å Sunday, May 7th, 2017

The conduction of Merry’s research along with her assistants in the article “Rights Talk and the Experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Human Rights to Protection from Violence” points out that women are placed in a domain where personal feelings of the law (executed by mainly men) are interfering with how women should be fully protected by their rights. It should not be a matter of the law having conditions, whether the victim should or not be defended, and as well the aggressor whether persecuted to full extent of the law or place it as a slap on the wrist.

The author terminated a close attention in how the representatives executing the law, view women, specifically in the situation as described as battered women, as being good victims and bad victims. Such informal titles used to categorize women across the board, clearly enables those who are applying the rules of the government to view the people in need of the law with a bias and subjectively. The method of which battered women have been victimized has established a number of individuals to collectively band in an effort to better support women of whom been victims of domestic violence. The activist not only place their supportive effort in educating them of what their legal right is as a woman, but also contribute in promoting enhancing skills where the couples can mutually find a common ground and acquire a preferred safe relationship.

Needless to say, the matter of the state, community and family members, interfere over-proportionately in private circumstantial affairs of couples’ relationship. A detriment set onto women, that if by having a situation that could lead them to a bad experience for enabling their right to defend themselves under the supposedly fair judicial law, then such act of pinpointing the problem becomes to women a much greater concern. That’s why it is important the emphasizes of such community outreach programs that can provided support in dire situations for women who have become victims of domestic violence. Not only should such programs that aide women in times of violent moments be viewed as supplemental establishments, but as necessary means of combating the privatized enclosed torture that women are encountering on a day by day basis. That the publicization of domestic violence towards women, be there in bringing out the issue at which women who also attribute in such cases in being unwilling participants by their male partner, lead to a transparency of awareness for all women and not selectively held as a mockery for women to just bear with it.

In the “Caliban and the witch” Siliva Frederici investigates the transition from federalism to capitalism. This had a major impact on women. Women could not afford living status because the land was being privatized. This transition to capitalism degraded women and it allowed the men to have full control.

Women didn’t work the land for long, they worked more inside the home. Women were a major part of producing children. They couldn’t abort any pregnancies or take any form of birth control, if they did then they would be committing a crime. Women worked to reproduce the next generation of workers. They forced to reproduce and take care of their husbands needs and to take care of the house. This in not really work it’s just wifely duties.

Women were not respected in the waged labor Felid because they were denied entrance. The money that she did make was not enough for her to survive off of. This led women to the lower class. This made women vulnerable and defendant on men. They were seen as some sort of breeding machine.

As Lughod (2002) analyzes, world events led to the marginalization of Muslim women and upheaved a movement and concentrated on religion being ostracized and discriminated against. Previous to September 11^th, the majority of Americans were on amicable terms with the Middle East, despite several conflicts and the Persian Gulf war. However, thanks to the American tragedy, Americans began to gravitate and look at the religion as a whole, to pinpoint the exact “cause” of 9/11. The result was objection and judgement towards women who practiced Islam, without regards to their insistence and own opinions, which ironically, is just as violating as the assumption that Muslim men disregard their opinion.

A catalyst in this argument was Laura Bush, who wanted to support her husband and his war endeavors to Afghanistan. Understandably so, Laura wanted to discuss the culture of the nationality that reportedly killed Americans on the tragic day. Within her research, she perceived the women in the situation to being trapped within their homes, and believed Americans invading the territory could liberate housewives and other women from their second class citizenship (Lughod, 2002, 874). Though it can be understandable to think of a terrorist’s wife being in this position, the vast majority of Muslim women are given freedom, and their freedom entails with following their religious orders and text.

As discussed by Lughod, it is quite comical to think that the Taliban “invented” the burqa, when in reality, it is a custom in several of the stricter Islamic nations. For these particular sects, the burqa gives the woman the most modesty (Lughod, 2002, 876). Some might find this offensive, but the same can be said about the chastity of nuns in Roman Catholic culture. While some would assume American influence in extremist parts of the Middle East might loosen customs, it should also be realized that for many, this is a preferred method, though others see it otherwise.

Another interesting reference is how the modesty clauses of Muslim women have become “fashion trends”, though their reasoning is purely out of respect for their religion. While many Westernized people and culture might find a Muslim woman’s outfit trendy when it does not involve a burqa or hijab, the purpose of this outfit is still to appease Allah (Lughod, 2002, 878). In a sense, Western culture fetishizes Eastern cultures, but then disregards the contexts from the culture, resulting in cultural appropriation. Along with this, there is a superiority complex, though all religions have factions that commit the same offenses.

In Merry’s discussion with the subject matter, what is realized and noted is the relationship between a woman’s status and her willingness to defend/support the law. Unsurprisingly, this is dependent on the relationship the woman has had with the justice system and her own treatment during such cases. When a woman feels supported and defended in a case of domestic violence or battery, she is more willing to believe in rights and other self-identifying cues when she has been supported; however, when the opposite occurs, she will also abandon the matter (Merry, 2003, 347). When law matters are taken into account, the pendulum swings dramatically with however the woman is treated. For example, women are now reporting domestic violence in higher volumes, thanks to police and society’s encouragement for women to speak out (Merry, 2003, 344). Still, the cases are gathering stronger support from women, because women are feeling that support and the issues concerning law dictate the subjectivity of this sensitive subject.
Law enforcement, criminal justice and the lack of these activities reinforces how women feel on this matter. As mentioned previously, women’s reaction to the system is all relying on how the system treats them. How the law formulates an opinion is unique in the circumstance, considering it is subjective in nature. When women are forced to admit to the law of their current status, they are also going through various motions to “clear” their name. Women are the forced into the criminal justice system, and put through various motions and events to enact possible justice in their case; this includes reporting the crime, talking with the police, discussing the matter with others for the case, writing out statements, and testifying (Merry, 2003, 351). In these actions, women are given various identities, and when it is supported, they feel stronger in the situation. Likewise, if the women are dismissed (thanks to bias against women), they will have less trust in the law and consider all “social justice” to be injustice.
Women depend on the very system that can break or make their lives easier, which is a frightening thought on its own. Despite this, women still manage to faith solace and faith in many situations, if they are respected in the process. Like any other human being, it is expected to not respect authority figures when one is not helped or aided during a crisis or troublesome time. In this matter, women identify with the law, but the matter is unfortunately subjective.

In Human Rights Fifty Years on: A Reappraisal by Tony Evans, there is a piece in this work written by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi titled “Are Women Human? It’s not an academic question.” In this piece V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak about heterosexism, androcentrism and its relationship to women’s rights and human rights. Heterosexism is defined as the “normal sexual orientation”, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Androcentrism is defined as main “focus or center on man.” In this piece feminist argue that men or part of humen rights and women are part of “other” rights, women are not seen as human, so they are under represented and devalued when it comes to Human rights. Both V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi feel differently from other feminist because, they feel human rights should be linked to heterosexism rather than focus on the relationship between the domination of men have with human rights. All throughout history men have dominated and/or been the center of focus when it comes to rights that are created and given and women have always been an after thought. Feminist today try to separate the men from the women when speaking of human rights. V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak of two spheres. There is the private/family sphere and the public/state sphere. The private sphere embodies women and children, the public sphere is designated for men. These spheres further divide men and women. Human rights were created by men for men, they do not address the rights of women. Human rights are not really the rights of women. These spheres further enforce the separation between men and women by keeping them apart. Too look at just women’s rights or the lack that there was of women’s rights we begin to see just how hidden their rights have become. Keeping them in a private/family sphere and/or realm separates them from the public and/or state. They were seen as property. Using heterosexisum allows women to be seen with men when addressing human rights because it connects them. Heterosexisum leads to reproduction, which leads to family. Family is a “natural gender binary.” It’s composed of two things and those two things are men and women. Just like most things heterosexisum is seen to have more privileges for men than women. The masculinity of men takes strong hold over the femininity of women leaving the two genders separated.