å March 2017

Peterson and Parisi in their article “Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question”, explain that some feminist researches stipulate that the universal references of what is considered a human are of androcentric character, considering men as standard. They define Heterosexism as the institutionalization of heterosexuality as only natural way in which people express their sexual and social conducts. Heterosexism was institutionalized by the states, which protect but at the same time violate individual rights within public and private sphere.

Historically, women have been dominated and deprived of their freedom and autonomy and a gender hierarchy have been imposed. Heterosexism promotes binary gender identities and the subordination of women to men’s interests. It also promotes heterosexual relation and the inclusion of women in-group projects, but at the same time, it is oppressive, it privileges men’s interest upon of women’s interests and rejects any other sexual orientation or gender identification. They also explain that when children born they must be bred in an appropriate way, which includes a cultural transmission and socialization of group members. In those process is created a gender/race division remarking the inequality among women and men.

With the transition to western civilization was marked a centralization of political authority, which created new laws and a hierarchical division of labor by gender, age and class. As we take modern state making as our pattern to start, that sketch suggested that women were not included into the definition of individual according to discourse of human rights, also women were not considered as person in their own rights to make decision, but according to heterosexist principles of group reproduction, women are tied to the reproductive role. Any action that moves away from what the heterosexism stands for is considered not normal, even for women to be taken into account should seem as possible to the men who are established status.

Heterosexism is believed to be a precise way of analyzing the relationships of gender differences because in heterosexism a gender hierarchy is prevalent. For many years, the idea of heterosexuality has been deemed “normal” and as the true and “right” sexuality for one to follow. However, this sexuality tends to favor the male gender over the female gender. Heterosexism aims to create a gap between males and females, emphasizing not only their physical differences but, their worth. It also aims to deny the existence of other genders and sexual preferences that possess ideologies that are different from the ideas that it upholds. The blatant inequality within heterosexism makes it easy for people to analyze the difference in gender.

Another topic prevalent in heterosexism is human rights. This is a sexuality that favors males over females and heterosexual relationships over other forms of unions. It is structured so that the male upholds their prominent stature at the expense of others which are typically women. The human rights of women are minimized and the oppression they face daily is overlooked because their struggles benefit men. Furthermore, the masculinization of the state further deepens the oppression of women by aiming to control them for the betterment of both men and the state; with the hope of procuring heterosexuality for present and future generations. Human rights are again denied to those who do not conform to the ideology of heterosexism. Those who “rebel” do not receive the same human rights and protection that those who have conformed to heterosexuality obtain. Therefore, those who do not conform are not only forced to fend for themselves but they are not viewed as people who deserve basic human rights. This alternative form of oppression, is another way that heterosexism makes it easy for people to analyze the relationships of gender difference and human rights.

Both Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi believed that heterosexism was precise way to explore the relationships between differences in gender and human rights. In heterosexuality, the gender that you are determines the human rights that you will be given. Also, an individual’s decision on whether they want to follow heterosexuality also influences the rights they will receive. The obvious differences and oppression also make it easier for others to view how and why these issues arise. I believe that the way a person chooses to live their life or the gender a person was born with should not dictate their worth and be the deciding factor in the human rights they will obtain. Once people and the state begin to embrace the differences amongst its population it will move in the direction of equality and acceptance.

V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi in their text, Are women human? It’s not an academic question,  argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism rather than focusing on, as other feminists have, the androcentrism of human rights discourse. At the very beginning of their text they essentially answer the question posed in the title. They say only men encompass the term “human” as what is referenced as human are men’s bodies, experiences and stereotypical attributes. As Peterson and Parisi exemplify, men’s traits of reason, agency, and independence are the stereotypical attributes attributed to men. Women’s stereotypical attributes of affect, non-agency, and dependence are not considered when referring to the “human” norm thus making women seem inhuman. Peterson and Parisi’s main point as to how heterosexisum is a precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender differences and human rights seems to be that heterosexuality is the only normal perceived form of sexual identity. Not only that but there is a perceived engraved notion that men must act masculine and women must act feminine. Peterson and Parisi are without a doubt right in their point in my opinion. This ingrained notion that being heterosexual is the only way to be does not let people fully express themselves. Some years ago if a person was homosexual they were far less than human in nearly all of the public’s eye. It was not uncommon for homosexuals to be killed and jailed without any reason. The only true reason this happened was because they were homosexual and nothing more. Even more so in these times, if you were homosexual you were roped in to the same category as pedofiles with basically no concrete basis supporting this. This level of hatred of homosexuals is thankfully not still present but it has certainly left lasting effects. Homosexuality is still seen as unnatural by many and is met with disgust. Times are getting better but it shall be a long time until same sex relations are seen as “normal”.

Due Monday, April 3rd, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text (from Collins’s work or anywhere else), you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

In her essay, “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought,” Patricia Hill Collins argues that, “Black women’s experiences highlight the tension experienced by any group of less powerful outsiders encountering the paradigmatic thought of a more powerful insider community” (S29). According to Collins, how can “outsiders” contribute to the field of sociology and our understanding of society and culture?

‘Human rights’ is a polite term for discussing heterosexism, like the way that women fight for equality while refusing to associate with feminism. It is a specification of vocabulary that is imperative and seemingly offensive to the privileged gender, without addressing androcentrism it is impossible to analyze gender differences in human rights as human rights. Heterosexism is so ingrained in our culture that Peterson and Parisi discuss the psychoanalytical and linguistic effects of the binary identities, most interestingly the male specific needs such as men leading the people and women giving birth to the people. The grouping of hierarchical roles further emphasizes the heterosexism in the separation of male and female, encouraging male bonding and discouraging female grouping beyond the mother-daughter perpetuation of oppression which assists in normalizing this behavior for the state.

This ‘masculinism’ of the early state formation goes beyond gender roles to include control of female education and reproductive rights as well as female sexual behavior, with the invention of writing transforming at the same time the influence on human history is profound. Materially women are not synonymous with citizens in definitions of early political rights, separating male and female in the public sphere of the state. Conceptually this denigrates rights of women to the private sphere, in subordination to male self-determination and completely dismissing female agency. Internationally this division is more obvious because most law making is still made by men which continues the state’s complicity in gender inequalities, the female irrationality stereotype persists often keeping women from challenging the status quo in the public arena. By the state’s denial of female personhood private abuses of power are normalized, domestic abuse and sexual assaults are widely underreported because the trauma of reporting is often worse than the initial victimization.

Marginalization in the home translates into the workplace through unequal pay, denial of equal credit and less job security during layoffs. Denial of heterosexism leaves women with the weight of invisible contributions to the state without adequate protection from exploitation by the state. Without looking at heterosexism as it applies to human rights we cannot create a path for feminine independence from masculine dependence, state dependence or female competition for agency and how it applies to all people categorized as other.

Due Monday, March 27th, by midnight. Word count: 300 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. Absolutely no quotes should be used. If you paraphrase from the text (from Peterson and Parisi’s work or anywhere else), you must be sure to include the proper citation (either MLA or APA).

In their work, V. Spike Peterson and Laura Parisi argue that we should interrogate the connection of “human rights” in connection to heterosexism rather than focusing on, as other feminists have, the androcentrism of human rights discourse. In your own words, explain why they believe heterosexism is a more precise way of analyzing the relationship of gender difference and human rights.

I agree with Rich’s idea that heterosexuality is institutionalized. There are so many ways we see women being forced to be subservient to men, or to care what men think of them more than what they think of themselves. We are taught from a young age that women marry men and we become housewives who take care of the men and the children and clean and cook, etc. There is this idealized idea of a woman as a 1960’s housewife that enforces the idea of a woman as a heterosexual. MY best friend is bisexual and the first time she told her boy friend at the time, the first words out of his mouth were, “Cool! Are we going to have a threesome?” Lesbianism is a sexualized fantasy for men, even the thing that Rich argues is the one thing women can really have, is still taken to this perverse place.

I’ve heard many arguments about women being more open to homosexuality than men are; since we tend to be more comfortable touching each other and showing affection. If this is true, it does not make the public more open to it. If you look even at TV shows, gay couples such as in Modern Family, we see that the male homosexual couples are much more accepted, shown as family oriented and funny or cute, while their female counterparts tend to be heavily focused on sexual arousal and sex scenes. Lesbian couples seem to make society more uncomfortable than male homosexual couples. Even in lesbian couples we often try to force a heterosexual model onto it by asking, “Who is the man and who is the woman in the relationship?”

I believe Rich is arguing that women are drawn to each other because they are oppressed by men, and because men can never fully understand what it means to be a woman because they do not have the same types of harassment and oppressions that we do, yet women are still forced into heterosexual relationships.

Feminist theory targets gender inequality, and narrows in on discrimination, oppression, and sexual objectification. Adrienne Rich argues that heterosexuality is institutionalized, and in the examples she introduces in her work, she believes the view of female homosexuals are bias, and looked at as abnormal. Assuming in a sense that lesbians are just spiteful and resentful towards men, so that explains why they prefer other women, which is false. Therefore in this article it is shown that women choosing other women as their lovers/ partners is suppressed and greatly  discredited.

She argues that their is a lack of understanding of gender equality in literature, not enough texts exist on lesbians precisely, yet heterosexual romance is shown all over in films, books, and even art. There is the demolition of documents focused on lesbians specifically, and undercover messages showing that cruel heterosexuality is normal rather than sexual attractiveness between two women. Rich claims that in society heterosexuality is some what forced on women due to male domination. Women were overpowered, and discriminated against professionally in the work place, with no education, they were poorly paid, men controlled childbirth, abortion, and contraception along with physical sexual harassment such as rape. Being exposed to chastity belts, child marriage, arranged marriages, and even brutal surgeries (clitoridectomy) where the clitoris is cut to make a female more “marriageable” and making sure that female sexual relations will be cut out is also a sign of male domination. Feminists viewed this as female torture.

Men were economically powerful, so for women to keep their service jobs being sexualized came along with it, they would have to look a certain way, purposely promoting sexual attractiveness for men so they can keep their jobs. Women were automatically considered “dried up” lesbian, or sexless if they happen to withstand these sexual approaches on the job. I agree this is form of female enslavement, as well as female torture because a lesbian women would have to actually deny her true relationship with another women, pretending to be heterosexual although she might not have been, in order to maintain her employment. Dressing up and playing the ‘feminine’ role she then was considered a real women. These women were put under certain pressures, forced conditions, and continuously endured exploitation…. because they simply had to. Rich shows in her article that heterosexuality is indeed institutionalized.

In Adrienne Rich’s, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, she argues that heterosexuality is institutionalized. Heterosexuality is the most widely accepted orientation in society by far and although that is alright, it is often forced upon women who don’t agree with it. This can lead to homosexual women being oppressed and having to suppress or hide their interests and/or sexual orientation.

Rich brings up an essay by Kathleen Gough titled “The Origin of the Family,” in which she lists the many ways men maintain power over women and by extension, control their sexual orientation. Such ways include: physical abuse, rape, confinement, objectification, etc. Rich also brings up a study called Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sexual Discrimination  by Catharine A MacKinnon where she talks about women and their orientation in the workplace. Not only are they underpaid but women have to sometimes deal with sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace by male workers who get paid more for the same jobs. Even if homosexual, women have to keep up a heterosexual facade as to not be rejected in the workplace.

Heterosexuality being a social norm also makes it hard since homosexual women have to hide their orientation or be forced into relationships they are unhappy with or don’t agree with. Being a lesbian may be viewed as trying to restrict male rights to women and therefore gains less support and can make some uncomfortable and hesitant. Heterosexuality is institutionalized in society, the workplace, home, media, everywhere. As long as it is the norm and everything else is seen as wrong, women’s right of choice and ability to express their sexual orientation in ways that are uncommon will be difficult and an uphill battle.