fChantal has 4 post(s)

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

In V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi’s article, Are women human? It’s not an academic question, they bring forth the question of whether or not women are considered to be human. In addition, they bring get forth the argument that when thinking about human rights, we must consider the fact that all the rights created and included are mainly androgentric. The very fact that the first concept of any kind of human rights to be created was called the rights of man is a perfect first example to help back up their argument.

Now, taking a look at Peterson and Parisi’s article, they start off by giving, what I believe to be, a very powerful sentence, “… women suffer more violations of human rights than any other group in the world, both in times of war and through traditional practices excused by culture”(Bahar 1996, 107: 132). Womens humans rights are the most violated out of any other ethnic or religious group that can be thought of.

Having that in mind, Peterson and Parisi bring about another argument which is that heterosexism is a more precise way to look at the relationship between gender differences and human rights. They state that heterosexism is now institutionalized and defined as the only “normal” form of sexual identity and orientation. They also state that with heterosexism, women are capable of taking on more masculine traitso and males could do the same. However, the typical male attributes and stereotypes such as “reason, agency and dependency” are considered more the norm and are more widely taken up than the female attributes and stereotypes (132). Thoseven attributes and stereotypes being the complete opposite of men which are “affect, non agency, and dependence” (132). The fact that men are held to a higher standard physically, mentally and emotionally is what has set them and their “stereotypical attributes” as the norm, generalizing it which is preventing the equality between men and women. However, this leaves out room for any other forms of sexual identity and orientations, such as homosexuals, Transgender people, etc.

Although, while the main distinction remains between men and women, it’s mainly all a man’s world. Women were always subordinate to men, and this argument of heterosexism is just another way to come to more or less the same conclusion. Even though women are supposedly made to be included in these basic human rights, they’re really not it’s just to make them feel like they are.

As I started reading Samuel Moyn’s book, The Last Utopia: Human Rights In History, the mentioning of Greek philosophy and early literary works stood out to me immediately. These early literary works did not think of any of the concepts that they included in their writing to be “rights” of any individual, because that notion didn’t exist at the time. Although, Moyn tries to make sense of it all by finding a way to interpret these early writings into the contemporary human rights we know today. Moyn defines contemporary human rights as “a set of global political norms providing the creed of a transnational social movement” (Moyn 11). Much like a previous text we read, Moyn defines contemporary human rights as a political movement, although that’s how it was even before the concept of “human rights” came about.

Although before the term “human rights” came about, a different set of rights that were created with the intentions to protect an individual’s rights, was accepted. That was known as the “rights of man”, with the title saying they will protect an individual’s rights however, that individual is a man. In addition, Moyn states that since human rights came into politics, they have been proclaimed the “birthright of man” (Moyn 14). However, Moyn is arguing that there is a great difference between the rights of man and human rights, even though they seem to come hand in hand.

One prime example is that the early rights of an individual, the rights of man, were mainly politically motivated and maneuvered. While social and economic issues were regarded as second generation issues or problems (Moyn 17). The incorporation of not only political and civil rights, but social and economic rights are a part of the new, contemporary human rights. Human Rights is as Moyn said a movement, although not come tell political anymore. Moyn quotes Hannah Arendt, who points out that after the second World War, people were intent on helping to make human rights transcend the “nation state” (Moyn 42).

Moyn also quotes from Arendt, “if simple humanity in Rome had moral associations beyond the realm of educational formation, it implied unimportance rather than ultimate value. ‘A human being or homo in the original meaning of the word,’ she observed, ‘indicat [ed] someone outside the range of law and the body politic of the citizens, as for instance a slave – but certainly a politically irrelevant being.”(Moyn 15). The very definition of a human being and that we are to exist outside the law and any restrictions.

In Wendy Brown’s essay, “The Most We Can Hope For…”, she makes it a point to let it be known to the reader that human rights activism is much more than protecting the innocent and powerless. She cites multiple times author and former politician Michael Ignatieff, whom she describes as “thoughtful and nondismissive”(451). Not only is Brown arguing that human rights activism is more than protecting any certain individual , but also that it is “… effective in limiting political violence and reducing misery”(452). She goes on to state that if all of the “…politically let blood, politically inflicted pain, and politically induced fear”(452) that has been present throughout history can be erased by human rights, that achievement alone would be enough, even if they achieved nothing else, because no one would be able to argue with it. However, how can human rights accomplish this when it is said to be a political project itself that, in Brown’s words, is a particular form of political power carrying a particular image of justice (453). Brown includes Ignatieff’s understanding of human rights which is that it is not about what is good or right, but rather the agreement “about what is insufferably, inarguably wrong”(454).
Two points that I believe are not as highlighted as they should be but are present nonetheless are that human rights have a lot to do with moral and empowerment so that can help people to help themselves. Terms such as moral currency, moral consideration, moral equality, moral inviolability and moral antidote are just a few of the term that Brown uses to help define human rights. Brown states that human rights has become the “international moral currency” In addition, she goes on to state that “human rights is the language that systematically embodies the intuition that each individual is entitled to equal moral consideration… we can say that we are making moral progress”(453). Although, as much moral that is included in human rights, the political parts of it remains immoral in many ways. How can human rights help people help themselves when there are so many political, social and economic aspects involved. The question stands, what kind of politicization does human rights include because they definitely include political aspects even though that’s who they are supposed to be standing up to and opposing.
Although Brown states that human rights were created to protect an individual, she also adds a lot of political affiliations and how they are unavoidable. I do agree that human rights are than what they seem to be and we have to begin to scratch the surface to truly see their intentions and what they truly wish to accomplish