å Monday, March 27th, 2017

In their article “Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question”, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism. Heterosexism is defined as the institutionalization of heterosexuality as only natural way in which people express their sexual and social conducts it’s also a way of analyzing gender differences and how heterosexuality is considered the norm in society. The inequality that comes with heterosexism leads to a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights. It is not unfamiliar for this to favor males over females in heterosexual relationships and makes it so that male can continue to promote male escalation in status at the expense of women. The gender hierarchy has been in effect for all of time and women have continuously been deprived of their own sexual freedom due to the oppression brought about by heterosexism and the creation of laws that divide labor by age, class, and gender. Women continue to be tied to the reproductive role in society and heterosexism continues to generate a division between females and males making the differences between them determine their value as people. Another point brought about by heterosexism is human rights and how women are treated poorly for the benefit of men to be able to use toss them around and use them for their benefit and for their own profit. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi both argue that heterosexism is key to help evaluate the contrasts between gender and human rights experienced by women and men in society. In addition it is a source of oppression that has been going on for centuries and has affected the ways children are raised to fit their “gender” and also has impacted religion, morality, and the rules of society that have been constructs of an imaginary “normal” society because in reality there is no such law of the land that decides that heterosexuality is what is normal.

Peterson and Parisi believed that heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights as it recognizes the exclusion and oppression of women in the discussions of human rights. Under heterosexist thinking, human rights are actually men’s rights as it stems from historical ideology of the heterosexual male being the universal standard, while women and other sexual minorities being subordinate to them and excluded in the rights. This creates a gender inequality that is institutionalized in society’s thinking, with males being associated with dominance and females being subordinate in comparison. This inequality can be observed throughout society such as in the family/household and in the state system. In the household, the gender differences are apparent as the males were considered the breadwinners of the family, while the females were considered subservient, creating a gender hierarchy. In the state system, the gender hierarchy is also influential concerning the status of women in relation to the state, as the state favors the men’s interest over the women’s.

Peterson and Parisi explain the exclusion of women’s rights in three categories. In the first category, women are excluded from civil and political rights, essentially their human rights. By denying women these rights, the state has made them vulnerable to the actions of males such as rape, abuse, and murder. In the second category, the exclusion of these rights concern women’s economic, social and cultural rights. The work that women do were considered “reproductive” rather than “productive,” which made their work invisible in society’s eyes, allowing for exploitation and harassment. The devaluation of women continues to support the subordination of women and the denial of their rights. In the last category, Peterson and Parisi explains the influence of the gender hierarchy in regards to group/collective rights. The subordination of women creates an environment that stunts the self-determination of women, which discourages women from expressing their concerns and interests. Heterosexism, in regard to women’s rights, establishes that there are gender differences between men and women, and that these differences influence what rights you are able to have in society.

In the reading V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that heterosexualism is central to the relationship of human rights and gender differentiation. A heterosexual relationship consists of  both male and female, implying a binary classification of the genders. This forces a natural polarity between the male and female, making both genders opposites and allows people to distinguish the two from each other. Among these distinctions lies historical discrimination in favor of men, in which human rights come into play. The byproduct of heterosexualism in society yields one in which one side dominates the other, exemplifying the behavioral relationship between men and women today. Humanity as a general term has long been established as androcentric making men the primary focus, hence the ‘man’ part of the word mankind. Thus heterosexism becomes a pillar of human rights, and as the world stands there is a clear hierarchal difference from the male and female sexes where universally accepted androcentrism gives males an advantage. Peterson and Parisi maintain that cultural values like family shape the prevalence of inequality and gender difference through social practice. Normalized heterosexuality is also present within the state acting as a sovereign model for citizens, making obligatory the social leverage given to men. Because of this human rights remains applicable to all, albeit less so for women. The unequal distribution of rights puts in jeopardy the protection of women from male oppression, a major difference in gender that is made easily identifiable by heterosexualism. This gives the analysis of gender relationships a clear result; a heterosexist institution favors males and promotes vulnerability to females. Relative to gender difference and human rights, it is obvious that society operates on discrimination for the sake of separating the sexes and making sure they stay mutually exclusive. Were the institution not to be heterosexist, human rights could potentially be evenly distributed at the expense of gender difference. What Peterson and Parisi explain is that human rights are impacted by heterosexualism, a human concept built upon over time. If heterosexism is abandoned, lines between genders would be erased eliminating the need to make women’s rights and human rights two separate things.

In “Are women human? It’s not an academic question,” V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi speak on heterosexism in relevance to human rights. They divert from the common feminist view of human rights in context to mens rights. This would in result allow us to think of human rights in different lens, and break away from male dominance. Peterson and Parisi talks about the states role in maintaining the degradation of women. For instance, they bring up domestic violence and how the state opted not to interfere.  This example is brought up to convey that women, even in their own household, are subjugated to their husbands. Not only are women under physical attack, but also psychological attack through the governments choice to not intervene. Because heterosexism is accepted as the natural sex identity, homosexuality is immediately deemed unnatural. And those practicing homosexuality is confined by the laws, by limiting the rights of gay men and women. The governments role, results to people being conditioned that, because the laws says it is wrong, then it must be wrong. The state has a way of influencing peoples morals, and they take to their advantage. This imbalance between gay and straight people is also applied to men and women. In the work environment, women are under male dominance, whether it be evident through their unequal pay or their tolerance of sexual harassment. It is ignorant to say that there isn’t a gender bias within our system and every day life. And although women rights have made progress historically, it is peculiar that women rights are not recognized as basic human rights. And I believe this is the point that Peterson and Parisi tries to get at. Women won’t be granted as a human until the state and society stops comparing our genders and sexuality.

Similarly to other readings we’ve read, men happen to be the “norm” and we tend to see women as another “kind”. Peterson and Parisi mention in their essay that androcentrism happens to be prevalent even in the concept of humans rights.  This androcentrism is a way of showing men’s dominance over every situation including laws of basic human rights.   Feminists have come to the idea that human rights are ultimately men’s rights, resulting in the the abuse of women’s live and shunning of women’s voice. The normalization of male dominance in any situation leaves women with no voice or no one taking women seriously.  This is the problem with androcentrism and is primarily why Peterson and Parisi believe that heterosexism is precise way of analyzing gender difference and human rights.  

Heterosexism is a way of  referring to sex or affective relations between people of the so-called opposite sex.  This is a better/precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender differences and human rights because we eliminate the lack of women and get an understanding of the opinions of women about their own rights, whether it is regarding their bodies, motherhood, finance, or even education.  Feminists analyse the state from diverse perspectives. They understand and theorize the ideological and institutionalized normalization of the patriarchal family household. Women are marginalized – not treated as ‘human’ agents – in relation to economic, social and cultural practices.  Women are not seen as a whole subject (a whole person) and because of this second generation rights often worsen women’s vulnerability and subordination by endorsing cultural beliefs that devalue women and deny gender equality. States often indirectly act to ensure gender hierarchy and its denial of women’s rights.

Heterosexism is a better way of ensuring human rights politically.  Because of the androcentric views we have today, women do suffer oppression, sometimes subconsciously because they probably are so used to it.  For example, I heard in Hunter’s MSA, a women cannot become the president. There is no cultural or religious beliefs behind it. I don’t think I’ve heard an outrage on that issue because it is so normalized nobody says anything it.  I think they have an androcentric system within them.  

Heterosexism is a great way in which you can analyze the relationship between gender difference and human rights. In V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi’s, Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question, they discuss multiple ways that this argument is supported. Due to heterosexism, men and women are paired together and more often than not, the man has more power in the relationship. It is the normal sexual orientation in society and anything aside from it is viewed as less instead of equal. If an individual chooses a different sexual orientation, they receive less support and rights than ones that are heterosexual since it is the norm.

Men in heterosexual relationships usually have more power than women and this is seen as normal in society. If women suffer or have less rights than men, they are often ignored if it benefits men and will also receive no support from others. Sexual orientations or identities other than the norm are rejected and ignored. Because of heterosexism, binary genders are encouraged and supported and anything else is looked down upon and not accepted. In heterosexual relationships, men’s rights and interests are placed and valued over women’s rights and interests. Masculinism in state formation also makes matters worse by further controlling women in order to ‘better’ the state and men. This further oppresses women and widens the gap between men and women.

In conclusion, heterosexism is a very precise way to analyze this relationship. Due to the common pairing of male and female and placing men above women in this relationship, it is easy to view the gender difference and the many issues women face when compared to men. Men receive more rights and attention to their interests whereas women don’t receive the same. Also, any other sexual identities and orientations are often rejected and not considered.

Peterson and Paresi look for answers regarding human rights laws,which do not protect women as self -determined individuals and social agents, and especially deny protection to women in their private spheres where the family institution places women in the most vulnerable situation. By defining heterosexism and then showing the role of the sate normalizing patriarchy, I see that human rights are another layer of the oppression system that  guarantees the status quo for male domination over women, and the reproduction of this societal arrangement operates nationally and transnationally.

Heterosexism determines that men and women are naturally different rather than subjected to social and cultural constructions.  The identities of masculinity and femininity are institutionalized and their bodies politicized. Men and women are micromanaged by the state laws that regulate the division of labor and the institutions. Marriage and the family are mechanisms to preserve cultural values and the socialization of new generations. The binary gender identity of male and female, reinforces the normalization of heterosexism and that is intrinsically linked to the division of labor. This gender system places women in an organization of social inequality. Women’s subordination is normalized through cultural transmission, language, literature, state policies, power and transnational organisms.

However, is it possible that state violations, inequality , violence and deprivation of freedom do not constitute violations of human rights against women? Perhaps it would be helpful to revise who writes the laws, who is the authority and see who benefits with these politics. The answers reveal that males benefit and their domination is predominant in society. These ideas of public and private spheres, roles and privilege status foster the development of men and the oppression of women. Women have no agency and self-determination under these definitions, and are limited by boundaries of gender subjugation. The main role of women is procreation,  and the state laws preserve heterosexism to prevent changes in society.  Women are not protected by human rights because they are “men’s rights.” Gender inequality safeguard the interests of the ruling class.

In “Are Women Human? It’s not an academic question,” Parisi and Peterson look at humans through the binary gendered lens as ‘men’ and ‘women’. The authors argue that men are seen as the dominant, universal human and women are subjugated (seen as dependent and submissive compared to men, who have dominance in sex roles and society). Focusing on human rights through an androcentrist lens actually excludes women while looking at human rights through a gendered lens that focuses on men’s rights.

Heterosexism looks at the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the ‘normal’ sexual identity and thus perpetuates ideas of what is normal for men (masculine behavior) or normal for women (feminine behavior) focused on bio-physical features (like family life and reproduction).

It is problematic to view society through an androcentric role because social norms and gender are controlled by the male dominant ideology, which means women’s right will be ingored (or not properly seen) or subjugated against men’s. The gender hierarchy imposed on women as prevented them from receiving the power and attention in society that is inherently deferred to men. Men’s interests are ultimately privileged and gender identities or sexual identities that exist outside this ‘norm’ are neither respected nor given proper validation. This translates into how children are raised in society – they are confined to the heteronormative expectation that greatly differs depending on the child’s sex. This inequality is transferred to race and socioeconomic class, as well.

The authors argue that a heterocentric view is a more accurate way to view the relationships between men and women and the different rights granted to individuals based on their gender. Women are subject to control and oppression that men will not and do not face (such as reproductive rights, domestic abuse, and more). It is important to not view social relationships through a gender-less lens because our social relationships are very defined by our gender, race and socioeconomic class.

In the article, “Are women are human? It’s not an academic question” by V.Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi; they believe we should question the connection between human rights and heterosexism, instead of putting an emphasis, as some feminists, on the centralization of men on human rights. Throughout the article, the authors talk about heterosexism being a more accurate approach to examine the relationship between gender difference and human rights. Peterson and Parisi start off the article by saying that references to the non-gender-differentiated human are in fact references to men, such as their bodies, experiences, and stereotypes. Men are considered to be the norm and universal. While on the other hand women are not in the universal category, and their bodies, experiences, and stereotypes are seen to be as particular or partial. This shows the obvious that men are deemed the human while women are thought to be the other, one is in the category, and the other is in the subcategory (132). Plainly put, heterosexism is the set notion of heterosexuality being the only normal and natural type of a sexual identity, practice or relation (133). This also leads to the hierarchy of males and females, or male identities and female identities, based on biophysical features. Heterosexism is therefore clearly reflected in the discourse and practice of human rights by gender inequalities being held, the distinction between public and private spheres (men and women), and the focus only on states as the protector and violator of these individual rights (134). The two authors then start to draw connections with the history of heterosexism. It technically originated from two ‘great’ men, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. While Freud talked more about the psychological view of sexual differentiation and the need for controlling instinctual desires, Marx was more concerned with the social structure, and the establishment of such hierarchies.  First, they believe that the psychoanalytic perspectives led to the constituting of gender identities and sexual practices, starting as early on as from when an infant begins to mature and what happens in its surroundings, especially the language used to them. Second, Peterson and Parisi point out that the prominence of the language and psychoanalysis are what embellish the social structures (135).

V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi define heterosexism as an institution that considers only “male and female” relationships as the norm when it comes to sexuality. They believe that heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights because it identifies the favoritism of males over females. Peterson and Parisi argue that when human rights are critiqued by feminists, it is not beneficial because it focuses on how human rights are constructed through men’s right. As a result, the struggles faced by women often remain unacknowledged. Women are often subjugated by men’s needs. There is a restraint put on the amount of creativity and competence a women is allowed to show when it comes to the idea of heterosexism. According to Vickers, a way in which this kind of subjugation is regulated is through a created social norm called the “battle of the cradle.” “The battle of the cradle” is how society and culture helps to control how many children women will bear. This is done by determining which groups of women (determined by age, ethnicities, etc.) will be best to tend to men’s needs. Another example of how women are made to be inferior to men is the concept of the “battle of the nursery” which supports the idea that women belong in the household. This includes socializing and tending to the children. The government also takes part in choosing men as the superior race in comparison to women. The state regulates women’s rights by restricting their decisions in serious situations including marriage, divorce, sexuality, and parenting. A prime example of the state’s control over women would be the state’s decision-making in areas such as abortion, contraception, and pregnancies. It is unjust that the majority of government officials making decisions on what to do with a woman’s bodies are men.