fToni has 8 post(s)

Toni Mitchell

Assignment: Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

In the article Abu-Lughod She explores how the paradigm of saving Muslim women has gained momentum particularly in the aftermath of 9/11. She skillfully deconstruct the symbolic significance of a range of high profile ‘moral crusades’ involving Muslim women which have captured the global imagination. Abu-Lughod highlights how the most basic conditions of these women’s lives are set by political forces that are often national or even international in origin even if they are local in effect. What are often seen as ‘traditions’, therefore, are in fact responses to war and uncertainty, economic and political upheaval and instability. For example, in debates about Afghanistan, there is an overemphasis on cultural practices and little discussion about the effects of the injustices of war and militarization. Against this wider geopolitical background, she argues that concepts such as ‘oppression’, ‘choice’ and ‘freedom’ are blunt instruments for capturing the dynamics and quality of Muslim women’s lives in these places.

In the article, Abu-Lughod characterizes the Western framing of women’s rights in Muslim populations as highly contextual. Bibi Aysha for example is an Afghan woman whose Taliban husband and in-laws punished her by cutting off her nose. she the co-optation and manipulation of women’s rights in the politics and justification of the War on Terror. She used Laura Bush’s radio address in November of 2001 constituted a cry to action for the sake of Afghan women, a galvanizing of anti-terror forces in order to “save” the female population of Afghanistan. According to Abu-Lughod, this mobilization of support for the War on Terror through the framing of the conflict in terms of top-layer feminism is a classic example of Western co-optation of women’s rights as a means of bolstering support for the war. Sadly,reports focusing on global gender discrimination consistently ignore the rampant rape culture, unpunished domestic violence, and workplace gender discrimination that regularly takes place in Western countries such as our own.

Toni Mitchell

Assign 9

The history of rights shows that the struggle for the recognition of women’s rights was difficult enough and the recognition of the right of women to a life without gender violence has been even more difficult. With a perspective based in a socio-legal and critical approach, Sally Engle Merry defends the recognition of the right of women to a life free of gender violence must be seen as a conquest of the feminist movement and women’s organizations.  It was the struggle of the feminist movement which provided the catalyst for the recognition of women’s rights and the specific right of women to a ‘healthy’ life free of gender violence and to protection against such violence. The right of women to a life free from gender-based violence cannot be fully realized without the implementation of this right at the international and the local level. The implementation of rights and the existence of social movements involved with the right to a life free from gender violence is decisive to transforms the demands for protection from violence and its eradication to be see not as a question of mercy, but as a question of justice; and putting the individual experiences of gender violence victims within a wider framework from which the abuse can be considered as a social problem.

Throughout the article,“Rights Talk and the experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Human Rights to Protection from Violence” , Merry interviews a number women known to society as a victim of domestic violence. She uses the issues concerning the bettering of women to model the way law acts to change social behavior. she examines examines various forms of intervention which have been developed in the US and globally for diminishing violence against women. She further discusses how they have globalized, focusing in particular on the role of the international human rights movement in defining gender-based violence as a human rights abuse.

From my point of view, those wishing to make a human rights claim on a violation of  reproductive rights, must use the terminology of other mainstream rights to do so. although this may appear as something difficult for a woman to do, Merry argues that “Human rights are difficult for individuals to adopt as a self-definition in the absence of institutions that will take these rights seriously.” Another thing that caught my attention is the usage of  the term victim. Why is it that when authorities are involved, women

Toni Mitchell

Assign 7

Prisons, I believe, are put in place to ‘fix’ one’s behavior so that the individual may never repeat the same actions. However, after reading Gilmore’s piece, it is quite the opposite. instead it is used as a tax write off to some, while others struggle to get by. Ironically, Gilmore points out that struggle is a politically neutral word and that people struggle because they simply have no choice. I’d somewhat agree with Gilmore on this argument. Systems are continuously put in place to promote the failure of minorities and further the riches of the wealthy. If there are no jobs, then one is forced to seek employment elsewhere which may require the individual to partake in illegal actives resulting in them going to jail. The Great Depression era for one is the perfect example of the survival of the fittest. Although employment was at it lowest, those in the upper class were able to maintain stability.

The idea of collaborating the term ‘prison’ and  ‘restructuring of state’ stemmed at the end of World War II. Policy makers adopted the militia strategy of Keynesianism as a way to improve the countries’ economic status. In other words, warfare was the production of wealth. This is due to rigidities within the macroeconomy caused by wage contracts which prevents prices from immediately reaching an equilibrium given a change in demand. Because of this, a change in demand can lead to changes in real economic variables such as unemployment and overall output.

Keynesian economics largely advocates government ‘intervention through fiscal polices in the event of changes in aggregate demand. This allow the government to ‘lean against the world’ in the event of a shock in the market, or to counteract the effect of existing government expenditure. In my opinion, the effectiveness of these policies is the subject of significant debate. As always any means to promote financial development (especially for those individuals involved in agriculture) favored white males in the suburbs as oppose those from a colored background. Although there has been some progress made when referencing our economic background a few decades ago, I feel as though we as society, are still fighting for social welrfare rights; wouldn’t you agree?

Toni Mitchell

Assign 6

In Caliban and the Witch, Silvia Federici makes a compelling argument stating that capitalism indeed on a constant supply of women’s unwaged labor, not to mention the violence and loss that coms along with it; imposing on them the reproduction of the workforce as forced labors without pay. What I fail to understand is why does capitalism continuously feel the need to degrade women? If it does concern wages; then theres the blame if of the “misbehaving wife.” Federici expresses synthesizes the racist and sexist dimension of discipline that capital seeks to impose in bodies and also the disobedient figures from which they resist it.

It is important the question of reproduction because we are experiencing an unprecedented crisis of reproduction. Sure, The demand for a domestic wage denaturalized female slavery. However is one is to pay closer attention, wage is not the ultimate goal, but merely a strategy put in place to achieve a change in the power relations between women and the capital. Reading Federici, i’ve come to the realization that labor force is not a natural thing, but that it must produce itself. This is to say that capitalism develops

rather in society. That society then becomes a gigantic pie of capitalist relations, as a fundamental terrain of capitalist accumulation. For this reason the discourse of domestic labor, of gender difference, the construction of the female model, would be considered fundamental. Today, for example, globalization in regards to  reproductive labor allows us to understand why, for the first time, women are the ones driving the migratory process

I admit, Feminist struggled for equality under capitalism from the 1960s through the ‘80s (and even before then), but there has been some progress; not much, but some. If we look at the world, and not only the situation in the United States, Europe, or Japan, we see that what we refer to as globalization and the massive entrance of women into wage work is much less uniform than usually imagined.

Witch Hunts for example, Witch-hunts were instrumental to the construction of a patriarchal order in which the bodies of women, their work, and their sexual and reproductive powers were placed under the control of the State and transformed into economic resources. This is to say, the witch-hunters were less interested in punishing a certain transgression than they were in eliminating generalized forms of female behavior that they no longer tolerated and that had to become seen as abominable in the eyes of the population.

Toni Mitchell

Assign 5-

They say knowledge is power and indeed it is, but it seems as though the more I read the more upsetting it is to unfold the truth. V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi pealed back a layer of our Declaration in regards to the arguments surrounding the lack of focus placed on gender identity and its influence upon the political realm. In the essay “Are women human? Its Not an Academic Question”, Peterson and Parisi express the need for heterosexism as oppose androcentrism when examining the relationship between women and human rights. Heterosexism is basically the assumption that everyone is or should be heterosexual and that heterosexuality is the only normal, natural sexual orientation. Which brings me to my next point, if androcentrism is defined as the focus of men and heterosexism focused on the distinction of men and women; don’t they fall on hand in hand? Either way it is the man of power who gets the final draw.

I must admit that I grew up recognizing heterosexism is the “normal” way of life and for one to in be involve with the same sex or identify themselves as another sex was against the norms. It wasn’t until I’d recognize the true state of freedom did I then begin to see no barrier in regards to gender (there goes that word again), race, social/economical background. The term Heterosexism itself not only discriminates against other sexual preferences but also the discussion of human rights as to pertains to woman and man. The tittle of the essay itself raises the question of whether or not women are considered human beings. The marital contract for instance is the perfect example of how men continuously manipulate the female species. As a female, one is expected to aspire to idea of marriage. Think about it; a majority of little girls by the age of three want to be princesses living in a castle with handsome prince. If you pay closer attention, it is always the princess who needs saving. Once again unconsciously promoting the degradation of women.

We as a society will associate the terms heterosexuals with reproduction and abortion with murder a way to further institutionalize women. We lay the burden of [the] continuation of life based upon the male and female being with each other as if there aren’t other way to conceive a child. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the current president of the united states seems pro Antiabortion. In my opinion the only person who should have a say in abortion is the woman, for it is her body. It is the one thing she has claim over; ones own property. Isn’t property what make one “human”?

Toni Mitchell
Assign #4
Samuel Moyn: The difference between human rights and the rights of a human.

The terms “Rights of a human” and “human rights” may be considered to be similar, but yet so different. In order to differentiate the two, I had to first find the true meaning of the word right itself. For most, a right may be defined as a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. But for specifically for whom are rights created. While reading the Samuel Moyn’s piece entitled the Last Utopia, I question if there were any changes at all. We are still tackling the same issues from the 1940’s. “All men are created equal’ is a term we loosely throw around without assessing it through the critical mind. While I do admit there are some major changes (I am living proof of it) in regards to physical enslavement, we are indeed still caged animals (too harsh?). “People think of history in the long term” Phillip Roth says, “but history, in fact is vert sudden” (Moyn,4).

Drawing from the reading, the rights of man were created were created by men (of course) and based upon what deemed necessary for society. And to be recognized as a man, it was required to have ownership of a property. This brings me back to my point about for whom are these rights created. if you weren’t a white male with property, are you then not human?

Human rights is a more of a modern term. The became popular after World War II. The idea of Human Rights is much like the one of Utopia. It is an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. Ironically, the tittle of Moyn’s book is called The Last Utopia and it is exactly that. The thought of the word alone introduces hope; the thought of everyone being equal, but it is not reality. It merely evokes hope and promote action (Moyn,1).

The term human rights has a certain ring to it. I can’t quite explain it but it does give me a sense of empowerment. Just uttering the words, I feel the urge to fight; to stand up for something. People to say that knowledge is power and indeed it is. For if i did not read, then I’d still be taking for granted the struggle our society faces today . I’d agree with Wendy Brown that the phrase human rights is not merely a cry for the weak, but for those wiling to pay attention about what actually taking place in the world. To understand that the battle is not yet over, it is only just now beginning. We must take what we learned and not only apply it but to question it as well.

Brown stresses the need for a sense of security in more than one area. It is true that social and economic recognition is necessary. For it it important for one to have all the required factors such as a rod over their head, food, education, and not to mention the right to feel safe which brings me to my next point: security inside neighborhoods considered lower class. A police officer code of conduct is to serve and protect. however for most, seeing a police officer means you might die tonight. As if that isn’t bad enough, Mass Incarceration is one of todays strategy of enslavement. The US has about 25% of the worlds incarnated people. Now where’s the sense of security in that? Most police officers are trained to target [most] young citizens from certain background to arrest. If the individual is has served his/her sentence; by the time they come home, they have been literally casted out of society. It is easy to access a person’s criminal background online, therefore any random person in the neighborhood may target that individual. if one should apply for a job, there is always mandatory section that asks about a felony. As if they person checked yes, he was still considered a qualified candidate.

Gentrification is another strategy used to revamp the ideology of slavery. Keep in mind, I am not referring to persons of a different racial background, it simply about the rich and the poor. We walk around the area, let’s say Harlem for example, and take notice to how beautiful the campus of Columbia University appears, but knowing that people are being pushed out of their neighborhoods because of raised rent or some shuck bought their building just knock it down, saddens me. Where are the rights of those individuals ? I mean aren’t they considered human. Don’t they have the right to stay in their homes? The Dakota Pipeline is a perfectly example of how “human rights” can be pushed aside and stepped on by those with power. The government is wiling to contaminate the main water source for the people living on that reservation and when the people decided to stand up and fight, they released canine. Although the choice of action was indeed cruel by the US government, the fact that the native fought for their land, people like me know heard their voices, which provides some reassurance that there is much more work be done in regards to claim of human rights as a whole.

Ive always questioned the phrase “all ‘men’ are create equal. Not in terms of …..but because of the usage of the term man itself. I find it interesting how society uses the term man to define citizens as a whole. It comes as no surprise that there’d be some tricky contract degrading women. The real question is why; is it really too difficult to fathom a reality where women receive the same respect as men. Not just in a financial sense but, but just as an human being. Hobbes stated that was no actual difference between men and women, but that sexual relation should be consented through a contract or by force. On paper, it states that it is against the law to discriminate against another based on religion, sex, racial etc. However, I feel as though it is only put in writing to shut us up. it’s like giving a dog a bone so doesn’t stare in your face while eating.

The recent election for example proves just that. I feel as though even if the opposing candidate was worse of moron that the Donald himself, Hillary Clinton would’ve still loss. Clinton did not loose the presidential campaign because of failure to impress citizens, but merely because she was a woman. It’s ironic how women are often seen as being emotionally incompetent, when indeed men. Even through job descriptions. A teacher jobs for example is considered a woman’s job because the nursing of a child is involved therefore the pay is a load of crap.

Another thing that stood out to me in the Sexual Contract read, is the determination of stature is based upon the father, grandfather, and his father so and so forth. As a child and even still till this day, it was always my dream to get married and change my last name. After reading the sexual contract, I do now question that policy. Why is that it is the man’s name that gets carried on for generations? I.e if you have a child, whether a girl or boy, it is the fathers name that is given as the child’s surname. It it such messages hidden in the sexual contact that intrigues me. I know for a fact that I am strong woman, but I am guilty of acting a certain away around my significant other. He doesn’t like me smoking (marijuana) because it isn’t “lady-like”. James Brown once said It is a man’s world (which obviously it is), but it is nothing without a woman. Men, they only hold us back, because they security fear what we’re capable of; Wouldn’t you agree?