fEthel has 10 post(s)

The United States feminist organization discourse on humanitarian and human rights in Taliban clearly secured women’s safety. At the same time, the U.S. encompassed an oil deal with the Taliban. Obviously, the political relations between the two countries unveiled a significant emergence toward obtaining power. Both the U.S and the Taliban complicity concealed a relationship. This brings to my mind, suspicion. The development of a major capitalist project. The two countries were arranging a relationship that would have had a long history of interaction. An oil pipeline in Taliban. The shock to the conscience is in one setting the U.S. is approaching the Taliban with a negotiated deal yet on another setting the U.S. is systematically struggling for human rights and dignity for woman. What hypocrisy! The feminist organizations continuously advocated to protect the women. They fought vehemently for human rights for women. They persistently advocated for women’s freedom. This support for women occurred in multiple fashions. In accordance to Lila Abu-Lughod in Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? “She stated, [although we struggled for women to thrive and live decently] we must accept the possibility of difference…Taliban women might want different things than what we might want for them”. In other words, the U.S cannot always expect to shape the ideas of oppressed women. We cannot totally disrupt a culture and moral principle because the Western organizations considered themselves rescuers. America cannot ideally reshape Taliban women’s identity in exchange for a women’s freedom. The U.S closely linked Taliban women’s independence to stripping away the Burgas. They portrayed the unveiling of women as symbolic to autonomy. They described the Taliban culture as an alien culture.  The U.S deemed themselves as the savior for Taliban women. Their discourse was extremely bias. Now I do not critique the feminist campaigns that was truly instrumental in bringing awareness to the suffering of Taliban women. Although some organizations successfully empowered many Taliban women they were unsuccessful in transforming all women through their intellectual dialogue.  I find it questionable any women would have separated from their culture and moral principles. The deep-rooted interrelationship among Taliban women, men, family and religion not to mention culture and moral principle was interlaced. The U.S. attitude and behavior echoed a broader message. The created a reshaping in 11the women’s values. For instance, to remove the Burgas from Taliban women was symbolic in removing any memory of their past. Also, the Burgas represented importance in a women’s life. The disruption in the Taliban’s cultural and moral principle was troublesome. So, America’s intrusion in Taliban life quickly proved an inception of colonization which was not what Taliban women desired.

Most abusive individuals make the wrong choices. By verbally and or physically attacking an individual. Some individuals believe any aggressive actions toward their spouse is a family matter. They assume husband wife; girlfriend boyfriend and personal relationships are private problems. Any individual with such an attitude about forcefully harming another person has committed a crime. Their aggressive behavior is no longer a private incident. The domestic occurrence quickly becomes an awkward situation whereas an individual finds himself entangled with the courts. Any assault incident in no longer in the private sphere its governed by the judicial system therefore it’s a public matter. The judicial institution has clear laws about violence against women. The discipline imposed upon individuals can produce an individual who follows the normal acceptable positive behavior. Or the punitive actions against a batterer can be a hindrance whereas the individual shifts further into deviant behavior patterns.
Most men who are drawn into the judicial system because their ideas about striking women are linked to an assumed belief of entitlement. Some men associate marriage, culture and masculinity with a special liberty to handle their relationship troubles by whatever manner they chose. In addition, some men ancient traditional customs influenced their negative attitude towards women. For instance, abusive acts towards a woman was acceptable in some households. In other words, men complained about a women promiscuity so he hit her.
Multiple men entangled with the judicial system believed they were emasculated, humiliated and left powerless. They were confronted with the truth about their conduct and their explanation fell on death ears within the judicial system. Some individuals were removed from their household, family, society. To put an end to domestic violence many perpetrators were transported to jail. The judicial institution reinforced their intolerance for domestic violence. Perpetrators were forced to take anger management classes, although they resisted. Perpetrators were educated. They were given an opportunity to change. Most refused anger management courses. The judicial institution had the power to transform individuals. Both women and men conformed. Men were alienated from their family therefore they were left feeling feminized. The women were more independent depending on how much support they received from social programs. A victim’s autonomy was created from a tragic situation. The women were temporarily removed from their previous dependency on men. They were either self-governed or closely surveilled by social services. Women advocates and counselors conversed with multiple women about their rights. The man and the women appeared to have reversed roles. The women became head of the house, empowerment. Under close supervision from the courts the women coerced into testifying. She must conform to the judicial rules, she must give her testimony in the courts. Some victims oppose the legal demands yet they go along with the required governed procedure.
Individuals identity has shifted in multiple ways. The judicial institution has made either a positive law abiding citizen. Or a deviant individual who commits the same sort of crime again. All race, class and Both man and women from all different racial background and class has been affected by the constraints of judicial institution. The perpetrators and victims are different subjects. Their past identity has been extensively shattered. For instant, some women would have never imagined being the mother and the father to their child after the father was removed from the household. Some men could have never fathomed his wife would have testified against him. The making of a new identity.

Hill Et Al: Resolution 1325 and its effects on the inclusion and the protection of women.
The 23 October 2000, Security Council adopted Resolution 1325. A landmark decision, Resolution 1325 confronted crimes against humanities. Many nongovernmental agencies relentlessly fought to shield women, children, and civilians from horrendous war crimes. Two things were happening, Firstly, major resolutions about humanitarian issues were to protect humans. Secondly women were inclusive in debates, decisions and society polities. Many nongovernmental agencies relentlessly organized lectures at the United Nations, Columbia University and they gave out pamphlets to educate the world. Internationally and nationally people views were transformed Nongovernmental agencies facilitated evidence about horrendous crimes as far as illustrated testimonies. Also, ministries about the sexual crimes in wartime societies illustrated. Clearly women were embraced to describe the atrocities. A women’s detailed description was necessary because they received the greatest sexual abuse. Continuously women advocated and they were incorporated into policy making. As Hill Et Al stated, Resolution 1325 shaped renewed lens thereby women were not undervalued, women were not underutilized and women were eventually placed in leadership roles. Nongovernmental agencies made an impact whereas they created social programs to safeguard victims from war torn societies. I do not deny Resolution 1325 was a necessary document: however, I believe a strategy to implement the policies was complicated. I believe it would have been extraordinarily difficult to prevent women, children and civilians within the chaos of war from being attacked. National and international government promised protection. But establishing safety in the middle of a war tends to be questionable. My point is the United Nations imposed a policy enforceable by law. Of course, any crimes against humanity I truly believe must not be tolerated. The fact that individuals are held accountable for war crimes after the fact is not enough. National and international policies must move further. Many third world countries punish women, children and civilians although they are sexually assaulted victims. Most third world countries have rigid cultural rules. Individuals are alienated who have been sexually assaulted. For example, any women sexually assaulted cannot find a husband. She is considered soiled. They have robbed some women, some children and some civilians of any happiness in life. We must move further to protection individuals from crimes against humanity. Women inclusive within the decision process was a major move forward. Consequently, national and international laws must drastically forge policies to implement more action. I question this written policy for many reasons. Women fought 144 years to be recognized as citizens. I believe a written document is not enough.

Globally many corporations have intricate relations with government. The government has an alliance with multiple corporations that is like the slavery arrangement. For instant, prison inmates are working to make commodities valued far more than the $1.00 a day they are paid. For example, most items labeled made in America has been made in prison. Major corporations have contracts with the state to create products. The state has found a way to encourage business in the prison complex at the lowest cost. Most contracts consist of space rented or purchased. Other contracts involved the expansion and construction of the prison complex. Also, prison laborers covered the commodities or objects made. The wealth created has allowed the state to continuously dispense labor below the minimum wage. The hegemony determined that inmates that are incarcerated must product physical work which settles America’s financial debt. The laborer’s make license plates. repair roads, and make clothing among other things. Where can you find factory work in America? Factory work in developing nations are done for minimal pay. America has shifted their out of the country. The work is cost effective when there is no factory. America has no factories because they have sent their work to third world countries. yet, the purpose of permitting inmates to finish work was all in the commercial trading of a commodity. The buying and selling of prison labor was ensconce. America had established government incentives to prison facilities.
The globalization remedy extended to all parts of the world. The world crisis was resolved. Prison labor solved major economic problems. Although individuals were not imprisoned based on deviant behavior. The state no longer represented respectable behavior. The state has linked prison growth to social order. So, prisoner’s labor consists of any product that has been made in the facility at a cost-effective price of $1.00 a day for labor. Prison population has been established based on economics. Brown, black, yellow and red individuals were quickly sent to prison. Whether they had a minor or major problem with the law they were sent to prison. Strategically law makers imposed stiffer sentences to individuals because there was a reduction in crime.
The state must stop implementing contracts with corporations for labor beneath the minimum wage. All individual must work for a living with the dignity. Whether an individual is executive of the company or the maintenance man the state must employ all individuals. Employment must not be shifted to individuals whereas minorities find other ways to make money.

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.

Human beings are the existence of a living being. The origin of human beings originated from birth and linked to human rights. Thereafter, we assign one’s state of being derived from religion, science and theory. We assigned distinctions based on gender, color and faith. A title was given to all beings, whereas human beings were assigned an extension of belonging. They were labeled under slavery, unequal rights for women, and unequal rights for workers. Further enslavement occurred under particular organizational rule, communism, nationalism and democracy. The ‘rights of man “under a particular concept (nationalism) exhibited different liberties than “human rights” under democracy. The “rights of man” are recast under Nationalism and changed over a period of time. This concept was linked to various ideas. During Nationalism the French exhibited the challenges they faced. The “rights of men” was a transformation that occurred over a decade after the French Revolution. In The Last Utopia according to Samuel Moyn’s, the “rights of man was a pathway to very fast reformation. The “rights of man” dramatic change coexisted during the revolutionary age. The transformation occurred under the course of the French Revolution. The French headed in a brand new direction because they were basically impacted by American rights. But, Nationalism adversity was stuck between the actual practice and the idea. Of course, theory quickly created a desire toward democracy; however, the actual action was slow moving. Nationalism was a deeply implanted behavior. Their laws grasped the authority of the individual’s rights. This attitude deprived the Rights of Man. As stated by Thomas Paine’s in The Rights of Man (1791) every declaration of rights at the time (and until recently) was implicitly what the French openly labeled theirs: a declaration of the rights of man and citizen. Rights were neither independent arguments nor countervailing forces, and were always announced at the moment of founding the polity, and justifying its erection and often its violence. The “rights of man” were about a whole people incorporating itself in a state (Pg. 25). While some people believed nationalism was not violating an individual’s rights, others maintain that slavery, women’s repression and worker’s excluded as citizens was one form of nationalism. This brings to mind, the war on immigrants. Presently we are in a democracy, yet authorities have attempted to control who comes into American based on the ethnicity. Also, all efforts have been made to transport immigrants.
On the contrary, according to What are Human Rights, “ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all entitled to our human rights without discrimination” (pg. 1). This brings to mind, present day incidents whereas human beings are being discrimination against based on their nationality, ethnicity, religion and color. As seen recently, in the airport Mohammed Ali Junior (the son of Ex-Heavy weight world champion of boxing) was detained at the airport. He was stopped by authorities who inquired about his religious faith.
Further transformations occurred under democracy rule. Human rights almost always fought to enhance life and happiness. Human beings became concerned about improved success and or improved happiness. And authorities crafted laws to dictate the rules to follow and obtain human rights. To be sure the laws of principle were followed we expected government to sustain our “human rights”. Contrary to the above statements government has taken a different route. This brings to mind, presently government’s moral displacement. Under a particular ruling we have witnessed government’s cruelty towards the banning of refugees. Ultimately, many people will be killed under this ruling.

Human rights activism in not only a collaborative enterprise whereas activist groups are seeking a particular aim. They have carefully designed strategies to reduce the human pain and reduce the human suffering. Human rights fights would have persuasively refuted an individual’s entitlement to equal moral consideration. This was necessary to protect individuals. According to Ignatieff, “the rights language creates the basis for conflict, deliberation, argument and contention (454). This meant disagreements and agreements were an important aspect in joined forces. In other words, human rights activism may have fought for autonomy, yet there were consequences. In their joined forces to create independence, they produced hostility among other organizations. In order to secure basis human rights, a demand was made to recast political, moral and economic entities among other transformations. As one door opened at the same time the other door closed. Society members may obtain the rights to govern self: however, the state control placed in various devices that closed citizen’s political autonomy, financial autonomy and moral autonomy among other liberties.
Hence, human rights activism cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of innocent and powerlessness” because the existence of other powers are engaged in the success and or failure of autonomy. Most discussions about human rights overlapped into political resistance. Freedom of speech (speaking out about human rights) in particular populace is against the law. During socialism, citizens did not have any rights to speak about their ideas, opinions and beliefs opposing human dignity. This meant the human rights arena became a political forum. Their conversations were in direct conflict with particular rules that govern communist countries. As Ignatieff claimed, “Without the freedom to articulate and express political opinions, without freedom of speech, together with freedom of property, agents cannot organize themselves to struggle for social and economic security (Pg. 457). This meant human rights activism fought for the right to govern one-self, and they may have won and they man have not won. Needless to say, activist focused on reducing injustice against humans and simultaneously they caused the government to seize any moral autonomy and economic autonomy.
First, most human rights activism dialogue about morality had important consequences for the broader field. The human rights activism hoped for moral goodness. And they believed in a chance to transform the principles of good behavior as well as respectable acts. Government control prevented any activism groups from recasting the moral clause. So, I believe collectively organizations cannot just fight for human rights without encountering the other significant issues such as moral independence. As stated, ” even free speech, or perhaps, especially free speech in an age of corporately owned and governmentally beholden media, can deepen the subjection of the populace to undemocratic discourses of power, at the same time it permits lots of talking” (Pg459). In other words, human rights activism can openly converse about the inviolability of human dignity; consequently, government aggressively stifled any progression for moral principles.
Second, many human rights activism had a dialogue about the possibilities of economic independence. In accordance to Ignatieff, “he insist human rights must be limited to security the capacity for the individual to act, he also insist this very capacity itself constitutes the necessary preconditions for political engagement that in turn can produce economic improvement and even security” (Pg. 456). Anyone familiar with fighting for a particular purpose must consider all options. Although organizations fought for a significant cause they cannot ignore the challenges to obtain economic independence and security which was related.
To truly achieve human rights we must stop the torture, beatings, killings and physical cruelty against all human beings. Also, we must argue for both moral and economic power to ultimately acquire basic rights. We cannot assume that fighting for just human rights is enough without looking at the broader consequences. The effects could have moral destruction, political eradication and economic defeat.

The Social Contract, written by Carole Pateman, an intriguing tale about the guiding principles used to justify why women have no part in the original contract with civil society, and why women were only described in the “state of nature”. However evidence showed that women were incorporated into a sphere that “is and is not in civil society.”

The original contract is a sexual agreement between two heterosexual individuals. The subordination of women was developed from the original contract. In this case, both parties did not come to an agreement. Was this a contract misunderstanding? So women were involved in the fornication activity; however, they did not have the capacity to take part in the sexual contract. My point is the sexual contract had been written in error perhaps because only one consenting party signed off on the arrangement. Another way of thinking was theorist original contract was based on political myth. Considering, most theorist never expressed reasons for multiple contracts agreed upon without a participating co-signer. Contract signing whether written or spoken is an agreement between two concerning parties. The inconsistency in the sexual contract agreement was clear. Women were not considered individuals yet only individuals presumably signed the sexual contracts. In the past, contract theorist created distinct contracts. From the sexual contract the writer referenced two spheres. One sphere related to women subjection. The private sphere described women’s subordination. Women were chained to domestic work. Women were home with no voice because they were unable to vote. They were ignored. This was the “state of nature. “ They were only valued for procreation. And the men considered them irrelevant. In accordance to Hobbes, “the classic theorist claimed that women naturally lack the attributes and capacities of ‘individuals’. Sexual difference is the difference between freedom and subjection (Pg 6). This meant, women were not considered citizens. Women were considered property. Consequently women were absent from society.

Different than the private sphere was the public sphere. Civil society materialized from the public sphere. Men with property had the liberty to vote. They not only owned property but they owned human beings. Some capitalist were able to market prostitution. Some women engaged in sexual activity for profit. Women worked as an employee in a capitalist market owned by aristocratic men. Thus men were forced to construct an employment contract. According to G.D.H. Cole, critics focused on exploitation (inequality) and therefore overlook subordination, or the extent to which institutions …resembled that of master slave contract (Pg9).  In other words, men brought into existence women who they claimed did not appear relevant to society to sign contracts. So how does an employment contract get validated by women who are not considered a citizen?

To conclude the sexual contract showed men and women separate yet inseparable.  The dichotomy man vs women one could not exist without other. The slave contract was replaced with the employment contract and marriage contract.  All three contracts initiated by men who expanded the notions that men gave an account for women participation into a sphere that “is and is not in civil society”, again women were peppered through the sexual contract, and the marriage contract and the employment contract although the implication was women had no role in these three contracts. Men established new contracts in the place of the original contract but in the process brought about women entangled in every part of their life.

I, Ethel Reed, am an African American Women who works overnight in the Emergency Room.  I supervisor over 10 workers and I enjoy working.  I started out working in the hospital as a clerical worker. Thereafter I moved to their Admitting Department doing Death Certificates and Birth Registry. Then I moved up to supervisor Bed Board the nucleus of the Hospital System. My husband and my son are my gifts from God. I am particularly proud of my son who just graduated with his Bachelors of Science in Accounting. I am a senior at City College Center of Worker Education and its difficulty to leave. I love CWE.  Women’s Rights as Human Rights I believe are intriguing facts about Women: I will learn much about myself.  Other than learning my family history and Black history, Women’s history is another way to learn about me.  I believe in Human Rights for all individuals however I recognize Women rights at my job are disproportionately unfair.  I could have never imagined how I was drawn into the perceptions assigned to women. And I never challenged the stereotypes I confronted. I am looking forward to learning in this class.

Introduction:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident”

The Declaration of Independence was written with the universal assumption that White Elite men were the only human beings entitled to equal rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And universally this was displayed in their attitudes and behavior. The United States Aristocratic men fought Great Britain to become an independent country, autonomy. Thomas Jefferson had written a declaration which failed to give a voice or representation to Women, Blacks, and poor White men. Although the Declaration was continuously revised to provide a better understanding of a Human Being’s Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Framers of this declaration were from a particular class and gender. They were unable to understand any grievance from Blacks, Women and poor White men. Of course, Aristocratic White men were unable to have a discussion about why Blacks were unable to obtain Equal Rights during their Life, and unable to obtain Liberty and unable to obtain the Pursuit of Happiness. A conversation about Blacks inclusive in the Declaration of Independence was to threatening. During the time when the doctrine was written: unlimited power was given to Whites and most Blacks were enslaved or tortured.  So how could White men who owned slaves have any concern about their autonomy? They were unable to discuss the complicated issues of Blacks subordination. Thomas Jefferson and the Framers who helped with the revision of the declaration overtly acknowledged that Aristocratic White men received a better way of life. They owned property (Black human beings) and at the same time they declared, “All Human Beings are Equal. Autonomy did not include Blacks. A racial caste system existed. In the same way, Women traveled painful paths of discrimination. Women were automatically   assigned to domestic work they were not viewed as fellow citizens. Women were unable to escape the crucial role they played in the household.  This sexual caste system was in direct opposition to the written doctrine that; All Human Beings were Created Equal with Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In a similar situation, White men who visibly looked the same without any property were not accepted. The constraints and limitations forced upon Blacks, Women and poor White men dictated their fate in many ways.

Still today, an institutionalized non written system has been drawn into some work places. An urgency to promote men prior to women occurs often. In some cases, women are paid considerably less than Men, although they may perform the same job. Notions about women during child bearing years may or may not dictate when she is promoted. Then in other situations, often men are only hired as a firefighter. Mostly men are hired to work within the Con Edison manholes. Women are hired to work within the office. Discrimination happens within the work place on multiple levels.  The constraints and limitations are parallel to many biases in the past.