å March 2017

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.

I think hetero sexism is a more precise way to analyze a relationship of gender difference because when you think or talk about hetero sexism you are not talking about one gender specifically. Even if it does mean talking about a specific gender, hetero sexism allows a women to have a decision or be on some what of a equal standing to male because their decision will have some consideration in it (they have a say- freedom of speech, and technically males need them to fulfill that gender identity – the genders purpose in life). However hetero sexism has some oppression and it denies everything else besides the ones I mentioned above (including some stuff that I didn’t mention) and many more. For example when men do what a women does (role) in society it is kind of rare and looked down upon because that is what the women should be doing (the sexual stereotypes where women role is at home doing chores and reproducing while the men role is working at factories and supporting family kind of show up on most reading we read as well as this one), but this solely depends on the person and how they were raised. Also hetero sexism allows male to be in control and sometimes women need permission for certain things that they don’t really need permission for (like getting an abortion, contraception,etc…). Hetero sexism has also become the norm for how society functions and people who are in a homosexual relationship can be punished for it due to not following the norm that society (government) has setup which disallows adolescents from exploring what their sexual identity might be.

In Peterson and Parisi’s piece they mention how women aren’t treated as a human agents in relation to economic, social and cultural practices besides the reproductive role they play. This goes back from the early time period in society when someone (I think probably politicians, physicians, and some of those people with knowledge/power to change the society view) put in place the stereotype that women should follow. Things such as not being able to own property, being a housewife, etc… has been around for a long time and it still kind of is today. The government however doesn’t want to really investigate the rights and by regulating women’s body they can determine what will happen to them (in most cases things like what will happen to the baby in the women’s stomach, should it get aborted – is abortion allowed, etc…). This brings up argument that exist today where the government is arguing whether or not the ACA (affordable care act) should be fund programs that will help women through these difficult process (stuff like that). They also want to keep the male dominance over female long lasting since most of the people in the government are mostly old men who are in their 50’s (some maybe younger) and by doing this they can deny a women’s right while also keeping the gender hierarchy in place.

In “Are women human? It’s not an academic question,” V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi assert that instead of analyzing human rights as based on androcentrism, we should focus on it in connection to heterosexism. They bring modernist references that assume men as the norm and universal being. From that view, women existed as a subcategory, and were naturally excluded. However, it is not only stemmed from the modern state system. Rather, the institutionalization of gendered relations and biased definition of human rights existed from when the western civilization started. The idea was dominant from Greek political theorizing, and became as a clear normalization since then. Therefore the foundational thoughts were institutionalized for a very long time and this is how feminists analyze the system. Then social inequality arouses naturally based on this idea. There were regulations on sexual activities and prevalence of masculinist laws. The asymmetry in male-centered world had been affecting every part of people’s life. Also, in androcentric feminists’ view, women’s subordination is accepted without a doubt and they deny all other gender identifications. This is problematic thought that justifies the discrimination between gender. According to their theory, gender binary is socially constructed and emphasized by influential scholars such as Freud and Marx. Feminist interrogations of social orders are related to their psychoanalytic and social structural explanations. Distinction of gender and institutionalization became the only norm of sexual identity and also constructed western and liberal definition of the term ‘family’. There is a difference between acknowledging the problem in androcentric way and heterosexist way. Peterson and Parisi argue that we should analyze group reproduction and state making in heterosexist way. In heterosexual contract, all notions such as binary gender identities, social contracts, language codification are tied together. In their sense of normalization and reproduction of gender identities, women acquire reproductive roles.

In the article “ Are women human?” It is not academic question by V. spike Peterson and Laura Parisi is talk about the conflict between the feminism and human’s right. The heterosexual is a normal ways of biology and psychology’s identity. Many people believe “the human right’s in actuality men’s right, which means the inequality gender identity in the society. The ideology of make dominance and masculine is controlling the labor market, political and social life. The oppression of women’s right and sexuality identity is under the law and became unmoral of thinking. They believe the heterosexism is a more precise way of sexuality is difference in psychological, political and social structure.

In the Maxim and his followers’ belief, the labor power and social inequality is controlling of people who has more muscle and power and have economic status, which the masculine ideas more support the political structure. And women are limited of the sphere of home, they are being denied of property rights. The public sphere is only belongs with power and masculinity under the civil war. The political power is change people’s idea of the equalities of sexuality and role of gender.

There is also the psychological belief of Freud talk about the symbolize difference between male and female. The culture maturation and social structure make people believe heterosexual is a traditional way of sexuality. The women are part of reproductive tools and infant’s maturation. In the inequalities social structure, the marginalization of relationship between the human’s right and sexuality, the unequal pay wages and sexual harassment in different gender and race.

“Battle of the cradle” regulation is the role of social religious norms and economy power, people choose the group cultures they preferred and they agree with. There is many family ties, group culture connected to the heterosexuality. People rather believe the heterosexism is precise way of sexuality in political, social and culture.