fNicole has 7 post(s)

In Human Rights Fifty Years on: A Reappraisal by Tony Evans, there is a piece in this work written by V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi titled “Are Women Human? It’s not an academic question.” In this piece V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak about heterosexism, androcentrism and its relationship to women’s rights and human rights. Heterosexism is defined as the “normal sexual orientation”, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Androcentrism is defined as main “focus or center on man.” In this piece feminist argue that men or part of humen rights and women are part of “other” rights, women are not seen as human, so they are under represented and devalued when it comes to Human rights. Both V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi feel differently from other feminist because, they feel human rights should be linked to heterosexism rather than focus on the relationship between the domination of men have with human rights. All throughout history men have dominated and/or been the center of focus when it comes to rights that are created and given and women have always been an after thought. Feminist today try to separate the men from the women when speaking of human rights. V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak of two spheres. There is the private/family sphere and the public/state sphere. The private sphere embodies women and children, the public sphere is designated for men. These spheres further divide men and women. Human rights were created by men for men, they do not address the rights of women. Human rights are not really the rights of women. These spheres further enforce the separation between men and women by keeping them apart. Too look at just women’s rights or the lack that there was of women’s rights we begin to see just how hidden their rights have become. Keeping them in a private/family sphere and/or realm separates them from the public and/or state. They were seen as property. Using heterosexisum allows women to be seen with men when addressing human rights because it connects them. Heterosexisum leads to reproduction, which leads to family. Family is a “natural gender binary.” It’s composed of two things and those two things are men and women. Just like most things heterosexisum is seen to have more privileges for men than women. The masculinity of men takes strong hold over the femininity of women leaving the two genders separated.

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others” she argues that the “saving” of Muslim women has become the main building block and/or stepping stone for debate and communication of human welfare in Afghanistan. This is a problem because it has made Muslim woman the focus of an on going “messy” political battle. It is my understanding that she feels as though American people have decided to take the historical Muslim culture of women and try to change it based on their beliefs and they have done so without taking into consideration the differences of all women around the world. Lila Abu-Lughod also references to Transnational Feminism, which we have touched on before in previous readings. In her essay she makes a point that feminist and activist didn’t take much notice of the “women of cover” also known as Afghanistan women  until after the events of September eleventh two thousand and one. During a radio show Lila Abu-Lughod noticed that all the questions being presented were trying to pin point some underlying issue or cause of both the horiffic and tragic  events of September eleventh two thousand one. However. all the questions were not just speaking to Afghanistan women but to there religion of Islam and/ or Islam. Lila Abu-Lughod was trying to understand as well as make us aware of the fact that the United States of America had been trying to understand the maltreatment of Muslim and Islamic women and its connection with nine eleven, instead of focusing on why and/ or what caused Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden to plan and execute a terrorist attack on the United States of America. During this time the United Stated or America and the late first lady, Laura Bush decided to intervene and try to “save” the Muslim and Islamic women. Stating that Afghanistan “women were rejoicing at their liberation by the Americans”, but was this truly the case or just a fallacy created but the United States of America. Lila Abu-Lughod brings up a very controversial issue of the Burqa and the covering up of Afghanistan women. She speaks on the “veiling” of these women and what the United States of America fails to recognize. They fail to recognize that covering up or the “veiling” of Afghanistan is a choice made by these women not a “maltreatment” forced upon them by Afghanistan men. The Afghanistan women are clearly misunderstood not in the need of saving.

In this article, “Rights Talk and the experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Human Rights to Protection from Violence” the author Sally Engle Merry interviews women that have been the victims of crimes, such as domestic violence.  The activism for these women has time and time needed the legal system and it’s “justice component” to aid in the support of “the battered women’s movement.” These women have experienced the legal system for themselves and have created their own ” subjectivities” based on these experiences.

It is a harsh reality to think that many women are still the victims of domestic violence. It is not easy for women to come forward and prosecute the abuser. In this article. women share how challenging it was to come forward and prosecute their abusers but also how challenging it can be to prosecute them through our legal system. Sally Engle Merry says “I argue that the adoption of the rights-defined identity under identity-shifting circumstances such as battering depends on the individual’s experience with the law.” Women in general are often victimized. Those women, who have suffered domestic violence will always been seen as victim however depending on our justice and legal system this women may be able to move on and not just been seen or feel like the victim of domestic violence. The experience of this abuse does not have to define and or shape a woman if her abuser is prosecuted and she is treated with respect during the process.

Sally Engle Merry expresses the importance of how going through a “healthy” legal process is just as crucial to a women’s identity as coming forward and prosecuting her abuser. When going through this process each step a women has to take can either negatively or positively affect her “identity shifting”. For example, if a women makes a domestic violence call to the police and the Police Officer on duty tells the abuser “to take a walk.” this can negatively effect that women and her identity by making her feel as though her voice and even her rights as a human being mean nothing, because she has called and asked for help and/or justice and in return she was not meant with that but instead she was dismissed. On the other hand, if that same woman was to make a domestic violence call to the police and the police came and arrested her abuser she would feel as though her voice and rights do matter. This would have a positive effect on her identity-shifting’.

The Resolution Thirteen Twenty Five that was passed by the Security Council on October Thirty First Two Thousand. The Security Council’s responsibility was to provide security and peace. This Resolution’s main focus was to have women be included in times on conflict. The Resolution embodied they idea that women should be able to participate in times of war and/or conflict as peace keepers. Women were not being utilized to their full potential during times of conflict and war. Most women became victims of rape and suffered immensely during times of war and conflict to other sexual abuses. Women’s ideas were unappreciated and devalued during times of war and/or conflict, they were also underutilized during prewar and post war and/or conflicts.  Resolution Thirteen Twenty Five helped unite women in all areas of the world because it provided them with the tools they needed to become active and valued individuals in times of war and conflict. They could now be part of the United Nations negotiations for peace and security efforts for their countries. By including women in these negotiations the hope is to provide peace and protection for them during times of war and conflict. Once the Resolution women’s groups were able to receive reliable support both financially and technically. In other words it forced the Security Counsel in Afghanistan “to put their money, where their mouth is” for lack of a better term. They had step up and provide support not just take about providing support. With the Resolution Thirteen Twenty Five other countries like Africa also began to slowly integrate women into negotiations and peace making decisions. After two thousand one backed NGO women’s groups by re enforcing the idea of empowering women by having countries nominate them for leadership positions. They wanted to increase women’s role in matters of protection, peace and security. With the creation and implementation of Resolution Thirteen Twenty Five Non Governmental Organization Women’s groups have been working together to provide protection and security for girls and women during times war and/or conflict. For example they are creating peace operations for gender justice and refugee children and women. With the technical support these NGO women groups are now receiving they are able to navigate and work on the PeaceWomen.org website that was launched on October thirty first two thousand and one. This site further helps to unite women around the world in working together on matters of peace

Apiece of evidence that Wendy Brown provides to support her claim that human rights activism can not be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless”, is when she quotes ” All that can be said about human rights is that they are necessary to protect individuals from violence and abuse, and if it is asked why, the only possible answer is historical. In the past of United States of America, history shows that activists of and for human rights were not innocent and powerless. They showed great strength by standing up for what they believed in. They took a stand against what they felt was wrong and made a conscious effort to make a change.

Wendy Brown uses Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian author and former politician, Tanner Lecture Series from two thousand one as a reference in this reading, “The Most We Can Hope For…”: Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism. Michael Ignatieff was also the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In this reading Michael Ignatieff says “human rights must accept that it is a fighting creed and that its universal claims will be resisted.” This quote is evidence to the fact that human rights can not be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless.”, because those who realize that they will be climbing an uphill battle against extreme climates and still persist in doing so are far from week. They are strong. It takes a strong individual to break through any type of resistance.

Wendy Brown also quotes this line from Michael Ignatieff, “Human rights is a language of individual empowerment, and when individuals have an agency, they can protect themselves against injustice.” The word empowerment alone means and stands for “authority or power given to someone to do something.” Empowerment is the complete opposite of “powerless.” Human rights activist are driven by the empowerment to do what is right by and for others. Wendy Brown later brings up empowerment again and says ” Moreover, to the extent that human rights are understood as the ability to protect oneself against injustice and define one’s own ends in life, this is a form of “Empowerment” that fully equates empowerment with liberal individual.

Another quote that stuck with me throughout this reading for its connect to what Wendy Brown said about human activists not being reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless” was when Michael Ignatieff says “Without the freedom to articulate and express political opinions, without freedom of speech and assembly, together with freedom of poverty, agents cannot organize themselves to struggle for social and economic security.”

I found the reading of Carole Pateman’s Sexual Contract very interesting. Although it was a lot to read, research and understand I did find it to be very informative. In the Sexual Contract Carole Pateman mentions the word “Patriarchal/ Patriarch” fairly often. A Patriarch is a male controlled government and/or society. A government that is controlled by male dominance is one that will forever under mind women.

In the past women were viewed as property. When marrying a woman in the past, a man would expect to receive land, money etc. Women were the subject in marital contracts dominated by men. These women were not labeled slaves but with no rights, not being seen as equal to their male counter parts, and not having a role in the governing society in which they lived basically made them slaves. If a civil society is one that connects its people by similar interest and “collective activity, how can a woman in the past or even now feel like they matter in a civil society that does not view them equal to men?

Carole Pateman brings up numerous theorists from the past. She speaks on these three theorists, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the social contract. A social contract is made by a community and/or society that wants to create or define rules, benefits, rights and duties for its members. Once again social contracts were created by men. The making of the social contract did not include women although they were part of the society.  In my opinion “social contracts” were hypocritical because they were supposed to be created by members in the society but women (members of society) were not making or were not part of making social contracts.

The state of nature- “is a concept used in moral and political philosophy, religion, social contract theories and international law to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence.”  In the Sexual Contract by Carole Pateman mentions that “wives” were not mentioned. Since Marriage combined man and woman to husband and wife, “they appeared only in civil society”. Thomas Hobbs believed that in a civil society and civil contract that men had no need to over power women however, women we still and are still over powered by men. With all of this information in these readings I still wonder what needed to be done or what needs to be done in order for women to truly be treated, respected and viewed as equal to men?

Hello. I am Nicole Palma. This is my first semester at CWE after graduating from The Borough of Manhattan Community College in the summer of 2016. I hope to get my bachelors in two and a half years for the Center of Worker Education. My major is Early Childhood Education with a concentration in Childhood Studies. I was interested in this class because it was one of two hybrid classes that fit my schedule. I wanted to take a hybrid class because I have never taken an online course and I felt with this class being half on campus and half online, it would provide me with the perfect opportunity to try online course but no being fully enrolled in an online course only. Also with the current election of President Trump, I felt I needed to gain more knowledge on Women’s Rights but more importantly Human Rights.

This is a very exciting semester for me because not only am I taking classes that I am truly interested in but I am expecting my first child at the very end of the semester! I look forward to the both the journey of motherhood as well as the journey as a Center of Worker Education student that the year of twenty seventeen has in store for me. In closing to my self-introduction I would just like to congratulate my all time favorite sports team of all time The New England Patriots in winning the Superbowl!
In the beginning of the introduction to Lynn Hunt’s book Inventing Human Rights, she talks about Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of The Declaration of Independence, which was prepared in mid-June of the year 1776 that he made his own revisions that he made to the draft. Towards the middle of her the introduction Lynn Hunt “Human Rights and “The Rights of Man”” she referred to the term “natural rights” which was more commonly known as now as human rights. I found it interesting that all though Thomas Jefferson spoke of and used the term “Rights of Man”, it did not become “commonly used” and/or gain significant meaning until Jean-Jacques Rousseau used the term in his Social Contract along other “rights terms”, such as “Rights of Sovereignty”, “Rights of Humanity” and “Rights of the Citizen”. Jean- Jacques Rousseau Social Contract was a book of theories he created on the best way to make a “Political community” function.  “How Rights Become Self Evident”.