fJessica has 6 post(s)

Before the Resolution 1325 women’s issues weren’t integrated in the council’s activities and also the council never recognized the women’s roles of “agents of space”. After Resolution 1325, women became equal participants in negotiation, and women and girls were able to be protected during armed conflicts. Resolution 1325 was used by women and peace groups throughout the world. Since the Resolution 1325, women’s organizations occurred, NGO produced documents monitoring of its implementation, and the Inter- Agency Taskforce on Women, peace and security at the UN has coordinated a system-wide implementation strategy. It ensures that women groups receive concrete financial and technical support and a result of the Resolution 1325 there was a high demand for women to be included in decision making, and woman have been included in the discussion about reconstruction of Afghanistan and in the Inter- Congolese Dialogue. In October 2001, the Security Council reaffirmed its strong support for for increasing women’s role in decision making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution. Also, women were allowed to be a part of peace accords, constitutions, and strategies for resettlement and rebuilding. Before Resolution 1325, women weren’t even thought about or considered doing anything important in their community but as soon as Resolution 1325 was passed women were able to do more than just be in the background. They were now able to make decisions, have and voice their opinions. “On March 8, 2011, IA’s Women Building Peace campaign handed Specil Advisor Angela King more than 100,000 signatures from more that 140 countries, from women, women’s organizations, and civil society groups working for peace and social justice, in support of women’s demand for protection, participation in decision making, and an end to impunity for crimes committed to women.” Crimes committed towards women sometimes to most of the time go without justification and just because they are women is one of the reasons as to why they go without justification. I under sat and why women would sign something that could and will give them a further foot up in the world and would allow them to have their rights that they deserve and that are supposed to be their natural rights. In 2002 working group members held 12 events to bring attention to Resolution 1325. More than 100 people advocate and implement the resolution. They also organized International Women’s Day which gets a lot of attention. Thanks to Resolution 1325 women are now and have been for a while to have a say and their own opinion and much more in modern day society.

In the beginning of their article, Lughad in a way challenged the presenter from PBS and asked if he or she could substitute the muslim word with Christian or Jewish word and then asked of that made sense to the presenter. After further perusing the project, she asked “Why were the female symbols being mobilized in this war against terrorism in a way they are bot in other conflicts?” In my opinion they are in need of protection, education and many other things. “Although i am not an expert on Afghanistan, I imagine that the majority of women left in Afghanistan by the time the Taliban took control were the rural or less educated, from non elite families, since they were the only ones who could not emigrate to escape the hardships and voilance that has marked Afghanistan’s recent history.” In her article, she tells the reader about how Afghan women are treated. “The Burke, like some other forms of “cover” has, in many settings, marked the symbolic separation of men and women spheres as part of the general association of women with family and home, not with public space where strangers mingled.” In one part of the article, an Afghan woman wanted to wear dress fancy , but the Afghan man told her that she knows that shes not allowed to to wear pants to to a WASP wedding. Later in the article she says that women who had an education and women who “stood up to the Taliban” were women who refused to wear the burka. However, the lady that the article was about said that when she had greying hair, she was covered in a veil and that she didnt question the Chandon or the scarf. So what i think, this means is that the burka was optional for people who had opportunity had an option to wear the bucks but those who didn’t jive an education or opportunity wore it because they lacked the education. Another way to tell if a woman had an education is if they adhered to the modest dress that any educated Muslim women had taken on. This marks piety and it is a sign of sophistication, modernity, and education. Wom,en adopted it as a way of having virtue in hopes of getting close or closer to God.

What I think Merry means when she says that subjectivities are produced through encounters through the legal system is that people, more specifically women, bias especially through the legal system. An argument that merry makes is that women that are in abusive relationship or marriages, the women who are being abused reports the abuse and other wrongdoings towards them and as a result they are choosing themselves over the man and that is when the woman gains power over the man. “At the same time her actions allow the law to define her husband/partner as a criminal under the surveillance and control of the state”. After reading that I feel that the mistreated or battered woman now has power over her husband or partner. I also think what Merry is trying to say is that after going to the legal system, the woman’s family tries to convince her that she’s not a good wife or girlfriend and will also try to. Convince her that she took away her husband’s or partner’s masculinity. “A battered woman may be be pressured by king to feel she is a bad wife, while her rather may claim she I staking away his masculinity.” Then right after, Merry states that a woman is considered a bad wife or girlfriend when after she goes to the legal system and asks for help then she takes it back. Then they are considered as having identity transformation.
A problem that Merry points out is what if those in the legal system favored the male and thought that the woman is overreacting and didn’t take the situation serious. This makes the woman thinks twice about what power she has to protect herself and her rights. Another problem that I noticed was when Merry said that when the male tries to reassert his masculinity, the female tries to find the new subject within the law alienating and empty. However, on the other hand, she also says that the female’s family would pressure her into leaving the abusive male and get new services to protect herself within the legal system. In my opinion, after reading that women often go to the legal system for help then try to take it back in fear of what her family thinks or that she fears that she is challenging the male. I don’t think that women should try to take back going to the legal system for help, because in a way the woman herself is taking away her own power. Not only to stop the abuse, but just having he own power in fear of being judged or fear of retaliation from the abusive male. “As women confront the demand to testify against an offender in open court, unsure of the penalty that will follow, but certain of the anger he feels as a result of her testimony, the nature of the new subjectivity offered to her by the law appears ambiguous and unclear”. I felt that this was another reason as to why women try to back out because the legal system doesn’t make what comes next clear and being that the female is unclear, scared, etc., she thinks twice about wether or not she should go through with whatever service it was that she chose.

Moyn starts off by telling us what human rights are which is a set of global political norms providing the creed of a transitional social movement. Moyn then goes on to say that in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the new Universal Decleration of Human Rights states that “without communal inclusion, the assertation of rights by itself made no sense.” What I got from the reading was that since there weren’t equal rights or all, there was the creation of human rights to protect those who were subject to their rights not being equal to everyone else’s. Today, human rights are being limited, if not, taken away completely. They are also being taken away to benefit others. I know ive used this example before but I just want to make a point. So the example was that Donald Trump took away Muslim rights by banning them to travel. However, people are also using their human rights to protest the unfair acts that our “president” and what he is doing. For example, there has recently been a protest where people protest that Donald Trump is NOT our president. There was another protest where women marched for their rights because Donald Trump tried to take them. Also, this thought brings me back to one of the last discussions where I spoke about if you don’t know the full extent of your rights then it’ll be easy for someone to take them away from you. When Moyn stated “Because when human rights exploded in the 1970s they were focused so centrally on political and civil rights, their social and economic cousins have come to be regarded as “second generation” principles” I think it’s important to keep the original rights and if it must be tweaked to fit society then tweak it so that it makes everything, social, economic, political and civil rights, equal. I don’t think that just because the higher power tweaks the rights they add some and then either ignore or weaken the previous rights. Also what I got from the text was that concerns for inequality and socioeconomic deprivation even appeared in the bible so it’s nothing new, this has been a concern for centuries. Also when Moyn pointed out that places witnessed that their government provide visions of natural rights that weren’t too focused on self-preservation, they didn’t that because they don’t really want to zero in on rights on individuals. So what ii got from that alone was that they rather tell people as a whole that they have rights rather than telling them that as individuals they have their own set of rights. Moyn starts off by telling us what human rights are which is a set of global political norms providing the creed of a transitional social movement. Moyn then goes on to say that in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the new Universal Decleration of Human Rights states that “without communal inclusion, the assertation of rights by itself made no sense.” What I got from the reading was that since there weren’t equal rights or all, there was the creation of human rights to protect those who were subject to their rights not being equal to everyone else’s. Today, human rights are being limited, if not, taken away completely. They are also being taken away to benefit others. I know ive used this example before but I just want to make a point. So the example was that Donald Trump took away Muslim rights by banning them to travel. However, people are also using their human rights to protest the unfair acts that our “president” and what he is doing. For example, there has recently been a protest where people protest that Donald Trump is NOT our president. There was another protest where women marched for their rights because Donald Trump tried to take them. Also, this thought brings me back to one of the last discussions where I spoke about if you don’t know the full extent of your rights then it’ll be easy for someone to take them away from you. When Moyn stated “Because when human rights exploded in the 1970s they were focused so centrally on political and civil rights, their social and economic cousins have come to be regarded as “second generation” principles” I think it’s important to keep the original rights and if it must be tweaked to fit society then tweak it so that it makes everything, social, economic, political and civil rights, equal. I don’t think that just because the higher power tweaks the rights they add some and then either ignore or weaken the previous rights. Also what I got from the text was that concerns for inequality and socioeconomic deprivation even appeared in the bible so it’s nothing new, this has been a concern for centuries. Also when Moyn pointed out that places witnessed that their government provide visions of natural rights that weren’t too focused on self-preservation, they didn’t that because they don’t really want to zero in on rights on individuals. So what ii got from that alone was that they rather tell people as a whole that they have rights rather than telling them that as individuals they have their own set of rights.

In my opinion, I believe that everyone should have equal human rights. I agree with Wendy when she says that “Human rights matter because they help people help themselves”, and “HUman rights is te language that that systematically embodies the intuition tht each individual is entitled to equal moral consideration”. I do think that it is okay to believe that human rights is an antipolitical and expressle moral antidote to abusive political power, a defense against power, and a protection against pain, deprivation, and/or suffering. I think this means that if people knew that they have rights no one could try to take it away from them and that they should use it on a day to day basis. However, I think that women, especially women and those of lower classes, should know what their rights are so that no one could try to cheat them or try to take their rights away. I’m not sure if I understood it right, butthere was a part in the reading where I read that Ignatief says that there is a form of protection for those who trade a form of their protection for another, but I don’t understand why one must trade one right to have another. we should have full access and the ability to access all of our rights when we want to. I do agree with Brown because human rights should be fro everyone and not just to have to trade for another. in my understanding, human rights in the reading was used to invade Iraq and I don’t think that’s fair to the people of Iraq because if those with power are going to pick and choose when others have rights and when they don’t then there’s a problem. For me the reading wasn’t easy but Brown explains her reasoning on human rights and Ignatief’s reasoning on human rights I agree with Brown because to my understanding, she’s for human rights for everyone. “Is the prevention or mitigation of suffering promised by human rights the most that can be hoped for at this point in history”? I also think it is an important question to ask because human rights deserves to be supported and evenly distributed to individuals. At the end of the reading she talks about if this alone cannot be resolved then other political problems can’t be resolved.

Hello!! My name is Jessica Doiley. I’m 22 years old and I am a teacher for a two-year-old classroom at a daycare in the Bronx. I enjoy reading books and learning new things. As a female I feel that I shouldn’t be told what to do with my body, nor should I be told what to do in general. I’ve recently been a part of the women’s march with my sister and there were a lot of other women who believe the same things as I do. In this class I hope to learn things beyond what I already knew. I want to be engrossed in whatever I read in class. I feel that with whatever is going on in the government, this class will be important to be a part of.

From what I got out of the reading was that those who declared rights didn’t really declare rights for everyone. Individuals such as children, those who are mentally disabled, foreigners, and those who didn’t have property were excluded also. Slaves and freed black people were excluded from having individual rights, women and those who are a part of a certain religious group were excluded. Women are always excluded from things when it comes to the government. How this is similar to modern day human rights is that our new president Donald Trump not only belittles women, but is trying to ban some of our human rights. Not just women’s rights but everyone’s rights. He’s banned Muslims from traveling, and he also wants to send immigrants (children and adults) back to their country. He also wants to take money from the Mexicans to build a wall around Mexico. He’s even spoken about invading Mexico. I agree with what the author says about human rights and how they require three interlocking qualities which are 1. Rights must be natural 2. Rights must be equal and 3. Rights must be universal. “For rights to be human rights, all humans everywhere in the world must possess them equally them equally and only because of their status as human beings.” I feel that the quote was self-explanatory and I agree with it. Yes, in order for someone to have human rights it must be universal, it must be equal, and it must be natural meaning that in my opinion, rights belong to everyone from the rich all the way down to the poor. If someone of the higher power is going to say that everyone is equal ten it must be proven and it must be for EVERYONE.