fbrittany has 10 post(s)

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.

I really enjoyed this reading, she brings up so many relevant points that I myself had had the same sentiments on. The US as usual is always purposely or unknowingly creating their own interpretation of things that are going on in other countries that may or may not be true or that are probably half truths. I like how for the most part on the issues of the veiling as well as the topic on  the vocation of saving others she plays a little bit of devils advocate. When talking about the vocation of saving others she immediately has question about the real motives of the US main reason for the war on terror. She says yes this is a country that is suppressive and the women in this country do need our help but could the main reason of invasion be simply for women who where burquas. She then talks about how its amazing how the US is always basically the one who always goes to save the worst countries but never talk about what their role is or was ” In other words, the question is why knowing about the “culture” of the region, and particularly its religious beliefs and treatment of women, was more urgent than exploring the history of the development of repressive regimes in the region and the U.S. role in this history,” and its like this time and time again. When talking about the Veiling culture she talks about how this was meant to be or is looked at how the men and women are in different spheres which has show up an other works but she tells of how the woman being made to be veiled in public is a symbol of the private sphere which includes home and family the man is in the public sphere and the two for the most part are always separate. This covering sent a message to men who were strangers that she is not to be touched because she belongs to a family. It was a form of protection in that sense as well as a way for the woman to be incorporated in the public sphere. Once the woman wore the veiling she was able to move about freely  and conduct the business of the family. Without this she would have to stay home never being free from her house. She raises the question why would the US think that the women in this region would be so quick to throw off a garment that gave them protection and mobility.

I think what Merry was trying to say when she said subjectivities are influenced by ones encounters with the law is that women who are victims of domestic violence tend to seek help from the law but in most cases they end up dropping the charges and restraining orders in fear of losing their families as well as the abuser coming back for retaliation. The law greatly influences both the victim and the abuser’s out look on the seriousness of the subjectivities. Merry shows how if a woman is not given the proper encouragement needed so that she can understand that yes she has rights as a human and as a woman and yes those rights were violated and yes we will do everything in our power to get justice for the crime committed against her as well as any further help needed we will do so. Sometimes this outcome is not the case. Women are often times told by law enforcement that they are over reacting or because the abuser is a man he has a bond with his fellow man and the nature of the crime is then lessoned and a slap on the risk or a warning is issued which in turn empowers the abuser and discourages the abused or when the issues goes all the way up to the judge and another slap on the risk is given because the abuser has a good career and his reputation would be ruined if he was sent to jail over domestic violence or what ever the case may be. However , lets say that a women does seek help from the law and the law in turn actually does it job, justice is done , he goes to jail, get actual help like anger management , psychotherapy etc. to get him back on track and even marriage counseling if the woman has agreed to work things out then the woman is more inclined to ask for help from the law when needed. The journey for women’s rights as human rights will end when the victims of the domestic violence and other criminal acts that are committed against them are reported. It has to start first from the victim because no one can help if their story is never told. If no one hears and its kept behind closed doors due to fear then women will never feel they have or even deserve the right to have better or to be better. It starts with her first.

Before I go into what this resolution is and what its all about, I think it is very important to remember the back story and history of this resolution. The reading tells us of all the things that different women from all different groups and to first be contacted and reached out to, to form a solid and united front. Many different women from all different countries all shared one thing in common and that was and still is the need for protection, to be valued enough to be included in making decisions for the women in their specific country and abroad as well as the reconstruction of their specific country. These women once they had come together then had to sit down and create a something that they all agreed upon, changed that they wanted to see happen, a list of demands almost that they felt the deserved at the very minimum. They then came up with resolution 1325 which they then had to basically plead to the Attorney General to not only hear but implement. Like most things the enthusiasm is high when constructing something that you firmly believe in and want to see happen but when you do the hard work and nothing is changing all of that energy goes down… if you let it. They knew that they couldn’t let this resolution fall and be forgotten because if giving the chance to be implemented it could really change the world. They held a hearing in which women from 140 countries gave an account out loud and after they their voices were heard the momentum picked right back up and was again being recognized.

Specifically the resolution is basically a plea to the Attorney General asking for women to be considered and for their opinions to have full validly when making decisions on conflict locally and internationally. This would have to be the work of the attorney general to secure that woman would be included and opinion valued in conflict resolution and prevention. They want to be given special representatives offices by the attorney general. They want to make sure that he includes appropriate, field operations include a gender component. The resolution is more or less about the importance of inclusion of women. Being excluded form political power will only hinder women and make, making changes impossible. Women have the full capacity to operate in government especially on issues that effect women the most. The resolution was the first step  to rebuilding the thoughts society has about women but now the hardest task yet is to actually make those in power to actually implement the change we need to see.

In this reading immediately Gilmore points out how crime was ran and influenced by minorities reeking havoc on society, which I felt was somewhat true but really unfair to say. Gilmore expresses that civil disorder has created a moral panic. The U.S has time and time again proven to be in a crisis state. Her perception of ” crisis” is that it is never bad or good but that its purpose if to influence change due to a struggle. She observes that people only struggle because they have to. Gilmore goes on to talk about the depression which was a depression which was a struggle, crisis forced people to want something better for themselves and to want something different for their lives. This is when many people started to move the suburbs out of the city. Gilmore also talks about how prisoners sought out reform not only for better living conditions but the way the sentencing is which was very interesting to be because they were getting sentenced to 1 year to life which by todays standards is crazy. instead of the state changing or improving the conditions of prisons they just wanted to create more prisons, mega prisons. instead of using the new prisons to house some of the population who were in over crowded prisons they put all new offenders into these prisons. The voters who voted for the prison project were persuaded that Crime was the countries problem and the prison was the answer. Prison was supposed to “fix” the nations crisis. The people who voted for the prison project were the same people who received major tax breaks and had secure housing so they could really careless about who was effected by a prison being built in their state. This is not unlike the poitical scene today in which people in power vote for things that will greatly  negatively effect many people but will positively effect the voter exclusively. Prison is big business, both for the land owners and for the state in general which is what the voters used as a defense. At first in the cities where the prisons were expected to be built the idea was rejected but after they were persuaded that prisons would be a recession proof endeavor and that it would improve local development they jumped onboard with the idea this is just another way that prison was seen a the “fix it ” solution.

Federici speaks of the degradation of women in relation to the capital system in the country at that time. She wanted to make a point that even though slavery or the exploitation of labor as she calls it play a big part in the formation of the country its not the only thing that has shaped the country. On page 18 she puts in a quote by Ibid saying that it is a known fact that conquest. robbery, enslavement, and murder are the pillars of making this country what it is today. Through out the text we see how the “woman “goes from having the protection of the law and her husband to leading enclosure riots and being imprisoned. She talks about how woman could no longer be employed by the army and could not support themselves properly because they were confined to reproduction labor. What ever work woman got usually did not pay and if they did pay, the pay was no where near the amount that men received. The 19th century created the start of the full time house wife s major sexual division of labor. This reduced the value of a woman greatly and the sole function was to reproduce the population. Here is when we see a major dependence increase on the man from the woman, with having nothing more to do but tend to the husband and the children and the house. This also allowed the government state and employers to regulate woman’s labor by the male wage. The separation of production and reproduction of labor reduced the income of a woman almost one hundred percent in which they were almost completely impoverished and basically poor. If you have no income you become economically dependent on those around you. In this case it was the husband who gave the woman money if he felt like doing so. Woman were being confined both physically in the home always tending to the needs of the house and to the people in the house and not only being deprived to tend to herself, any dream of wanting to become more than what she was socially like her male counter part was so far in the future she may have lost sight of that completely. She as most authors of this time speak of the acclimation of wealth through capitalism but she neglects to mention the black woman (slave woman) which most authors do too. Yes woman (white women) were reduced to reproduction labor, it was more so the slave woman who produced the labor population which was one of the reason slavery was such a successful operation. The white man could purchase a salve and have them reproduce 5- 10 children as opposed to paying for 5- 10 slaves. These are the true reproduction victims. Yes however it is true that having to be reduced to a baby making machine and nothing more is a horrible state to be in whether white or black. The common factor in both cases are the same, men.

In the reading Moyn expresses how religion had a lot to do with the formation of what is considered to be ” human rights” I found that this text does not exactly point out in a clear way what the differences between human rights and the rights of man are, so as I was reading I had to pick key elements out and draw my own conclusions but in my opinion, the fact that religion had a lot to do with the formations of these two topics it is strange to me that they still exclude so many aspects of different “humans” such as slaves, women , non-property holders ect were excluded when the rights of man was constructed. This reading ties into everything we have read so far in the since that we have talked about exclusion playing a heavy part in these constructions of rights and human rights , the rights of man and universal rights. Exclusion says that only a select few get to have rights and if people are excluded from something that should be for all humans then those people must not be “real humans”. To be influenced by religions and to still be so harsh and exclusive to specific types of people could make one questions the religion and its message all together. However as explained in the reading, once Christianity came into the picture it spread from city to country, from place to place offering a message of hope but in its travels to these different places it was interpreted and understood in many different ways and what was universal became specific to the individual place which is why rights for humans were realized and followed in different ways. The French said that the human claim to “natural rights” were false and pretend which birthed the reinvention of rights by Burke and was formed into the “Rights of man”. On page twenty nine it says that the rights of man and human rights show no relationship to each other or gives evidence that all humans are from the same group. I don’t think that there is a yes or no answer to todays question, Moyn shows how both human rights and the rights of man have similarity in which both speak to or about specific groups of people and how they tell of different liberties granted to these people but are different in how the “rights of man” really speaks to men (white men) while “human rights” speaks to “all men” including women. These rights have since not changed but rather society has changed the way they view these rights.

I do agree with Brown that human rights are not just defending the innocent and powerless. On page 452 Brown says human rights is effective in limiting political violence, protects individuals from violence and abuse. It is put in place to stop torture, beatings, killings rape  and assault.  These example alone show and prove that human rights are not just to target a specific group of people but a whole population of people. Anything that is put in place in order to not only help the those that are in need  to also but to stop these specific act for good says a lot. Many people around the world as well as in this country that need protection from being rapped and assaulted. That alone is a task with in it self but Brown is trying to say that human rights is almost a cure in a way. If everyone actually followed the human right agenda the world would be so much better. Most times when a human right is violated it is because the other person does not see or understand the person to be human or may feel that the individual does not deserve rights which in turn makes it easier to violate a right that should be common. These are the people Brown is saying human rights are or need to be protected. The people who have not had a voice like African Americans, women, men who didn’t own property were the first people who human rights did not even include. Women were considered property as well as slaves , they were not considered human and so we must through human rights consider everyone and everyone is worth more than the minimum protection but to use human rights for all the things Brown is saying it actually does.

This reading definitely had so much information compacted in to it its had to talk about just one specific thing, however one of the major points I gathered from this reading was Rousseau’s point that the social contract forces individuals to give in to the state and civil law in which freedom becomes obedience in exchange for protection. I thought this was one of the more powerful points of the text because here you are as the individual and if obedience has to be exchanged for protection then how are you really free? If you as the individual have to be subjected to the state and civil laws that say women are not even considered an individual but in fact just property , how is that freedom, and disobedience to the law would result in you politically being unprotected by the state. This is not unlike today where there are many laws that are in place that should be irradiated but to obtain protection from the law u must follow the law and in the same case obedience is exchanged for protection.

Another interesting point that was made was about the classic theorist creating and basically defining what it is to be a man or a woman. Defining that only men are considered individuals and naturally all men are born free and created equal. The problem with this is that if one man is allowed to be ruled or governed by another man then how can they be equal? The answer is they can not be equal. This brings us back to the invention of rights. The rights defined were never meant to include women or blacks. They were meant for the white man who owned property such as slaves and money and status. There is no way you can start an argument off with all men are created equal while one man owns another, and whats even more disheartening is that women were not at all included in these liberties. As the author of the text stated women had no natural freedom and are not born free. They were automatically considered property of their father and then of their husbands. Hobbes explained that women lacked the attributes and capacity to be considered an individual. In this case to be sexually different is to be politically different. This brings me back to my previous point . the phrase “all men” is even less than literal because not only does it excluded actually certain males but most definitely excludes all women.

Good evening, My name is Brittany Thomas and as fore stated in class, besides this course being a requirement, I am taking this class to increase my awareness of women’s rights and human rights as a whole. For as long as I can remember I have been surrounded with strong women in my life. From my grandmothers to godmothers to my own mother I have never doubted that I woman is just as strong if not stronger and capable in every capacity as a man. I take pride in that strength and it is because of that strength I am a first generation college graduate. Breaking so many barriers just within my own life and family it has been impressed upon me by the strength of the women in my family that I continue to pursue my education and take all the opportunities afforded to me. It saddens me to see not just young women but young black women such as myself who are not able or willing to enjoy and reap from a college education. Even my mother at an early age was unable to continue with her studies due to having become the head of her household after the passing of my grandparents. However its is never too late to finish your education. She is now pursing an online business degree and everyday is showing me the strength of a woman is unmeasurable.

In reading the introduction to this book by Lynn Hunt a couple of things really stood out to me. With so many revisions of what is now called the Bill of Rights, it is clear that not everyone who the bill was supposed to include and protect actually included and protected. Many were actually excluded with every revision. Blacks, people without property, foreigners and most of all women were considered not human enough to participate in political decisions as well as to be protected by the Bill of Rights .  The founders should have not been able to revise the bill if these groups were not going to include everyone. Which leads into the section about the truths of the bill to be self-evident. To say that everything listed and agreed upon as a human right of men (meaning all people) is self-evident is a very hypocritical statement to make. How can the Bill of Rights claim that it is a universal format and principal for all men while yet showing that it will not be afforded to all but in reality to a few, in particular the white aristocrat, the white male born on American soil, who has slaves and property and so forth. The Bill of Rights has been flawed for a very long time. The only thing self-evident about the Bill of Rights is how unequal it truly is.