term human rights has a certain ring to it. I can’t quite explain it but it does give me a sense of empowerment. Just uttering the words, I feel the urge to fight; to stand up for something. People to say that knowledge is power and indeed it is. For if i did not read, then I’d still be taking for granted the struggle our society faces today . I’d agree with Wendy Brown that the phrase human rights is not merely a cry for the weak, but for those wiling to pay attention about what actually taking place in the world. To understand that the battle is not yet over, it is only just now beginning. We must take what we learned and not only apply it but to question it as well.

Brown stresses the need for a sense of security in more than one area. It is true that social and economic recognition is necessary. For it it important for one to have all the required factors such as a rod over their head, food, education, and not to mention the right to feel safe which brings me to my next point: security inside neighborhoods considered lower class. A police officer code of conduct is to serve and protect. however for most, seeing a police officer means you might die tonight. As if that isn’t bad enough, Mass Incarceration is one of todays strategy of enslavement. The US has about 25% of the worlds incarnated people. Now where’s the sense of security in that? Most police officers are trained to target [most] young citizens from certain background to arrest. If the individual is has served his/her sentence; by the time they come home, they have been literally casted out of society. It is easy to access a person’s criminal background online, therefore any random person in the neighborhood may target that individual. if one should apply for a job, there is always mandatory section that asks about a felony. As if they person checked yes, he was still considered a qualified candidate.

Gentrification is another strategy used to revamp the ideology of slavery. Keep in mind, I am not referring to persons of a different racial background, it simply about the rich and the poor. We walk around the area, let’s say Harlem for example, and take notice to how beautiful the campus of Columbia University appears, but knowing that people are being pushed out of their neighborhoods because of raised rent or some shuck bought their building just knock it down, saddens me. Where are the rights of those individuals ? I mean aren’t they considered human. Don’t they have the right to stay in their homes? The Dakota Pipeline is a perfectly example of how “human rights” can be pushed aside and stepped on by those with power. The government is wiling to contaminate the main water source for the people living on that reservation and when the people decided to stand up and fight, they released canine. Although the choice of action was indeed cruel by the US government, the fact that the native fought for their land, people like me know heard their voices, which provides some reassurance that there is much more work be done in regards to claim of human rights as a whole.

Ive always questioned the phrase “all ‘men’ are create equal. Not in terms of …..but because of the usage of the term man itself. I find it interesting how society uses the term man to define citizens as a whole. It comes as no surprise that there’d be some tricky contract degrading women. The real question is why; is it really too difficult to fathom a reality where women receive the same respect as men. Not just in a financial sense but, but just as an human being. Hobbes stated that was no actual difference between men and women, but that sexual relation should be consented through a contract or by force. On paper, it states that it is against the law to discriminate against another based on religion, sex, racial etc. However, I feel as though it is only put in writing to shut us up. it’s like giving a dog a bone so doesn’t stare in your face while eating.

The recent election for example proves just that. I feel as though even if the opposing candidate was worse of moron that the Donald himself, Hillary Clinton would’ve still loss. Clinton did not loose the presidential campaign because of failure to impress citizens, but merely because she was a woman. It’s ironic how women are often seen as being emotionally incompetent, when indeed men. Even through job descriptions. A teacher jobs for example is considered a woman’s job because the nursing of a child is involved therefore the pay is a load of crap.

Another thing that stood out to me in the Sexual Contract read, is the determination of stature is based upon the father, grandfather, and his father so and so forth. As a child and even still till this day, it was always my dream to get married and change my last name. After reading the sexual contract, I do now question that policy. Why is that it is the man’s name that gets carried on for generations? I.e if you have a child, whether a girl or boy, it is the fathers name that is given as the child’s surname. It it such messages hidden in the sexual contact that intrigues me. I know for a fact that I am strong woman, but I am guilty of acting a certain away around my significant other. He doesn’t like me smoking (marijuana) because it isn’t “lady-like”. James Brown once said It is a man’s world (which obviously it is), but it is nothing without a woman. Men, they only hold us back, because they security fear what we’re capable of; Wouldn’t you agree?

Interestingly, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi examines the relationship between human rights and hetero-sexism, rather than solely investigating and questioning androcentrism as the foundation of human rights. Androcentrism, or something focused specifically on men, is clearly evident through close examination of the creation of human rights for a number of reasons we have already read about and discussed. However, hetero-sexism is not something I have necessarily related to the human rights discourse until reading this week’s reading assignment.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, hetero-sexism can be defined as a discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals by heterosexuals. With uprisings of revolutions, declarations, and ultimately of the Western civilization, there was an establishment of societal standards. These societal organizations and standards included social order and structures, language codifications, socioeconomic statuses, naturalization, a type of hierarchy within a society and ultimately, the inclusion of human rights. “Because we take modern state making as our starting point and fail to investigate this earlier transition, we ‘forget’ how political the making of sexuality and subjectivities – of ‘men’ and ‘women’ – has always been, and remains so today,” (p. 141). In other words, sexuality and gender have been appointed meanings and behaviors associated with fixed norms that are ostensibly, or seemingly, natural and innate, similar to our supposed human rights.

Much like the creation of the vague and questionable human rights, or even the rights of man, the creation of these fixed gender and sexuality identifications are advantageous for the male population for a number of reasons. Accepted and appropriate heterosexual relations equate to the acceptance of women’s subordination with acknowledgement of the equally accepted marriage contract. Hetero-sexism and masculism go hand and hand, and to limit hetero-sexism means to limit male dominance, which is essentially a problem for males in power. With sole acceptance of only heterosexual relations and binary sexual identities, hetero-sexist practices defused any potential for any other explorations, sexual orientations or gender identifications. Even in modern day societies, due to these historical definitions of “norms” in association with gender and sexuality, people are still facing oppression with regard to liberation and freedom of identity, sexual orientation and preferences. Groups, like LGBTQIA, have been created with the intent of revolutionizing how one’s identity can be interpreted and accepted where hetero-sexism is still instilled within the framework of a society.

“By normalizing hetero-sexism, non-heterosexual identities and practices are stigmatized as abnormal, thus fueling persecution of those who do not conform. And by creating the category of deviants while refusing to take responsibility for their protection, the state denies the violence it colludes in producing,” (p. 146). Again, there is still oppression within several states, considering that same-sex marriage is illegal and nonconformity of the “norm” for self-identity and sexual attraction is still subject to consequence by state law, law that is not subject to consequence for limiting someone’s self-expression and romantic desire. If hegemonic structures and governments have control over preferences, relationships, and ultimately how an individual can self-identify, then there is no question about the lack of credibility and the lack of disseminating human rights under, or even without the law, considering the actual amount of hetero-sexism built into the creation of these same human rights.

I’ve been thinking about our discussion last Wednesday and want to mention a couple of points from Ranciere’s essay, “Who is the Subject of Human Rights,” as they relate to arguments from Moyn’s book The Last Utopia.

In the introduction of his essay, Ranciere reads Arendt’s work The Origins of Totalitarianism to stress a distinction she makes. Arendt differentiates “the rights of man,” or political life, from “bare life,” or a conceptualization of “humanness” that she defines as a life that is abstracted from the political realm. As Ranciere explains, Arendt situates this turn—from the rights of man to human rights—as emerging from the conditions in Europe after World War I. In the aftermath of the war, there were refugees who had no link to “nation” that would ensure their rights. Like Arendt, Moyn suggests we need to differentiate the rights of man that predicated politics on a relationship to the state from the notion of “human rights” that emerges in the 1940s and that people begin to rally around in the 1970s and 1980s. As Moyn writes, “[human rights] was less the annunciation of a new age than a funeral wreath laid on the grave of wartime hopes” (2010:2).

But in his reading of Arendt, Ranciere stresses (and disagrees with) this distinction between political and social freedom. For Arendt, political freedom refers to the right of the people to oppose political domination, but her conception of social freedom refers to a conditionality of immediate necessity where there are forms of life that are not even worth oppressing. Connected to social freedom are the private rights of those who have nothing left other than their property of being human (Ranciere, 2004:298). Ranciere seems to object to Arendt’s argument that a political world is emerging that treats certain persons as beyond the realm of rights and counters Arendt’s approach with an understanding of “human rights” that instead politicizes distinctions that determine who can participate in politics.