å Monday, May 8th, 2017

The article “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”  by LiMa Abu-Lughod examines the way that individuals visualize the ideal of a “typical” Muslim woman. This ideal that is given to the that hey need the rest of the world to save them, is just simple minded. The stereotype that is given to them always sees them as victims. The idea that these  brace and strong woman are t fragile and may sometimes choose to wear burkas simply is mind boggling to them. Muslim woman are accustomed to wearing and covering their traditional religious veils. From societies perspective they’re being oppressed. From other societies perspectives they are being oppressed and not given their human rights. The question is how can we say this without questioning how with our assumptions we are neglecting them from their freedom as humans. They’re human rights are being taken away for the simple fact that other societies are not understanding their culture.

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and It’s Others” she gives some insight as to how and why Americans came to relate the burqa, amongst other forms of covering, with the Taliban and other forms of terrorist groups. In addition, she argues whether or not Muslim women really need saving from where they are, or if they chose the life they have and are living out. She starts off by writing that we should consider the meaning if the burqa and other forms of covering , as well as veiling. While reading I have come to learn that women who cover themselves do so in order to show their social and economic standing. Although also for religious reasons, Muslim women have become accustomed to covering themselves because that is the society and community in which they live in.
These women say that only “good women” can wear burqa’s or veils. As a woman who makes a living as a street vendor had said, “If I did [wear the burqa] the refugees would tease me because the burqa is for ‘good women’ who stay inside the home (Fremson 2001:14)” (Abu-Lughod 2002: 786). Here we see that it is actually considered as sort of honor to be able to wear such coverings. However, after the Americans freed people from Taliban control, they assumed the women would no longer cover themselves with scarfs or veils, but were mistaken in thinking that they were being forced to cover themselves. They were not and as Abu-Lughod points out, it is rather that Westerners would have Muslim women adopt Western attire instead of maintaining the attire that they have been used to their whole lives.
Abu-Lughod gave an example of a time when French colonialism existed in Algeria and wished to enlist women’s help in order to move forward with their cause. That cause being that they wished to “… transform Arab women and girls” (Abu-Lughod 2002: 785). The French wanted the Arab women and girls to like the French, Christian women, much like when the British ruled Egypt. This is meant to show that whenever another country went into a Muslim country to “liberate” or “free” them, it doesn’t always bode well for the people who are supposedly meant to be “liberated”. Abu-Lughod implores us to look at the bigger picture, the fact that there are much larger problems to be worried about an need to be dealt with. Rather than wanting these modest Muslim woman to be someone they are not, they need to be left alone so that they may live their lives freely, since that was the initial intention.

Before the Resolution 1325 women’s issues weren’t integrated in the council’s activities and also the council never recognized the women’s roles of “agents of space”. After Resolution 1325, women became equal participants in negotiation, and women and girls were able to be protected during armed conflicts. Resolution 1325 was used by women and peace groups throughout the world. Since the Resolution 1325, women’s organizations occurred, NGO produced documents monitoring of its implementation, and the Inter- Agency Taskforce on Women, peace and security at the UN has coordinated a system-wide implementation strategy. It ensures that women groups receive concrete financial and technical support and a result of the Resolution 1325 there was a high demand for women to be included in decision making, and woman have been included in the discussion about reconstruction of Afghanistan and in the Inter- Congolese Dialogue. In October 2001, the Security Council reaffirmed its strong support for for increasing women’s role in decision making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution. Also, women were allowed to be a part of peace accords, constitutions, and strategies for resettlement and rebuilding. Before Resolution 1325, women weren’t even thought about or considered doing anything important in their community but as soon as Resolution 1325 was passed women were able to do more than just be in the background. They were now able to make decisions, have and voice their opinions. “On March 8, 2011, IA’s Women Building Peace campaign handed Specil Advisor Angela King more than 100,000 signatures from more that 140 countries, from women, women’s organizations, and civil society groups working for peace and social justice, in support of women’s demand for protection, participation in decision making, and an end to impunity for crimes committed to women.” Crimes committed towards women sometimes to most of the time go without justification and just because they are women is one of the reasons as to why they go without justification. I under sat and why women would sign something that could and will give them a further foot up in the world and would allow them to have their rights that they deserve and that are supposed to be their natural rights. In 2002 working group members held 12 events to bring attention to Resolution 1325. More than 100 people advocate and implement the resolution. They also organized International Women’s Day which gets a lot of attention. Thanks to Resolution 1325 women are now and have been for a while to have a say and their own opinion and much more in modern day society.

In this work Parisi’s initial question is asking how does the cast type of male and female normalize heterosexuality as the meaning of human. Since the history of man it has been clearly understood what makes a man and woman different biologically but this piece examines how because of these cast into male and female dictate a hierarchy in which men are over women. She talks about how the coding into masculine and feminine is generated right after birth it is even included in all of language. Hetero-sexism  is what has been considered normal by western culture. The struct of the house in which the man is the head of the house hold the woman is to serve the man and to take care of the house and the children while the man is the provider for the family. She talks about how heterosexuality and the family recreate the human rights discourse in which the public and private spheres are naturalized and the state is supposed to be bother protector and violator of rights. We have seen this in other works are well. Her reasoning for the belief that heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing to relationship of gender difference and human rights is already fore stated. She puts a big emphasis on the effect of the normalizing of even the idea. It has been written that the man is the head, adopted by not just the western cultures but we can clearly see how it has been adopted by the eastern cultures as well , accepted by the woman and understood by society. The characteristics that define masculine and feminine has been almost set in stone that that any deviation causes concern and puts the normalization factor at risk of forever being tainted. Women have been told of there role pre put in a sphere a told this is how life must be at the expense of the safety of women. You as a woman are to be safer in the house not in the public eye and because it was adopted and accepted and not question or questioned but never out loud and never openly objected to, this is why it is so easy for heterosexuality to be the defining factor in how things should be. When someone tells you something who is supposed to have the best interest at heart you don’t think to question it. The spheres were created by men who control the state so is it any question women would believe that this is the way things have to be.

Ruth Gilmore argues that expanding the prison population should be connected to a restructuring of the state. The crisis that Gilmore joins to the prison population in the United States is that the more people that are imprisoned the more women and children are without husbands and fathers.  There is a social crisis because a lot of African American men are the ones that’s mostly going to prison and is making the social structure of things unbalanced.  It seems like prison is this so call ” fix” for all of the chaos in society. “Until the 1960’s virtually all riots in the United States were battles instigated by white people against people of color, or by public or private police (including militia and vigilantes, also normally white) against organizing workers of all races. ( Gilmore 175) A good question was brought up in the test, “if crime rates peaked before the proliferation of new laws and new cages, what work does prison do”? and the test is right if crime rates were decreasing what was the point of having all these prisons being made? The test explains that the reason for this prison expansion were related to racism, racism especially towards blacks.  This whole prison system treated the different races unjustly and the black were the ones getting the shorter end of the stick.

This prison expansion was a way to put a end to the socio-economic problems which of course was created by the state, it was not done to help the people of society but more to help the people in the state. “the state has used its enormous capacity to raise money, buy land and build and staff prisons. It also makes new laws that guarantee incarceration for more and more kinds of offences, old and new.” (Gilmore 185)  Its like it was their solution (the state) to lock out someone and throw away the key so you wouldn’t have to deal with them again in society.  Over all there were many different explanations for the expansion of the prison population, drug epidemic, structural changes in employment opportunities,  however when the prison round ups began crime did indeed start to decrease, the public wanted a decrease in crime and they was in fact getting what they wanted.  Even though the crime was going down the state was still making more and more prison beds. It still comes into question, was prisons really the fix? or the cover up.