fChristian has 8 post(s)

“We do not stand outside the world, looking out over this sea of poor benighted people, living under the shadow – or veil- of oppressive cultures; we are part of the world. Islamic movements themselves have arisen in a world shaped by the intense engagements o the Western powers in the Middle Eastern lives” (p.789). Lila Abu-Lughod examines the religious practices of Muslim women in Afghanistan, and the western beliefs that’s Muslim women are controlled by the Taliban (Muslim men). Lila Abu-Lughod talks about the US involvement in Afghanistan targeting the aftermath of 9/11, she talks about Laura Bush’s speech on Muslim women and how the US saved women from the unjust practices of the Taliban. Bush claims that the US interference in Afghanistan helped women and allowed them to “properly’ part take in the community, “white men saving brown women from brown men” (p.384).

Lila Abu-Lughod also highlights that the Taliban did not invent the burqa, “It was the local form of covering that The Pashtun women in one region wore when they went out. The Pashtun are one of the several ethnic groups in Afghanistan and the burqa was one of the many forms of covering in the subcontinent and Southwest Asia” (785). Why doesn’t Americans worry about other religions that use cover ups for women, such as Jewish women and men, I live in area in Brooklyn were there are lots of Hasidic Jews and like in the article I’m sure they don’t ‘enjoy’ wearing long sleeves and pants during a heat wave but they do because it is part of their religion. Lila Abu-Lughod also argues that women were being forced to wear burqa’s, but even after Afghanistan was liberated from the control of the Taliban women continued to cover up. Its interesting and questionable why America is obsessed with Muslim practices, particularly Muslim women. It also seems that Westerners are forcing and encouraging heterosexual norms upon Muslim countries and while doing so US coins themselves as heroic. The veiling of the Muslim women is in fact a choice and a belief that Muslim women follow; they are not being forced to wear a burqa. Instead of focusing on Muslim women and practices Lila Abu-Lughod suggests how we as a nation can make the world better. How we should stop trying to understand and change cultural practices, and realize that it may cause greater harm then good in doing so.

Sally Merry examines the relationship between woman rights, that being woman who have suffered from violence, and the legal system. Merry interviews woman who have experienced domestic violence and who have reached out to the legal system for help and protection against their abusers. Merry suggests that if a woman is suffering from abuse and is rejected by the local officials for help then she is more likely to feel she has no rights and is not worthy of rights- perhaps she many feel she isn’t equal to her abuser. Not only does the legal system opinions matter and affect her thought process, but the society in which she lives in, the people she surrounds herself with can way heavy on her decisions to seek justice. “Thus, an individual’s willingness to take on rights depends on her experience trying to assert them” (347). If people who support her and push her to fight for her rights surround her then she will identify as a person with human rights, equal rights.

Ironically a woman has to fit the descriptions as a “good victim” to receive recognition and protection from the legal system. If a woman fights back or provokes her abusers then she isn’t a “good victim”, they are viewed as troublesome and this can affect their cases. Some of the woman interviewed who had suffered terrible abuse from their spouses didn’t want to punish them, they wanted to make them realize that they were wrong. If a woman just wants recognition of the wrongdoing and then is willing to still be with her abuser is she truly finding her identity and human rights? As stated, “I didn’t want to punish him, just set him straight”(364). If a woman seeks help from the law and then returns to the abuser after, how is the law suppose to maintain protection for her? There are so many factors that go into the rights of woman, social norms in the town of Hilo played heavily on these domestic violence cases. For many years men played a masculine leader role in which he was to keep his wife in check, and if she wasn’t obeying him, then he would use violence to ensure she was doing her part in the household. However there have been many changes to the law because of feminist movements that are advocating for their rights. “A more complex set of penalties for batterers has developed both within and outside the law. Of particular importance is the development of new forms of governance that focus on self-management and a redefinition of masculinity” (379).

The lack of protection for women and children in times of war and post war is an issue that seems to be overlooked quite often. Revolution 1325 addresses countries finding resources and strategies in protecting the women and children who are abused, raped, murdered and discriminated against. “In the past, the Security Council had condemned atrocities against women and stressed women’s plight and suffering in armed conflict, as well as urging all parties to take special measures to protect women and girls from rape and other forms of gender-based violence”. Even though the Resolution 1325 has interesting methods in providing justice and protection for women and children- who are mostly discriminated against- I don’t know how successful it can be, I’ve never heard of Resolution 1325, it seemed from my understanding of the article “Nongovernmental Organizations’ Role in the Buildup and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325”, it had to be tweaked many times and as we know today people in total are being discriminated against all over the world. For something to work society must be aware that they have excess to it, they must be informed that it exist and know how to exercise the tools that the government is providing them. Resolution 1325 needs to publicized on a national platform, in my opinion, governments should advocate for the people they are providing help for, and do all they can to educate and inform them.

The Resolution 1325 was born to be a voice for women, a platform for them to speak upon and find justice for all the people who have there lives robbed by the cruelties of war. Community leaders need to continue to come together, join forces and be the advocate and implement changes in their countries. In the article they spoke about campaigning for the Resolutions 1325, this issue should draw more attention especially during these political times, having a leader who clearly thinks women are subordinate to men. Resolution 1325 can be implemented even if it isn’t in a time of war, women’s rights should always be held high and not focused in on when there is a crisis. The NGO working group did great things to help and support the voices of women, finding different methods to implement something so precious that is overlooked is innovative. Also having women on board in the decision making and implementation of the Resolution 1325 is what will make a difference in the success of this movement.

The combination of land privatization, colonial expansion and misogyny were to blame for degradation of women. The expropriation of land occurred because of war or religion, people wanted power and once conquered, killed off majority of civilization, they moved in and took over land controlling whoever remained. Once a land was conquered by a greater force it was rare that people retaliated and succeeded. However in 1549 Robert Kett rebelled against the privatization of the land and successfully overcome an anti-enclosure fight. Kett demanded equal rights for the people, the enclosures were taken down, “The first was that ‘from hence forth no man shall enclose any more’. Other articles demanded that rents should be reduced to the rates that had prevailed sixty five years before , that ‘all freeholders and copy holders may take the profits of all common, and that ‘all bond-men may be made free, for god made all free with precious blood shedding”. Kett’s was later captured and killed. Women also fought for their rights, and tried to end enclosures, also to be seen more than property of their husbands, and reproduction machines. “And these were just a few instances of confrontation in which women holding pitchforks and scythes resisted the fencing of the land or draining of fens when their livelihood was threatened”. Women suffered terribly when the land was enclosed, most became vagabonds which in theory might have worked out for them but with the man being violent and not seeing them as equal, misogyny was on the rise. also women who became pregnant couldn’t travel from place to place as easily. In the reading there is a engraving of ‘Women and Knaves”, which is quite disturbing as t he women are following the soldiers and are muzzled like wild animals. any women who attempted to fight back or against these terrible conditions was killed. As stated, “women suffered a unique process of social degradation that was fundamental to the accumulation of capital and has remained so ever since”. Capitalism and feudalism had a negative affect on women and children; women’s bodies were seen as commodities something to profit off of, man capitalized off of their offspring. A women’s role was in the home, to maintain the house and to reproduce, this division of labor only made it worse for women they depended solely on a man to survive, and this increased the power shift that men had over women and children.

We’ve been programmed for centuries to believe that a family consists of a man and woman, programmed to believe that men and women are classified on their innate body parts, having the appropriate reproductive organs.  In present day there are millions of people who are fighting for their individual rights, rights to identify how they feel on inside rather than what people see, and what society identifies as a true man or true woman. Before reading V.Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi’s argument on how heterosexism hinders human rights, I didn’t think how much affect heterosexism had on women rights. The categorization of a specific group (gender) is the first ingredient for discrimination. Peterson and Parisi mention the idea of family and what is expected and ‘appropriate’. If family is between a man and a woman, reproduction can only occur with both man and woman, that’s where heterosexism comes into play. People are shamed for their sexual orientation based on “family’, which in my opinion is bogus! So a relationship between two women is in fact, based on what society believes, inhumane, and against the idea of family. As stated, “Human rights discourse and practice reproduce this naturalization of heterosexism and the family, including gender inequalities within the family, by upholding the distinction between public/state and private/family sphere and focusing exclusively on states as both protectors and violators of individual rights”. One way of shaming homosexuality is the idea of family and reproduction. Heterosexism sets roles for both women and men, there is no “wiggle room”, you if you do not follow it you are not humane and therefore human rights do not apply to you.

Another factor on how heterosexism plays a huge part is it idealizes the male roles, what a man is “suppose” to be or more importantly what a man should not be. A man is strong, public sphere, doesn’t entwine in the private sphere at all. The woman is to raise the children and do household duties. Women are believed to be subordinate to a man in every way, heterosexism strips the rights away from birth and people are appointed rights based on their gender. “At the same time, heterosexism is oppressive it privileges males/masculinity and male-defines interests over females/femininity and interests of women qua women, and it denies/represses all other sexual orientations and gender identifications”. Based on history, we are born into our ‘roles’ based on our genitals and reproductive organs: we are identified as a woman because we have a vagina at birth and Vis versa for man. We in all actually have no real rights, there is a huge movement happening now in the LGBT community, and people are fighting for rights to identify, and what bathroom they can use etc. We need to keep pushing forward and continue to “remold” how we are classified and put into categories.

Samuel Moyn states “Each writer creates his on precursors” (11) in the beginning of chapter 1. My interpretation of Moyn’s arguement is that every theorist and/or writer bases his or her beliefs of what was already known, there is always a foundation in order. But as generations go on, time passes by, society changes and “new” rights are out into place. The Rights of Man, I think, is simpler to break down then human rights. Rights of man are based on the “man” and the property
“he” owns. There aren’t rights for women or slaves. Owning property and social class played heavily on ones rights. One the other hand human rights are the rights for all, protecting both women, not only men, proclaiming people free individuals.

Human rights reflected the protection of a person who obeyed the laws that were put into place to keep the people protected. Ironically even in present day people are mistreated by the government, we struggle just for the rights that seem to be in born, like the government overlooks health insurance. If one doesn’t have access to health insurance because they don’t qualify how are their rights being met? Ones well being, especially in the world we live in today where everything is overly expansive, how can health be something left out of inborn rights?

Protection for the people, innate rights against wrongful and harmful actions are the first thing I think of when I hear human rights. So why are their people fighting for their right to live, Black Lives Matter is a movement that, I’m sure we all heard of, came into action because of the rising numbers of police brutality. White officers have killed hundreds of blacks and no justice has been served, where are their rights? I believe the right of man is clearly being demonstrated here; social class and categorization still exist in this country and all around the world. Moyn states, “If human rights are treated as inborn, or long in preparation, people will not confront the true reasons they have become so powerful today and examine whether those reasons are still persuasive” (12). Maybe human rights aren’t inborn, maybe people struggle with this idea of freedom amongst all because it isn’t a true theory, and it isn’t really adaptable.

I agree with Browns claim that human rights cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless. She backs up her reasoning with evidence from the war of Iraq. She states Donald Rumsfeld declares the “War of terrorism is a war of human rights”, this use of language is being used through the lens of the scared and revengeful American. This comes from the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, as New Yorkers it was instilled, hammered, into our minds by the media which is politically driven, that Muslims were dangerous even barbaric people, who knew nothing of human rights. American troops entered a country and killed thousands of innocent people and children; we stereotyped a whole entire country, on the acts of a selected group. How in God’s name is that portraying human rights activism? Brown states, “Rather, the point is that there is no such thing as mere reduction of suffering or protection from abuse-  the nature of the reduction or protection is itself productive of political subjects and political possibilities” (p460).

Brown argues that the power human rights is the protection of people, and their individual right. But who determines those rights; the agency in which those powers lie in then determines how those rights are protected.  Are the equally distributed among all nations, first world and third world countries? He example of the War on Terrorism is just that, human rights in that insist was seen through the western lens, Americans were protecting what they saw as human rights.   The American government didn’t think of the people of Iraq as human and deserved the same rights as we did, so how is this the war of human rights; complete contradiction. I don’t think that there is one human rights law that can be applied to every individual, it all depend on what lens is being used. If the foundation of human rights is to protect to innocent and powerless then why did it do the opposite of that? It seems like a simple concept but in fact it is complex and has intricate loop wholes, it varies on who is using it as a tool of ‘protection’, and who they are trying to protect. we discussed in class if it is possible to be free, I don’t believe that one can truly be free and still have human rights being equal. I believe there is human rights because , as history as shown us, human aren’t always humane beings.

To my understanding the meaning of civil society is a patriarchy society which is seen through the lens of male superiority. The woman is subordinate to men as stated by Pateman, “Civil freedom is a masculine attribute and depends upon patriarchal right” (2). A women’s only right or should I say incorporation in the civil sphere would be to serve her husband. To fulfill her ‘wifely’ duties, in signing a marriage contract she is binding herself to a man as his property. She has no say as she is subjected by contract to her husband. Women are not seen as individuals and are not “civilly free”. Pateman states, “What it means to be an ’individual’, a maker of contracts and civilly free, is revealed by the subjection of women within the private sphere” (11).

This contradicts the idea of individual (referring to equality), if women are believed to be subordinate to men, why is a contract needed if it is already ‘understood’ that they are not viewed as individuals? In a sphere that is not civil, a woman would indeed need a contract because she would be an equal individual with the same rights as a man. According to The Sexual Contract, “Nor does Locke, for example, explain why the marriage contract is necessary when women are declared to be naturally subject to men, There are other ways in which a union between a man and his natural subordinate could be established, but, instead Locke holds that it is brought into being through contract, which is an agreement between two equals” (54). In a sphere that is not civil a woman would be free, it would have already be known and recognized that she too is equal and entitled to the innate rights that men hold. When I think about how far women have come in fighting inequality I can’t help but feel somber about how hard we fought and still are fighting for equal rights. Woman would have the choice to go into contract with another person or choose not to. There wouldn’t have to be laws and contracts stating that women are equal to men because it would be natural.  I used to think that it is natural for a person to be kind and loving that we are taught to hate but I’m not so sure anymore… Why do we need declarations stating our rights, why do we contacts and laws if we are all equal amongst one another?ual