fJacklyn has 8 post(s)

In the essay of “Do Muslim Women Really Need saving? ” by Lila Abu-Lughod, she points out many factors of the ideas and focuses of what the westerns views and obsesses when it comes to helping Muslim women, she first points out that why do we now have concerns after the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001. Abu-Lughod suggest that one should be skeptical about the focus on the “muslim women” if it begins with the U.S public response. Abu-Lughod is concerned with the views of reporters or modern western feminist, that show they are more focused on the basic issue on women from Afghanistan, the terrible encounters with the Taliban’s or why was they understanding of “culture” of the region and its religious belief and treatment of women was more important than exploring the history of the development of oppression regimes/government in the region and the U.S role in the history of muslim women. Abu-Lughod also points out ‘haunting’ words from the First Lady Laura Bush’s radio would state that towards the issue on the “War on Terrorism”  that “Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned to their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughter without fear of punishment. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for their rights and dignity of women” (U.S Government 2002) (2002:784). Abu-Lughod would point out on the politics of the view that since Laura’s Bush would freely say that Afghanistan woman claim their rejoice of liberation, that it was known that the burqa was a sign of oppression on Afghan under the Taliban the women were forced to ear them. But liberals would confess that even after Afghanistan women were liberated from the Taliban, they still wore their burqa, In reality Pashtun one of the several ethnic group in Afghanistan was where the women would wear them when they were outside. The burqa symbolized separation of men and women sphere from the public, an association of women with the family and home wore when outside-where strangers mingled. The burqa would symbolized women who were modest but Aba-Lughod would question why would women become ‘immodest’ if they suddenly did not where their burqa or any form of cover up, which supposedly assured them protection of harassment. Another critique and one of the most important thing is that especially since it has little focus to is that she believes that Afghanistan women should have the right to freedom from violence, global inequality from the ravages of war, enough food to eat, having homes, for their families, make a decent living, education, medicine and so on.

My name is Jacklyn Hernandez, this is my first semester at CWE 2017, my majors are Early Childhood Education, I would like to someday become a teacher for young children at a public school. For many years I can admit that I’ve turned a blind eye when it came to women rights and human rights in general. I did not want to admit that there was and is injustice that is becoming tragically. As I chose this course, I plan to learn and become educated about our rights as humans, and more importantly women rights, as I know that because for many years since rights for women was never an option and we now have the privilege to a certain extent I would like to understand its history and how changes came about to now. I’ am very appreciative to have the privilege that I have now, but I sometimes question, am I settling for less?

During my reading of “Inventing Human Rights” by Lynn Hunt (2007), I found it difficult to really understand that a man like Thomas Jefferson, a once slave-owner, member of the Founding Fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence 1776 would state “we hold these truths the be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (15), but Hunt, experts and philosopher would argue that this statement did not involve everyone. This so called human rights yet limited women, slave men and free slave men, children, the disabled and the lower class people, if not excluded them. Another point Hunt questions when it comes to Jefferson statement “we hold these truths to be self-evident” is that it is extremely difficult to say, especially during a time where women and blacks had no saying, and era where slave was a major issues, they were partially either owned, or wives to someone who probably had those rights.

I can agree and understand, like Lynn Hunt and many people today may argue that although the laws are written for “everyone” those laws do not actually apply to everyone. The blacks and Hispanic and immigrants are constantly violated either by the police department, the government and now president, women still continue to face issues when it comes equality. What I find inhumane is how human beings can be defined, divided inhumanely. Many declarations have tried to declare human rights yet made no difference, written but not played.

After reading Sally Engle Merry article ” Rights Talk and the Experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Human Rights to Protection from Violence” was a very interesting article because many of us are aware of domestic violence that often occur in marriages, but as for myself I did not realize depth of when a battered women/wife now turns to the legal system for protection of self right from such violence.

Merry argues and points out many good points, she focuses her arguments on battered women (that are in violent marriage or relationships receiving physical abuse) and that such issues battered women’s movement relies on the criminal justice that would become a component to an activism that would automatically allow these victims to view and acknowledge their violation towards them as a crime and turn to the legal system for help and guidance. Merry argues that battered women are hesitant to report these crimes due to the fact that most family are deeply rooted, that when the women reports the crime she automatically chooses to the ‘right define self’ which changes the identity for the man and women, but more importantly the women. Instead of being defined by her husband and the family, the wife will then be self-protected by the state of law-becoming an individual rights.

Because this is not the norm for women that are in rooted family, she can feel pressured by the kin to feel bad for trying or potentially to take away her partner masculinity. Or if she backs down from reporting such violation she would appear to be a difficult wife or even a bad victim.

Merry states that without the participation of these victims in the identification of the violence, it become difficult for movement activist to be unable to further their social forms. Interactions with workers from the law enforcement, courts, shelter workers is affective to how far a victim is willing tot are on this new identity. Merry would also point out the challenges these victims may face, such as what if the prosecutor of the courts system do not take the case serious-at the same time not taking the victim serious, or what if the police are friendly to the man, failing to arrest him or if the judges suggest the offense is not as serious. Such experience can weaken the woman’s willingness to take these rights that is presented to her and assert them. If her rights are treated unimportant she may choose to give up and no longer think about her self rights.

Based on Merry’s research, one of her focuses was in Hawaii, directly in towns where her interviewers has had experienced with family court/district court, and participation in a court mandated battered intervention program women’s support group. In a town called Hilo, a feminist group started a shelter program in 1978, and in 1986 they would work with battered women, supporting them. In this very own town cases of violence against women had expanded, hundreds to thousands of many reports of  arrest and  physical abuse were reported, this showed a major increased of women reaching out for help, because there was a system there to help them.

Based on gender man/woman, economic statues, marital status, religion and local (especially if the location is a poor area) when reporting these violence from the partner, the wife takes on a new subject position, where the man masculinity is challenged and more importantly for him his control over her.

Because the legal system allow women for once to be protected and gain self right towards violence from their partners this allows the women to take a step forward.

After reading the article of Non governmental organizations ‘Role in the Build up and Implementation of Security council Resolution 1325 by Felicity Hill, Mikele Aboitz and Sara Poehlman, I understood that the reason behind the Resolution that was pass on October 31, 2000, was due to the stress of the importance on issue on the gender condition towards women, especially towards women, peace and security during war time and prevention towards women and girls suffering in armed conflict especially from rape and other form of gender based violence. Because women issue had not been mixed in the Security Council activities, nor did the council recognize women’s roles as agents (representative) of peace, all of that would change with the Resolution 1325. The resolution was a tool that allowed women to become equal participants in the meetings and negotiations towards the topic of protection of women and girls during armed conflict and gender sensitivity in all UN mission including peacekeeping.

During the CSW(Commission of the Status of Women) the ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury of Bangladesh leaded towards the Security Council, he would state on March 8, 2000 in his gathering discussing the issues on women, the inclusion of women in ‘all level’ of decision making, the process of gender and age specific measures in conflict situations especially for refugees and a displaced person and resource to empower women and the necessities for peace keeping. He would also inform for sessions of the security council to discuss these roles of women in armed conflict and peace, requesting support from the fourteen other security councils. The Women and Armed Conflict Caucus would also make suggestions/recommendations to the Security Council, such as command a report or document on the requirements for the protection of women and girls in armed conflict and to “increase the participation of women of all ages in conflict prevention, peace keeping, peace king, and peace build” (p.1257), and more that would included equality with men.

Yet still many task had to be implemented and put into operation, in 2001 the security council would gather once again with the women’s NGO in the Arria Formula meeting, there it was stressed that “women still account for the largest number of victims in situations of armed conflict and the smallest decision makers” (p. 1261), for the instance the U.S attack own Afghanistan, and the limited role women had been able to act in that region. Prior to that meeting the security council would issue a presidential statement for its strong support for increasing women’s role in decision making towards to conflict prevention and resolution. when it came towards the issue on empowerment, the security council would “urge” (instead of demanding) state members to double their efforts on nominating women candidates as special representative towards to peace missions.

It just still seems that words in this article are based more on urging, and suggesting, and reconsidered towards the importance of women’s needs in such conflict, gender based condition.

In “The Caliban and the Witch” by  Silvia Frederici, firstly points out how the transition from feudalism to capitalism; privatization of land began an extreme change, where people could not afford their living status and more, creating poverty and a major crisis among the people during the 16th and 17th century. This affected women’s in a major way, and more importantly they were degraded through the capitalism process. Allowing men to have a total control.

For instance, Frederici would argue towards the population and economic crisis, because women were a major foundation and producing children, and during the 16th century, the idea that number of people (citizens) would determine a ‘nations wealth’, a woman’s conduct and paternity were controlled. Penalties had become legal through the legal codes to women who were found guilty of committing reproductive crimes. This was highly placed on marriages, where a family would be normally created, the woman would be penalized if she took any contraception, birth controls or had any abortions and infanticide. A woman would have to register every pregnancy, and would be sentenced to death if the child died before baptism, whether she was found not guilty. The women had lost total control over her procreation process. Over all the women at this time became a tool for the reproduction of labor, work-force and seen as a natural breeding machine.

Federici would also argue on the devaluation of women’s labor in the work-force, that when it came to jobs, women were not respected enough. The Proletarian women in particular carried a low status, any work done by them was not considered actual work, it was considered “domestic work” or “housekeeping” (92). It was suggested that the woman should not work outside but inside to engage in manufacturing to “help” their husband. And although the women work was at times done for the market, she was still declined any financial recognition. And if paid, the money was not enough to live by, including that the women’s work would not be considered ‘work’ because or so because it would not fall into any ‘public relief’, in other words, public aid.

I believe the most contradicting part however was that this had led to women especially in the lower class to fall into prostitution, to avoid government capitalism, and although at some point it was legal, how can such a prostitution work force that was considered low and classless as woman be okay but the labor force women had to deal with during paternity and manufacturing labor be controlled?

Capitalism was extremely sexist and degrading.

In the reading of  “Are women Human? It’s not an academic question” by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi, made me realize the position women were placed in, how unfairly they were treated, how a gender and sexual identity would be controlled and created in what was normal. Peterson and Parisi first defends Heterosexuality “to sex/affective relations between people of the so-called opposite sex” (133) and then defined heterosexism “the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only ‘normal’ mode of sexual identity, sexual practice and social relations” (133). In other words through heterosexism it is clear that this was and is a tool created and implemented to create what would be considered normal (the norm), this was how it was preferred through the political and patriarchal system. From the beginning of a child’s life, the child would learn their purpose (the language), for example a child’s penis, which is considered the male dominance, this was the binary coding between masculine and feminine in which as a man (masculine) is defined by itself, this was clear that men were more viewed more human, in which the whole ordeal was androcentric.

It was considered that the norm was that men were the one in controlled, a woman was to bear for the children and comply with the needs of the men. Through heterosexism it became an advantage for the masculinity group reproduction, it promoted binary gender identities, such as it accepted a women’s subordinates to the males, it also promoted heterosexual relations with the males and children. But heterosexism however was also oppressive, both authors states “it privileges males/masculinity and male-defined interest of women qua women, and it denies/repressive all other sexual orientations and gender identifications” (138). This statement also represented that it not only denied women’s interest as a human being but also homosexuals and bisexuals, because of course that was not considered the norm within heterosexism.

Though three generation of rights, one of the many examples for instance, political and civil rights, women were excluded, because in reality they were not included in the human rights, therefore men embodied those human rights through the public sphere, but in the private sphere women were assigned to stay at home and comply to their women duties. Peterson and Parisi would also add on how women in the military would be denied war activities, they were at times excluded in combat which is still an issue today.

Gender inequalities was and still is an issue many women and men face today, women are still being treated unfairly and men are not able to be themselves freely because the norm does not include homosexuality. Although a lot has changed through the years, it seems that even with better changes the laws and rules are yet to be very conservative and old school.

As I read Wendy Brown’s “The most we can hope for…” Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism, it made me view things very differently and get a better understanding on her views when it comes to human rights activisms.

As we may all know, human rights is a tool to fight injustice treatment and control that is put on innocent individuals, however Brown argues that human activisim is more than it claims to be. Ignatieff expresses his claims on his view of human rights, but it seemed that his views are within the boundaries, limits and levels within the political system.

Brown supports are arguments by using one of her main evidence, the case of the invasion in Iraq in 2003 by the U.S and Britain. Ignatieff would argue that “Human rights is a language of individual empowerment” and “when individuals have agency, they can protect themselves against injustice” (pg. 455). First, the word empowerment as we know through the state has its limitation; Ignatieff views this invasion as a form of human rights, however Brown would argue that this can be contradicting. How could this be so, when throughout this invasion many innocent individuals, families, children were killed, something they did not choose, but as something we choose for them. Such organization (human rights) that are controlled through governments, made a political decision, so do we conform through such changes and accept this? Another evidence Brown argues towards Ignatieff claims on what is right for those suffering, he would claim, “ A world of moral equality is a world of conflict, deliberation, argument and contention” (pg. 458). Brown would argue that if an individual rights (universal moral) is to avoid any form of oppression why should something very typical and natural be argued. How can through such organization of the human rights, govern and limit the lives of others.

Brown wants people to understand that human rights is not as simple, because at the end there will always be government control, as much as human rights activism would considered themselves anti-politic, politics will always play a part especially through any project that consist of what is right for the people. I agree with Brown, precisely because government and political powers will always govern what is right for the individuals, and no matter the organization, thing will never be as pure, and neither defensible when governments will be the ones controlling them.

As I read Carole Pateman’s writing in “The Sexual Contract”, it was clear that women were put into very low standards to men. Through the fields of ‘civil society’, which contains nothing but in my opinion, insecure elite, narcissistic, dominating men, they would create an original contract that merely excluded women on her rights. It was also clear that in the only incorporation a women had in the civil society was to comply and obey as a wife and a women, she was to please her man when he wanted to, because “rape didn’t exist within a marriage”, and do her job as a wife especially having his child. Because she was excluded in such contract, the man had all the rights to the women’s body. As contract theorist Locke would lay his statement that “every man has a property in his own person” (pg. 13).

Many social contract theorists would argue and believed that men owned their property also through women, women were not considered equal to a man. It seemed that marriage contract was more to avoid that woman’s weren’t just their slaves but their wife, in other words in my opinion, a marriage contract was a cleaner way to do it. Although entering marriage through a marriage contract, women were still excluded on their rights, Pateman would write “what it means to be an ‘individual’, a maker of contracts, and civilly free, is revealed by the subjection of women with the private sphere” (pg. 11), in other words women were categorized as in the natural but private sphere, which indicated what was private; where a woman a placed in a place where she is mostly likely not seen and not validated, but yet natural to the civil society still excluded the woman to having the same power as a man through the contract, they apparently were not considered “individual”. The only right a woman had was her child, a child who will then eventually have a contract to obey his mother.

It seems beyond me that what is naturally in listed for us as a human being, is controlled by such contract. Women are the ones who should be validated not only for their womanhood but also just primarily as human beings, it becomes more clear as to why many feminist have fought to break down the issue on woman’s right on their body, choice and what they should do after during marriage, in participation on politics have become a strong and vocal on what’s right.