fMariela has 10 post(s)

As Lughod (2002) analyzes, world events led to the marginalization of Muslim women and upheaved a movement and concentrated on religion being ostracized and discriminated against. Previous to September 11^th, the majority of Americans were on amicable terms with the Middle East, despite several conflicts and the Persian Gulf war. However, thanks to the American tragedy, Americans began to gravitate and look at the religion as a whole, to pinpoint the exact “cause” of 9/11. The result was objection and judgement towards women who practiced Islam, without regards to their insistence and own opinions, which ironically, is just as violating as the assumption that Muslim men disregard their opinion.

A catalyst in this argument was Laura Bush, who wanted to support her husband and his war endeavors to Afghanistan. Understandably so, Laura wanted to discuss the culture of the nationality that reportedly killed Americans on the tragic day. Within her research, she perceived the women in the situation to being trapped within their homes, and believed Americans invading the territory could liberate housewives and other women from their second class citizenship (Lughod, 2002, 874). Though it can be understandable to think of a terrorist’s wife being in this position, the vast majority of Muslim women are given freedom, and their freedom entails with following their religious orders and text.

As discussed by Lughod, it is quite comical to think that the Taliban “invented” the burqa, when in reality, it is a custom in several of the stricter Islamic nations. For these particular sects, the burqa gives the woman the most modesty (Lughod, 2002, 876). Some might find this offensive, but the same can be said about the chastity of nuns in Roman Catholic culture. While some would assume American influence in extremist parts of the Middle East might loosen customs, it should also be realized that for many, this is a preferred method, though others see it otherwise.

Another interesting reference is how the modesty clauses of Muslim women have become “fashion trends”, though their reasoning is purely out of respect for their religion. While many Westernized people and culture might find a Muslim woman’s outfit trendy when it does not involve a burqa or hijab, the purpose of this outfit is still to appease Allah (Lughod, 2002, 878). In a sense, Western culture fetishizes Eastern cultures, but then disregards the contexts from the culture, resulting in cultural appropriation. Along with this, there is a superiority complex, though all religions have factions that commit the same offenses.

In Merry’s discussion with the subject matter, what is realized and noted is the relationship between a woman’s status and her willingness to defend/support the law. Unsurprisingly, this is dependent on the relationship the woman has had with the justice system and her own treatment during such cases. When a woman feels supported and defended in a case of domestic violence or battery, she is more willing to believe in rights and other self-identifying cues when she has been supported; however, when the opposite occurs, she will also abandon the matter (Merry, 2003, 347). When law matters are taken into account, the pendulum swings dramatically with however the woman is treated. For example, women are now reporting domestic violence in higher volumes, thanks to police and society’s encouragement for women to speak out (Merry, 2003, 344). Still, the cases are gathering stronger support from women, because women are feeling that support and the issues concerning law dictate the subjectivity of this sensitive subject.
Law enforcement, criminal justice and the lack of these activities reinforces how women feel on this matter. As mentioned previously, women’s reaction to the system is all relying on how the system treats them. How the law formulates an opinion is unique in the circumstance, considering it is subjective in nature. When women are forced to admit to the law of their current status, they are also going through various motions to “clear” their name. Women are the forced into the criminal justice system, and put through various motions and events to enact possible justice in their case; this includes reporting the crime, talking with the police, discussing the matter with others for the case, writing out statements, and testifying (Merry, 2003, 351). In these actions, women are given various identities, and when it is supported, they feel stronger in the situation. Likewise, if the women are dismissed (thanks to bias against women), they will have less trust in the law and consider all “social justice” to be injustice.
Women depend on the very system that can break or make their lives easier, which is a frightening thought on its own. Despite this, women still manage to faith solace and faith in many situations, if they are respected in the process. Like any other human being, it is expected to not respect authority figures when one is not helped or aided during a crisis or troublesome time. In this matter, women identify with the law, but the matter is unfortunately subjective.

Resolution 1325 has been a God-send for women and children in third world civilizations in the midst of wars. Before 2000, women and children were told to be considered “bystanders” to war efforts according to the UN, who condemned abuse or attacks and attempted to give the proper protection in these times; however, they were not given the correct representation or people to enforce these assumptions. In Resolution 1325, women are integrated in the peace-making and rebuilding processes, given membership and leadership roles within the groups that develop these choices (Aboitiz, Hill and Poehlman-Doumbouya, 2003, 1255-1256). Now, women are able to pioneer new beginnings for their devastated nations and form a new foundation for their fellow citizens.
In the Resolution, the code specifically outlines for women to take more proactive roles within resolutions and to be given the opportunities to lead these movements. However, this is not always the reality that occurs. For example, women have been invited to help resolve issues in Afghanistan, but it has not been accepted yet by other leaders (Aboitiz, Hill and Poehlman-Doumbouya, 2003, 1260). Not only does the Resolution have to be passed throughout many of these nations, but the culture needs to shift as well. In many of the war-torn areas of the world, women are regarded as second class citizens or even properties. To equip women with these possibilities of pioneering a new culture, the UN must realize they also have to battle old beliefs.
Despite this negative factor, women have been able to influence others with their opinions and strength. Since the Resolution, a council has formed for an annual meeting, discussing the current issue at hand. In 2001, women congregated in this meeting to discuss the epidemic of using women’s bodies during war conflicts, which dates itself to World War II; in many of these cases, women are used as sex slaves or even human shields against the opposition (Aboitiz, Hill and Poehlman-Doumbouya, 2003, 1262.) The testimonies were well received, as many of the accounts were auto-biological in nature and offers a new perspective in light of war. The councils have had an overall positive effect, giving many women a voice they have never been able to obtain.
Implementing women into roles to develop and execute peace keeping missions has been one of the best resolutions the UN has made. Not only are women able to finally have a voice, but they are using authority and power they have never carried before. Thanks to this resolution, several areas now have female-ran groups who restock supplies and resources for their area; others work side by side with males, who are trying to assist in the same efforts. Women are given a podium thanks to the United Nations, becoming proud citizens of the nation they hail from and are rescuing in the same process.

Prison population and restructuring of the state are two phrases that begin a theory. With the 70s, the prison world was being groomed in the current state it is in. Though the crime rate was dropping, prison were accumulating numbers, while also inheriting a drug issue and being rejected from employment opportunities (Gilmore, 1999, 172-173). This invented the crisis that begun the cycle of relapse in the prison world, bleeding into the 1980s and 1990s. However, in the 1990s, the crisis was more centered on race, especially anti-Black propaganda (Gilmore, 1999, 174). The prison population was exponentially growing in numbers where black Americans were being incarcerated, compared to their white counterparts. This is the crisis Gilmore discusses, and it is dated back to 1968.
For the African American community, 1968 was a prolific period. Not only does it involve civil rights being a forefront in the American population’s minds, but the Black Panther movement was on an upswing. The idea of Kenyanism, a reversion back to the African roots, was in the air, becoming more of a central idea to the average African American (Gilmore, 1999, 175). An educated African American, suave in politics and culture, is the stark contrast to the prison reality, uneducated and ignorant to current events. However, this is the type of “surplus” the prison world wanted. The prison world realized that to stop this knowledge and growth, they needed ways to discreetly scapegoat the group. This is what we see happening in the 1970s, with accusations of drug problems and crime issues surrounding the African American community.
Now, to resolve the issues of crime and drugs, prison was used as the ultimate incentive. This was the way to “fix” the problem at home (Gilmore, 1999, 177). Thanks to the prison population, a “surplus” was able to happen for the rest of the United States. Instead of having more competition for jobs, houses, cars and other essential expenses, Americans were able to consume without the fear that the media created. Instead, the “crisis” was the reason for the imprisonment, and the imprisonment in return creates the surplus. The surplus was created at the expense of an entire group of the United States, but this was ignored. To have a surplus, the media tricked the American people into concepts that were not true, and because of this false thinking, many individuals were wrongfully imprisoned or misrepresented and labeled as deviant.

As mentioned by the first chapter, capitalism was built on sexism and racism. Feudalism, the financial society before capitalism, was based on raids, murder and control (2004; 19). With capitalism on the rise, people were curious of the new constraints, considering feudalism’s break down. Socioeconomics were changing to where the commoners were possibly able to move up in the economic ladder. However, women and minorities were affected by this decision. For example, Native Americans and Africans were exploited in the 1600s from colonists to profit (2004; 19). This was one of the most visible signs of racism and capitalism. Europeans were able to take another nationality and race, and keep them as slaves. This exploitation of a group of people led to the immense wealth of another group, starting the racial socioeconomics of the United States. How women were exploited was based on the fact that many were degraded in the process of the Industrialization of Western nations.

As people entered the New World, also known as North America, the woman’s role began to change. Beforehand, women were considered somewhat important in feudalism, being in the center of life for multiple roles (2004; 28). With capitalism, this role shifted. Thanks to the policies of privatizing land and owning property, individualism was expected for agriculture. Since this was becoming a greater need, women were expected to help the men when needed, but also not considered as important. Instead, their role was expected to juggle manual labor and housework. However, as this practice continued, women became to become more vocal and then restrained (2004; 30). The brief freedom felt during this period was immediately taken away, and continued to spiral out of control.

Women were constrained to their personal spaces in their households. They were expected to be fully responsible for reproduction and keep the family stable with their work. Thanks to this, women were becoming more financially dependent on males, while unable to make their own wage (2004; 31). This made males able to own property and become successful in the capitalist society. However, women were only as successful as their husbands, and were risking to lose this status at any time, even if their husband passed away. As Industrialization entered lives, women were expected to enter the work force to support industries. However, they were not given the same wage compensation, rights or privileges as their male counterparts (2004; 40). Males were given these economic pillars, improving capitalism at the expense of women.

According to Parisi and Peterson, heterosexuality should be used in the discussion of human rights, instead of the argument of how it suppresses others. The latter is used in feminist theories, who seek to represent minority groups and consider heterosexuality the majority. However, there is validity in Parisi and Peterson’s argument. If one can ponder on it for a second without considering the oppression, heterosexuality is the basis for life, and understanding its links to humans will also explain the social issues and human rights one desires.

As stated in many discussions, heterosexuality is the more promoted sexual preference because of its biological benefits of reproduction (Parisi and Peterson, 132.) Thinking on it without bias or judgement, the only way for humans to reproduce properly is to engage in vaginal intercourse, between a man and woman. This biological benefit is the reason for many’s preference for heterosexuality. Thanks to this preference, society is more engaged in male domination, because it is the male, whose sperm infiltrates the woman’s egg, produces the action that will create the future child (Parisi and Peterson, 138.) Patriarchist societies and thoughts originate from this sole fact, which is the reason for women rights issue: since males are the ones who release the needed substance to create a child, they feel entitled and in power over women.

Breeding heterosexually has also led to a gender division in lifestyles. From politics to household work, heterosexuality has led to the very basis of human living. Males and females are delegated roles and have expectations for their birth given gender or sex. Due to this, humans are instantly shaped from infants into a specific gender role and expected to follow this (Parisi and Peterson, 139.) When people deviate from their culture’s standard for gender, they typically face the harshest punishments. This, for feminists and others, is a major violation in human rights and social issues, but can be explained from this heterosexual fact. An example is the marginalization of women’s rights for three generations: because women are expected to be nurturers and caregivers, their “want” for more freedom is looked upon as greedy and socially unacceptable, considering the actions deviate from the norm (Parisi and Peterson, 142.)

Feminists have every right to combat the theories behind heterosexuality and why it hurts many alternative lifestyles. However, it should be explained with heterosexuality as well. The biggest concern for many is why these other outlooks are considered repulsive and people violate it. If you can look at the beginning of mankind, heterosexuality explains it easily. To many, heterosexuality is the only way to go, because it has far more benefits for society than the individualism behind the LGBT community, who cannot produce more members of that culture. This is the reason behind human rights violation, and it should be explained so both sides of the aisle become educated.

Human right has been taken to mean something different by many people. In fact, once they come across this word then they think of political ideas and moral principles. Ideally, it is more than this as it is going to be espoused later on. The right of man and human right basically are two different terms with distinct means and therefore these differences will be clearly espoused. As a matter of fact, they basically have a lot of disconnect in terms of historical universalism with each basically committed to the fact that every person is part of the moral group.

Indeed, in chapter one of Samuel Moyn’s work, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History has absolutely talked about the two concepts i.e. the right of man and human right. These two concepts have been clearly differentiated and I think the deference is as follows; in regards to the rights of man, it was universally agreed in the universal declaration that, these rights were basically to be achieved through what is called the construction of space citizenship in which rights were protected and accorded. In fact, these spaces not only contested the denial of the rights that were already established but also were zones of citizenship struggle.

On the other hand, human rights in particular after 1945, actually did not establish any comparable space but the most central event that could be talked about under this is ideally the recasting of the rights as indeed entitlements that might basically refute the state of nation’s sovereignty from outside and above rather than basically serving its foundations. As obviously indicated, in the right of man ideally there must be a space of citizenship and therefore talking about human right has nothing that can be compared to this particular space and this is the fundamental different between the two.

Another fundamental thing that should be known about human right is the fact that, it does not at all focus on individualistic achievement but rather it when the society begins to protect the values as indicated in the revolutionary declaration. On the other hand, talking about right of man it is rather a very specific thing, I mean it focuses on individualistic achievement and in this case men. Basically, this should be able to manifest the wide disconnect between the two terms and as the words suggests, the right of man, meaning the rights of a man an individual and unlike human right which is a term that mean much  more things beyond just a man.

I personally agree with Wendy Brown entirely that human right activism is basically beyond championing for innocent, powerless and defense in the society because, I personally understand human right as an agency has a role to play especially when it entirely comes with the rights of all human beings. The rights are basically beyond defense, innocence and powerless. Indeed, Wendy has given various evidences supporting her claim. Firstly, attainment of social and economic security is a fundamental thing that needs to be championed by Human right activist and in so doing political and civil can easily be realized. Usually, there are things which are actually forgotten in a number of occasions. In fact, there are many concerns which needs to be addressed and when this is done then conditions are laid for political engagement and then finally economic improvement achieved. In other words, things like food, shelter and clothing are very much fundamental and they need to be catered for the purpose of economic good.

 Secondly, human right is actually a language of empowerment in the sense that through the agency mandated people can easily protect themselves from injustices. It should not be forgotten that many people face many challenges in society fundamentally those things which are contrary to the law. Since in most cases you find that, they are poor and they cannot be able to defend themselves, they simply let go. This is where the human right agency should come out and give empowerment such that justice actually prevail no matter what circumstances.

Lastly, it basically will be like a basis for things like deliberations, conflict, argument and contentions. Human right according to Brown will basically give a background to bringing solutions to those things which the government of the land has taken a hard line to solve. I mean, for instance, you may find strikes taking place by workers demanding something that the government cannot be able to guarantee them. This means that the human right agency will act as the one to ensure there is a solution between the two parties.  There are other many more contentions that can also arise in regards to evasion of justice because you are powerful and the sought and therefore the human right must also ensure that it proves that it is necessary for justice to take its course. If this is not done then this will imply that there is a serious constitutional crisis which needs to be taken serious.

Original contract basically constitutes two things i.e. domination and freedom. Here it should be realized that women are not treated equal to men, in other words, men are superior as opposed to women and therefore the contract is patriarchal. In a number of occasions that women are not treated as being powerful as men and therefore, in anything that is basically conducted, they are regarded as subordinate. This idea is absolutely inconsequential in the modern society and this has been replaced with civil society which is anti-patriarchal. In sexual contract, women are also seen as insignificant and men seen as dominant because they are believed to be the people giving this. It has not been realized that indeed in the original contract, there a half that is missing which need to be incorporated in order to make it complete. It should be known that other theorists have companioned this issue and since it was referred to as patriarchal has now been changed because this word cannot be used in the current society.
Indeed, there is a serious need for the women always to participate every single thing that men participate. This tendency in my opinion is primitive and has to end. In any case, women does it better than men why don’t they be given a chance to prove their capabilities? Women are actually incorporated in the contract when the social contract theory is brought about. In other words, this is the theory that advocates for freedom. That is, the inhabitants or those who occupy the state of nature basically exchange the insecurities of freedom to equals. This will bring a sense that when a man and women entire in a contract then they are treated as equals. It is also important to indicate that the contract theorists won in the process of defending the fact that there was a special half missing and also the important political part in the contract is not interpreted properly. In fact, political interpretation the issue of conjugal right emergences and in this case, the father s the one to exercise this to the woman and therefore considered patriarchal.
It is clear that the main reason as to why the very fundamental section has been omitted in the sexual contract is basically the misleading pictures actually given by the civil society about the contact marriage. In fact, patriarchal civil society has been categorized into two parts but happens that only one part is used and the other left out.

My name is Mariela Eduardo. This is my second Semester is CWE. My major is Early Childhood with co concentration with History politics and law. I am currently work fulltime as Director of First Bloom Day Care. I have great passion for my profession and have many plans to expansion. I believe with education, determination and hard work anything is possible. I a world run by masculinity a woman in power has many barriers to overcome and by getting the proper education and hard work she will be able to climb the escalator of success. My parents come from Dominican Republic, my mother is an accountant and my father barely reached 5th grade due to economic reason. Upon travel to US, my mother could no longer pursue her career as an accountant and had to settle for Home attendant and my father became a chef. They showed me that hard work and determination is the key to success and with education I will have more opportunity to succeed. In taking this class I hope to get a deeper understanding of Woman Right as Human Right to which will help me in my career and help other woman progress in life.

In the introduction of her book, Inventing Human Rights by Lynn Hunt (2007) she draws attention to works that were prosecutors to the Universal Declaration for Human Rights which were adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Thomas Jefferson made evident natural human rights in an official document creating an enigma and The French revolution Declaration of the rights of man and citizen states that all men are born with equal rights.

The Declaration of the rights of man and citizen drafted in 1789, states all men are born with equal rights, declaring no priest, king or noble is better than any other man. Also in The Declaration of independence in 1776 when first drafted by Thomas Jefferson went sentence restructures by interchanging “sacred and undeniable” with “self-evident”. This word is controversial to Mrs. Hunt because something so evident as human rights should not have to be part of a document. In current time, we face the problem that all men are born equal no matter sex, religion, cultural background and immigration status. We should not be separated or questioned of our basic human rights of peace and equality.