å Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

Heterosexism outlines our relationship to the concepts of femininity and masculinity. Gender roles are increasingly defined through heterosexual relationships, which are idealized and considered a norm through the institution of heterosexism. In a traditional heterosexual marriage, both genders are placed into distinct roles. Women are considered the homemakers, in which they stay at home and take care of any children and their husband while cooking and cleaning. This calls for women to rely on their husband, who is considered the breadwinner of the family. Women’s labor is devalued, which is a concept often discussed by Karl Marx. This placement of the genders into distinct roles increases the construction of genders. Gender is not something that exists biologically; men and women do not have distinct roles that they are placed into because of their biology. There is an important difference between gender and sex that is often not noted because of heterosexism. Heterosexism leads us to believe that if men and women are not placed into definitive roles that they are not truly heterosexual or that they are not valuable. The specific gender roles that people are placed into in our society prevent women from truly having equal rights. Until the principle of gender roles that is placed by heterosexism institutions no longer exists, there cannot be true gender equality.

There is a distinction between the marxist view of heterosexism and the freudian view. Freudians focus on instinctual, sexual desires such as sexual orientation and Marxists focus on the structural hegemony of society, which includes class struggles and the distinct difference between the genders. Both views contribute to the inequality of the genders and of those in the LGBTQ+ community, as both are equally effected by the institution of heterosexism. The class struggles between men and women can be shown in the workplace, as women are placed into lower paying jobs that are considered “traditionally” feminine or are told to stay at home, and men have a higher ability to progress in their field and be at the top. The Freudian view and Marxist views overlap as those of a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual are often not given a job or can be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation. Heterosexism in the workplace is extremely prominent.

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”, peterson and parisi argue that we should focus on and study the connection between human rights and heterosexism rather than emphasizing the androcentrism of human rights. I think that peterson and parisi have a good argument because the focus on androcentrism has been the scope when it comes to studying how humans are defined based on the binary genders. I think what the authors are trying to encourage onto the readers, is that we should critically analyze the conditions, causes, and methods used to preserve the inequality between genders through generations in order to break the barrier of gender-based inequality in our current times.

The chapter also talks about heterosexism, a way in which the subordination of women becomes a social norm that serves male interests. Heterosexism has foreclosed any alternative bonds that women could have, such as woman to woman groups and relations. It also imposes a role that women must follow, despite the weakening effects that it has on woman socially and politically. The exclusion of women from human rights is another evidence that upholds human rights as gender-based and gender-oriented. One way in which the law excludes women from their human rights is dependant upon the fact that institutions differentiate between the public spheres and private spheres. It is certain that the law would neglect women vulnerabilities and experiences because it is mainly the men who are in charge of creating the law, which lacks a female perspective.

Heterosexism has always promoted unfair advantages and privileges that have made men become dominant over women. The way institutionalized heterosexuality plays a role in society is very imperative to analyze. Women have always been the victims of patriarchal systems and part of these systems is heterosexism. It is a method that the state utilizes to control people and maintain power over them.

There are so many organization and community of women who focuses on the androncentrism of humans right discussion, because modern society think that men have stronger power compared to women so that society have characteristics of treating male better than female. Therefore, feminist stood up and fought for their right with the idea of androncentrism. However, Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi contends that this critiques of human right based on androcentrism brought the results that human right instrument can not recognized or protect the exclusion, constraints, and abuses of women’s lives. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi claims that feminists rather needs to focus on heterosexism rather than androcentrism. They believed heterosexism is a correct way to interpret the relationship of gender difference and human right.
Society itself has two different codes of men and women. As the gender having different codes on them, female and male had different subjectivities and identities. From that point, society started to make hierarchy of gender. Since men have stronger bodies compared to women’s, male was at the higher position of society than women, which led to bad treatment on women. The gender difference and human right showed in the past. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi showed many examples that heterosexism is used to show the relationship of gender difference and human right. For example, in the Maxim and the supporters of it, they believed that people who have more powers (strength) and economic status are controlling the power of labor and social inequality. Therefore, women started to lose their property right and denied it by the society politically and economically. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi consists that as they focused on heterosexism, we saw the historical time that progressed the different human right between women and men. Instead of focusing on the huge factor androcentrism, they limit the space to focus on.

Heterosexism is to be considered institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only natural way in which people express their sexual and social order. Reading the work of V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi they believe heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights but why? Women weren’t treated as human beings because of the reproductive role they played in society among other factors.Human rights were actually considered to be “men’s rights” and women and their bodies weren’t included in the “universal category” because men are looked at as the norm and they are the only ones that are considered to be human. “The cultural matrix through which gender identity has become intelligible requires that certain kinds of ‘identities’ cannot ‘exist’, that is, those in which gender does not follow from sex and those in which the practices of desire do not ‘follow’ from either sex or gender” ( Butler,1990 17 ).  Its mentioned that linguistic systems help form gender identities and sexual practices, the development of masculine and feminine which masculine is more favored is imprinted in language itself, and therefore language becomes an aspect in analyzing the construction of humans as well as philosophy, religion, and political theory.

Men being the privileged sex was also a way to separate men and women in the state, their interests and freedom are limited, forced to adhere to male needs. Male domination and women oppression is linked to discrediting women as human beings. Heterosexism gives men the upper hand and the advantage for masculine group reproduction, it promotes the inferiority between men and women and basically just accepting their subordination as a whole.Yet it is abuse and maltreatment for women because masculinity is privileged over femininity, and conquering other sexual orientations, as well as gender identifications leaving them with no sense of identity for themselves.

.

In Peterson and Parisi’s article, the discussion begins with a focus on how sexual difference is related to heterosexism. This leads to the question, are women human? Initially, this question is answered as men are depicted as human while women are marked as the ‘other’; not human, but merely a subcategory. Humans rights, is generally androcentric, leaving a greater focus on men. This poses the argument that human rights are actually men’s rights. This lack of balance between sexes is prevalent when it comes to heterosexism. Ultimately, men benefit at the expense of women, as they are viewed as more valuable. There is a link between the normalization of subjectivities and identities based on heterosexism. The state, ideally, works in favor of heterosexuals, as it leans towards them when it comes to divisions of authority, power, labor, and resources. Essentially, major forms of representation in society are male-centered, which does not give the female population much recognition.

Heterosexism not only excludes other forms of sexuality, but it also excludes advantages for women, as it identifies with male defined groups and condones women’s subordination to those groups. It is oppressive, as males and masculinity are seen for their male-defined interests and are considered far more important than females and femininity and their interests. Not only are woman under attack psychologically and economically by the government, but they are also affected in the household, such as domestic violence. Peterson and Parisi speak of an instance where domestic violence is present, yet the state decided not to get involved. Unfortunately, with no help from the state, women are confined to the household and to their husbands, just as they are confined to the rigid perceptions and beliefs of society. Due to the fact that heterosexism is seen as the favorable sexuality, homosexuality is not seen as natural. This affects gay men and women, as their rights are compromised and not valued, being that they are not seen as normal. Ultimately, if the government deems it as something unacceptable, then that is how it is depicted. This idea of normality comes to light, but is confined to one form, leaving no room for anything out of the norm. This inequality affects gay and straight individuals, as well as women. With heterosexual men having the upperhand, it is evident where the focus falls and it is obvious that there is a gender bias in our society.

Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi spend this chapter critiquing previous androcentric views on gender and human rights. They argue that heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing this relationship of gender difference and human rights. Heterosexism has been defined throughout history. Peterson and Parisi define heterosexism in terms of the institutionalization of heterosexuality being the only ‘normal’ sexual identity. In this way, heterosexism completely denies and negates any other form of sexuality. This idea stems from systemic masculine views and practices over time – making the male gender the prominent voice in these heterosexual relationships. Hierarchies, including gender, sexual, socio-economic, political, and familial hierarchies, are clearly outlined through heterosexism.

The authors explain how the state is “complicit in maintaining” heterosexism. For instance, women will have to continue to ‘rely on’ their husbands in heterosexual marriage because women do not get paid the same as men. I also think that because the state normalizes heterosexism, homosexuality is ‘abnormal’. We see this explicitly through the struggles of same-sex marriage laws throughout the world. State regulations on reproductive rights and property rights are other examples of how the state adds to the marginalization of women.

Androcentric ideas deem men as the ‘norm’ and women the ‘other’ or a ‘subcategory’ of men. Through this lens, feminists think of human rights as only being men’s rights, which exclude women completely. Women’s lives are not protected in this way. Peterson and Parisi argue that human rights practices reconfirm gender inequalities in the home by continuously perpetuating a division between public/state spheres and private/family spheres – holding the state accountable for both protecting and violate individual rights (134). Instead of merely adding ‘women’s rights’ to ‘human rights’ that already exist, heterosexism views ‘humans’ as only men and so this is not possible. In order to fight oppression, the authors think that we need to stop perpetuating gender difference by continuing to view the female as the ‘other’.