fShatorra has 10 post(s)

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.

In her article “Do muslim women really need saving?” Lila Abu-lughod explores the ethics of the war on terrorism and argues that humanitarian and human rights structures Muslim women. The U.S concentrates on cultural and religious beliefs of Afghan women wearing veils which is a sign of oppression. But they have been freed from Taliban but still chooses to wear the veil. They do not seem to be taking it off. The veil symbolizes separation of men’s and women’s spheres. These women aren’t not being forced to wear these veils. So what do they really need saving from? They can choose not to wear them but hey do instead. They wear these veils knowing what they mean and stand for. Since they are making the choice to wear them then they must accept everything that come along with wearing them. I understand that most of these women wear these because of religious reasons but I feel that they should let something like a veil define their religion.

In the article “Rights Talk and the Experience of Law” Sally Merry argues that rights are adopted by their identity mostly gender identity. “Gender is an identity which is performatively constituted by expressions” (351). Each gender rights can also be identified by encounters with the police, courts, judges and etc. she talks heavily about battered women and how they should speak up about their violent relationships to receive help. The human rights movement depends on the government to comply with the victims to advocate for the right to help these batter women. The battered women movement relies on criminal justice that encourage women to see their violations as a form of a crime and seek help from the legal system. But some battered women are slow to take action because they are scared of what might happen with their husbands. They are afraid that their husbands may kill them if they take them to court. So women are so afraid that they may back down and drop all charges or they may not want to testify against their husbands. They also fear the shift in subjectivity in the law. They may be called or seen differently by the law. By taking in these rights requires an identity change between both partners. The women will been seen as self protected by the state and the man will be seen as a criminal and controlled by the state.

All of the interactions with law can take on a new identity and sometimes favor the gender. A male police officer may fail to arrest a man for abuse because he may not think batter is something serious. This may discourage women of feeling like they have any rights. So the women must assert themselves so they can have some rights and not just be seen as battered women. There was an increase in cases of men beating on their wives which lead to an increase in seeking help from the law. Women that have been batter came together to help one another and develop a shelter to supper battered women.

Women taking actions by going to the law is being looked at as an exploration. Trying the system and hoping it won’t fail them. By going to the law these women must know the risks; a hostile and angry partner, and it Amy challenge the mans masculinity. When a women calls the police or press’s charges it opposes the power of his masculinity. These women are conflicted by using their rights to come forward about their violations or keeping their mouth shut and being a good wife. Unfortunately they can’t do both.

Some the the women Merry interviewed reported fears and anxieties about going to the courts. Some experienced hesitation for a long time before they went to court. After some women went to court they found the legal system supportive. When these women went to court they slowly stated to their dignity back and feel proud.

The men also was interviewed and they expressed that they felt angry and humiliated. Some felt that it was only one sided and everyone in the court was in the women side. Some wanted to know after so long of abuse their wives wanted to speak up now and that their behavior was not serious at all. Others found it to be life changing and very helpful they started to support their wives.

I think Merry means that identity can be produced through the legal system. For men they can been seen as being humiliated and a criminal. And for women they can been seen as a source of the humiliation and a battered women.

In the article “ Role in the buildup and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 by Felicity Hill, Aboitiz ad Sara Poehlman, the security council resolution 1325 ensured that women were included at every level of peace and security and protect them from conflict. The security council protected women and children from rape and other gender base of violence. They also recognized women’s roles as agents of peace and involved them in peace building in war zones. This provided a tour for women to become equal parts of the fence for the protection of women and girls during conflict in United Nations missions.

The resolution 1325 lies in the United Nations system. It was built on a document passed through the United Nations. Non-government so efforts have provided information to the United Nations. The security council and DAW, UNIFEM, and NGO cooperated with one another to create a relationship. This helped to bring women into the security council. The CSW debated the implication of the Beijing platform for action. This document resulted in the world conference on women and devoted it to women and conflict. The ambassador of Bangladesh presided over the security council and encouraged women to gather you need for their involvement in all matters. Women were brought into the Security Council to discuss the roles of women in conflict and peace and to help gather support from the other security council members on the issue.

Women’s participation in the peace agreement pushed a special session in the security and women peace and security. Meetings were initiated to focus on gender issues and advancement of women. The protection of responsibilities increase the knowledge of women’s response to violent conflict and peace building. And provided lessons about Roles of women in proconflict and reconstruction for women initiatives.

In Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s work “Globalization and US prison growth: from military Keynesianism to post Keynesianism militarism” she explains the prison population and it’s connection to the state. The prison population is expanding because the use and trade of illegal substances. In 14 years the drug commitments to the federal and state has surged 975 percent and this has raised prison expansion. Changes in employment has also cause an expansion in the prison. When people are left without jobs how will they pay for their mortgage. They will turn to illegal entitlement which is a property crime. This has doubled in 1982. Wages were frozen and it made it hard for workers to buy things that they needed like a home. Racism is a major counter for prison expansion. 70 percent of those that were arrested were white and 70 percent of those that were put behind bars were black. The prison system punishes different people differently. Some communities and industrial sectors depends on prisons for income.

Surpluses is symptomatic of globalisation. Surpluses that may rang from finance, land and labor and state capacities. Labor had achieved protection and military workers was crushed and US hierarchies stayed in place. Youth in the streets, political alliances, and women and children without husbands and fathers were social crisis. The surplusing meant that society depends on the production. The recession has produced displacement and unemployment. The displacements became socialized to produce equilibrium from profound imbalances.

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?

In the first chapter of Samuel Myon’s, The Last Utopia he explains how “the rights of man” is different from “human rights”.

According to Myon human rights are a transition into the social movement. There have been people that created their own version of human rights. But explained by Myon human rights are treated as inborn, or long in preparation, people will not confront the true reason they have become so powerful today and examine whether those reasons are still persuasive (13). People know that human rights are treated as if you were born with it so why become so powerful when everyone was born with the same rights. Human rights were to be achieved through citizenship and to be protected. After 1945 Human rights didn’t serve as a foundation it just contradicted the sovereign nation. Human rights were seen as cosmopolitan faith (13) the Greeks thought they must have a place in history of human rights. That was opposed and equally believed that humans are apart of the same group and the rights are shared. In order for utopia to exist globalism and internationalism had to be ruled out. In the 1970 human rights focused on political and civil rights.

Myon described rights of man being a utopian that produced emotions, it inspired liberty and equality. These rights were a contemporary to human rights. Also it became the first principle of a constitution and farmers were forced to add it on to their own work in order to gain support of the right to man. This right is all about incorporating people a true meaning of citizenship. This is when democracy began. If this right became a movement it would secure the rights of the citizen nationwide.

Once the the rights was announced that they were God given or natural rights no one saw that they should include them. They could change them if they did live up to the demands. Rights were starting to be seen as creature, this made them decline. With the rights declining citizen movements were made. Women and workers and even enslaved blacks started to proclaim them. Animals were in deserving of rights. Human rights and rights of man may have seen to coincide with one another dealing with citizenship.

I am not quite sure as to what evidence Brown provided that supported her claim human rights activism. I notice that she used Ignatieff to explain human rights. She uses Michael Ignatieff to support her philosophy on human rights. She insisted that human rights are anti-politics. Human rights focused on pain and suffering rather than the political understanding of justice. Ignatieff claims that we must accept the suffering and fight through it. But later he realizes that he cannot limit his brief of human rights as suffering (454).

Ignatieff has three claims on human rights. The first is that human rights help people help themselves. The second is that in order to feel socially and economically secured civil and political freedom is required. And the last claim is the right to language and shared vocabulary so conflict and arguments can begin. These claims concerns the ontological, historical, and political logic of human rights. He also argues that when individuals have empowerment then they are able to protect themselves form injustice and decides what they want to live and die for

The last two claims mentioned by Ignatieff coincide with one another. Without the freedom to speak it will be hard for people to have social and economic security. If we want to feel secure in anything we must speak out and be heard.

In the sexual contract by Carole Pateman she explains how some theorist left out some information in the sexual contract. The theorist that written the contract wrote it to only benefit themselves. It benefited people of patriarchy men and fathers. I feel that women were not incorporated into the civil socostly as equal individuals. Men had power over women. Under the sexual contract women were subjects to men. Men could have access to their bodies anytime they please. Also under the contract men had policital rights over women. Women were subordinated to me and did not have any rights within the contract. The marriage contract only allowed women to come together with men to give birth. Both parents could not have rights over the child so they were given to the mother. The child would only obey the mother.

Different theorist had their own views of the social and sexual contract. One believed that women should be excluded from the original contract because it is made from man. Another theorist thought that women should be seen as an individual and men shouldn’t have rights over them. Marriages were seen as businesses and husbands and wives were business partners. The wife had to adapt herself to her husband , but the husband did not have power over her. If the wife obey her husband then in return he will protect her. In the nature state a women status as being seen as an individual was completely cut out.

Other theorist believed that women were not born free or equal individuals but seen as property and subjects to men. The equality between men and women disappeared. Who ever owned property had to protect it and if protected than that individual can do whatever they want to the property. They can sell it, rent it or even trade it to whom ever they want to.

Women were not incorporated in the civil society as equal individuals but incorporated as subjects, property, and subordinates. They were incorporated to make the men feel powerful and have rights over someone who wasn’t strong as them. These theorist wrote these contracts so that it would give themselves power and other men power as well. It wouldn’t look right if men had power over other men because they were seen as equals and they were born free. So it would make sense to have power over someone who wasn’t on the same level as men. This incorporation gave men power over someone who wasn’t born free but born weak.

My name is Shatorra Harris and this is my last semester here at city. The reason why I am taking this course is because I need a substitute for Spanish three. When I first came to city I entered in majoring in early childhood. The process to get into the program was longer than I foreseen so I decided to change my major over to social work. Although I love working with children I want to expand my knowledge and work with children and their families. At first I thought I really didn’t have any interest in this class but seeing how women didn’t have rights way back then and seeing the rights we have today is there really a huge difference. Hearing my grandma talk about her times when she was growing up and all this terrible things she had to endure made me think of how strong she has become.

Lynn Hunt describes the universal declaration of human rights as everyone being born with free an equal rights. The French did not believe in these rights. They had developed their own rights or deprived citizens from practicing their rights. The French declaration wasn’t so universal. They had blacklisted; people of color, children, mentally ill. And people who did not own property. The French was seen as discriminatory because of their inefficiency to acknowledge everyone truly having the same level of rights. When the rights  of man are ignored it would cause corruption. People would commit crime because they didn’t think that their rights were self evident. This happens today in the workplace. Workers  protest because they may feel that the employer is violating their rights as an employee.

Human rights must be consistent, identical and worldly. In order for these wise to be considered human rights, all humans from all over the world must acquire them on the same level. If you questions were asked such as when does someone have full participation of these rights? And do noncitizens share these rights and which ones? I believe when a person is able to fully understand their rights that’s when they should be able to participate in them. I also believe that all immigrants or noncitizens should also engage in these rights because they are still humans. They may have participated in the right where they came from so why can’t they participate in the right where they are currently residing. They’re able and aware of how to follow these rights. Thomas Jefferson changed the name of the rights to rights of man. But all men did not have access to these rights. Jefferson didn’t enable these right to Africans and African Americans but only to the slaves that were at home.

Human rights are not self evident because there is still some discrepancies within the rights themselves. It’s says that all men are born equal but one man or person can’t partake in these rights because of the color of their skin or because they came from another country.