fDerek has 8 post(s)

In Londa Schiebinger’s, “Skeletons in the Closet,” she discusses the analyses of anatomy in Europe back then. White women and white men were analyzed and conclusions were drawn from this to justify their thoughts and actions in society. Due to the white female body having smaller skulls and a larger pelvis, scientists concluded that their intelligence was inferior and their role in society should be to give birth to children. Several scientists continued to observe and compare the two anatomies but what was the real motive behind it? Were they genuinely interested in the two anatomies and wanting to compare them or was it solely in order to find inferior aspects of the female anatomy, which would then lead to a reason to further oppress women.

Due to how much faith society placed in physical and scientific evidence back then, these scientific ‘discoveries’ led many to believe the comparisons. Women were further kept out of power, being believed to be inferior because of the comparisons the scientists had made. One important thing to note is that all of the scientists were male, which means a female point of view was missing regarding this situation. As a result, the foundation for a society where women were oppressed was set and there was no way to argue it since science was so important. People weren’t able to argue with what scientists claimed and so the majority of Europe followed.

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s, Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving, she discusses Islamic women, opinions on their lifestyle and rights, the burqa and its importance as well as the argument that they are in need of saving due to the differences between them and Western women.

Abu-Lughod brings up the burqa, a piece of clothing worn by Islamic women, and the West’s opinion on it as well as how it differs from the actual meaning and reason for it. Westerners see it as a restriction placed upon Islamic women as well as something they need to be saved from, when in reality, a large majority of them make the decision to wear it for various reasons such as respect for their god and culture or privacy. Many fail to see the differences between Western culture and Islamic culture and as a result, believe anything different from what they are used to is wrong and should be changed.

Discourse on humanitarianism and human rights in the 21st century paint Islamic women as in need of saving due to the oppression and restriction they face. By bringing up abuse, restriction, obligation to wear the burqa, etc. the West can say that Islamic women are oppressed and need to be saved even though this is not the case for most of them. Abu-Lughod recommends that the Western world focus on themselves and/or actually understanding other cultures and traditions before making conclusions. Many overuse the oppression argument in order to fuel bigger things such as war even though their argument is wrong to begin with. Not all Muslim women are oppressed to the degree that is brought up and the majority of them choose to wear the burqa even after being ‘liberated.’

In Amelia Cabezas’, Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic, she discusses sexual issues/actions as well as the legal and social effects of these in Cuba and the Dominican Republic . She also brings up the idea of “sexual citizenship,” which promotes a society in which sexual and gender diversity is widespread and the norm, instead of being dominated by male heterosexuals. This would in turn help women and help eliminate discrimination against them regarding their sexuality and gender. Sexual citizenship aims to create a society where people are responsible and decide their own sexuality and gender without dealing with oppression and discrimination.

Women who occupy positions outside of the norm, or more specifically: heteronormativity, would welcome this change as there would be little to no oppression due to their personal choices regarding their sexuality and gender.

In the Dominican Republic and Cuba, there is sex tourism which is when people visit in order to engage in sexual activities with the women there due to the loose restrictions regarding it when compared to other countries. Many women there encourage and participate in this in order to get money and support their family. Of course, others see this as a problem and believe what they are doing is immoral and wrong and ruins the reputation of the native women from said countries. This leads to them being harassed and oppressed for their actions even if it is the only way they can provide money for the family at home. While sexual citizenship would greatly benefit women of all genders and sexuality, it would also help Cuban and Dominican women in this position by allowing them to do as they choose with their bodies without facing negative repercussions/harassment.

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.

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.

In Gayle Rubin’s, Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, she discusses the sexual assumptions that restrict the formation of a radical theory as well as how they limit political discourse in the US. One assumption is the idea of sexual essentialism: the idea that sex is a natural force that is independent of social life. Sex is also seen as a negative thing by default as well. Sex itself is seen as harmful and a sin Any sexual behavior is seen as bad or negative in almost all situations unless there is a specific reason to exclude it from that judgement. There is also a ‘hierarchy’ of sexual value in society in which straight, reproducing males are at the top and their sexual actions are rewarded and seen as positive. Whereas the people placed lower in the hierarchy, their sexual acts are viewed as horrible and negative and they are seen as criminals.

Rubin mentions certain events that occurred in Europe and the US around the nineteenth century. People organized movements against masturbation, birth control, prostitution, etc and this led to all of these topics being seen as taboo for many years to come, even to this day. Political discussion about sexuality is limited in that it can’t be discussed as long as it is thought of as a biological phenomenon. Also, as long as it is a biological idea and not a social idea, political discourse about sexuality is heavily limited since it can be seen as a “human product.”

In Silvia Frederici’s, The Caliban and the Witch, she discusses the degradation of women. Women were seen as inferior to men and only seen as wives and ways to reproduce. While women did an assortment of jobs, it was seen as housekeeping or helping the man. Any women who were opposed to this and rioted were quickly arrested.

Since women were paid much less than men, they had little choice but to get married to and rely on men. This, in turn, led to them getting forced into a housewife position and later on, expected to have children and take care of them which took away a lot of their power and freedom. The growth of mercantilism also was a big factor as to why the population needed to grow via women.

Women also began to have little control over their body and childbirth. Many women were expected to get pregnant and keep the children because in the end, it would mean more men to potentially work. This also restricted their work options because since they had to take care of children, they weren’t able to do certain jobs such as production or traveling. Unfortunately, if women were not able to reproduce or were simply uncooperative, they were seen as witches.

All in all, women were degraded in many ways. Whether it was being seen as inferior to men, being paid less and therefore getting stuck in housewife roles or having no control over pregnancy and giving birth, they had little power in this time period and if they tried to rebel, they were put down and further degraded.

By including details from the lives of Charlotte Woodward and Sojourner Truth, I believe Angela Davis is trying to tell us that while the Seneca Falls convention was a good starting point, it did not completely address or resolve the issues that women of all race and class were experiencing. At the Seneca Falls convention, many working class women were still working under undesirable conditions and some, like Charlotte Woodward, wanted to get out of the house and have their labor recognized. She attended the convention for reasons different from most of the attendants: to improve her working status which was an issue many of her peers did not experience. I believe Davis included Woodward and her story because while the white women there were advocating for equality, white women working with worse working conditions were not focused on and black women were not even present or supported.

She then moves on to Sojourner Truth’s story and her famous “Ain’t I a Woman?,” speech delivered at a convention for women’s rights in Akron, Ohio. Determined to free herself and her peers from sexist and racist oppression, Truth confidently rebuts opposing arguments and leads the rest of the fainthearted women at the convention to a winning argument through the use of her own experiences which showed that while she was a woman, her experiences proved she was no weaker than a man. Although people began to oppose her, she continued to lead the argument for women’s rights against the varying viewpoints in the conventions.

All in all, I believe that Davis brought up the stories of these two women to show how middle class white women were forgetting about working class white women and black women at the Seneca Falls Convention. In order to push for equality for these two ‘classes’, their life experiences had to be brought to light in front of everyone.