The Necessity and Insufficiency of Human Rights

Correa and Thomas both observe the indispensability and insufficiency of human rights. They appreciate the necessity of human rights whilst reminding us to remain critical of them. Human rights rely on a false sense of universality, without which they would not be able to exist. Yet this universality leads to an inability to factor in cultural, individual and group differences.

A critical question in regards to human rights is: "who gets to make them and how can they avoid ethnocentrism?"

Nikki Sullivan explores the white optics behind the western view of 'female genital mutilation (FGM)'. Comparing this practice with cosmetic genital surgery in the west, ethnocentric bias in perspectives on morality become clear.

The above video brings to attention the issues that human rights are built around. Human rights are not fulfilled worldwide. It can be seen that the more injustices there are in the world, the more human rights are needed. In this sense, to an extent, human rights reflect the amount of injustice there is in the world.

Finally, Thomas leaves us with the question: "who counts as human?"

References:

Corrêa, S, Petchesky, R & Parker, R 2008, “On the indispensability and insufficiency of human rights” in Sexuality, Health and Human Rights, London and New York, Routledge, pp. 151-163.

Thomas, K 2006, “Afterword: Are Transgender Rights Inhuman Rights?” in P. Currah, R. M. Juang, S Price Minter (eds) Transgender Rights, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 310-326.

Sullivan, N 2007. ‘“The Price to Pay for our Common Good”: Genital Modification and the Somatechnologies of Cultural (In)Difference’, Social Semiotics, 17:3, pp. 395-409.

Intersections of Race and Sexuality

In his article "I Think You're the Smartest Race I've Ever Met: Racialised Economies of Queer Male Desire", Alan Han develops a concept of desire as capital. In this economy of desire, he explores the way queer Asian men are racialised, whereas queer white men possess whiteness which means they also possess the invisible standard of desirability.

When Han says "...whilst campaigning for queer rights, I realized that the rights I was fighting for were those of queer white men", he problematises the way campaigns often ignore intersections, leading to exclusions and prejudices against certain groups of people. This is similar to how feminist activism is often white feminist activism, or women-only feminist activism.

In response to his question "What do queer white men gain from refusing to desire queer Asian men?" it would seem that it is a matter of othering queer Asian men in order to reinforce queer white men's white supremacy. However, as Han mentions that people don't "consciously choose their desires", I think it is important to look at the relations of power involved in the experiences of both queer white men and queer Asian men, taking into account that queer Asian men are also actors on the playing field where queer white men are more desirable to all queer men.

Reference:

Han, A 2006, ‘I Think You’re the Smartest Race I’ve Ever Met: Racialised Economies of Queer Male Desire’, Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association e-Journal, vol.2, no.2, pp.1-14.

Law and Justice

Derrida argues that law and justice are not the same. Caputo describes justice as being fairness, and the fact that this fairness isn't present in law demonstrates the difference between the two. The law tries to be just, he says, but it falls short of justice, unable to account for each individual situation. This difference between law and justice can be seen in the way the law is often biased against certain groups of people or individuals.
 

From 2010 to 2014, Norrie May-Welby fought for the legal status of being neither man nor woman. In April 2014, the high court ruled that a third gender must be recognised in NSW. The language that was used in court was scattered with assumptions of a sex binary. These assumptions are not fair on those who are outside this sex binary. When the foundations that a law is made on are unjust, then justice and law cannot be the same. However, in the case of Norrie May-Welby we can also see the way justice works to improve the law. Instead of seeing law as justice, we can see justice as being an influence on law.

Yet if it is impossible for the law to account for the individual, then can the law ever be just? And even when the law changes to become more just, is it really any more just than before when the language used is itself unjust?


J. Caputo, “In the names of Justice” in Against Ethics: Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation with constant Reference to Deconstruction, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1993, pp. 69-92.

J. Derrida, “Froce of Law: ‘The Mystical foundation of authority”, trans. P.M. Quaintance, In D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld and D. G. Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, New York and London, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3-67

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/s273-2013/Norrie_App.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/third-gender-must-be-recognised-by-nsw-after-norrie-wins-legal-battle

Interlocking Systems of Domination

In her article, Bell Hooks criticises the feminist movement for placing the problem of patriarchal dominance above problems of racism and other forms of domination. Hooks reminds us that "women can and do participate in politics of domination, as perpetrators as well as victims" (1989, p. 19) and that oppressed and oppressor can and do share the same race, class and/or sex. This reminds me of Foucault's theory of power. Foucault describes power as a "mobile field of force relations" (1978, p. 102), meaning that power isn't static. It also means that power cannot be possessed by a person or an institution, rather, power is a force relationship between people and institutions. Hooks speaks of the importance of "interlocking systems of domination" wherein more than one relation of power may be in effect. She emphasizes the importance to take class and race into account when focusing on patriarchal domination. Without considering interlocking systems of domination, we may just end up with a racist cause to end patriarchal domination, or a sexist cause to end racism. I suggest that what we need is an all encompassing cause to end oppression.

Hooks, B. 1989,  ‘Feminism: A Transformational Politic’, Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black, South End Press Boston MA, pp. 19-27.

M. Foucault, “Method” in The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, trans. R. Hurley, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1978, pp. 92-102.

Questioning Gender Dimorphism

Judith Butler questions the necessity of sex reassignment surgery in intersex infants. She describes the falsity of gender dimorphism and the biological chromosomal continuum between male and female in infants. Butler thereby demonstrates how "gender dimorphism as a prerequisite of human development" is arbitrary. Intersex babies need not undergo what is often medically, and, arguably, socially, unnecessary surgery in order to fit into a defined gender role which they may find problematic.

In another example of problematising gender dimorphism, Patricia Elliot discusses incidents where transgender people have been denied membership to women's groups because they ostensibly pose a threat to feminist or female identity. I suggest that such feminists might consider taking on the challenges raised by this discussion in order to create an inclusive movement to address equality for all genders and not only equality for women.

In the following video, transman activist, Yee Won Chong reminds us of the common conflation of assigned sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. He separates them into continua illustrating these differences with his own personal experience. Chong's talk is useful to help people understand the reality and depth of the problems that transgender people experience on a day to day basis.

Butler, J 2004, ‘Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality’, in Undoing Gender, Routledge, New York, pp. 74-101.

Elliott, P, 2010, 'Ch 1: Feminist embattlement on the field of trans', Debates in Transgender, Queer and Feminist Theory', Ashgate, Farnham & Burlington, pp. 17-31.

Chong, YW 2012, Beyond the Gender Binary: Yee Won Chong at TEDxRainier, online video, 13 December, TEDx Talks, viewed 11 May 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lm4vxZrAig>.

Female Genital Modification

In '"The Price to Pay for our Common Good": Genital Modification and the Somatechnologies of Cultural (In)Difference', Nikki Sullivan draws attention to the biased 'white optics' that form our perceptions of Female Genital Modification (FGM) in Australia. In this video from the ABC, the focus is on surgery performed on children without consent, by women who lack medical training.

It is important to address incidences of FGM without consent, such as those presented in the video. However, the question remains as to why it is still illegal for a consenting adult to undergo FGM? Why are other forms of genital surgery widely accepted, yet so called 'Female Genital Mutilation' positioned as deviant?

Sullivan describes FGM as "a Eurocentric discursive construct that emerged in a particular time and place and in accordance with specific ways of seeing, knowing and being... a bio-political technology; one that establishes and polices boundaries and borders between "us" and "them", between proper and improper bodies - both individual and social - and evaluate their worth in terms that replicate the civilising presumptions of the past, silence subjugated knowledges, and pathologise difference." (2007, p. 400)

FGM is often described in terms of 'mutilation' and 'barbarism' (as can be seen in the ABC video), while cosmetic genital surgery is promoted, reinforcing ideologies of what is normal. Who are we to pass ethnocentric judgement on women who want to undergo surgery to live up to cultural expectations? The same happens here in Australia, accepted and normalised under the title of cosmetic surgery. 

Wounded Attachments: Israel and Palestine

Friedrich Nietzsche describes ressentiment as an individual's blaming of their own oppressed position on an external body or force. Characterised by feelings of resentment and inferiority, ressentiment justifies the individual's actions against the perceived oppressor.

Wendy Brown ascribes ressentiment to oppressed groups. In explaining wounded attachments Brown suggests that “politicized identity thus enunciates itself, makes claims for itself, only by entrenching, restating, dramatizing, and inscribing its pain in politics; it can hold out no future—for itself or others—that triumphs over this pain” (Brown 1995, 74).

In his essay, Yoav Litvin utilizes neuroscience, psychology and personal reflection to discuss the Israel Palestine conflict in regards to fear experienced on both sides. He suggests breaking down stereotyped conceptions of the oppressor and the oppressed through nonviolent exposure to the other. Parallels can be drawn between this and Brown's model of 'wounded attachments', wherein both suggest that attachment to pain prevents healing.

Here is a critical/humorous take on the conflict:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3by9FoEFB8

Reference List:

W. Brown, “Wounded Attachments” in States of Injury, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 52-76.

F. Nietzsche, from Beyond Good and Evil, in D. Ravitch and A. Thernstrom (eds) The Democracy Reader: Classic and Modern Speeches, Essay, Poems, Declarations and Documents on Freedom and Human Rights Worldwide, New York, Harper Perennial, 1992, pp. 77-79.

Litvin, Y 2013, Accountability and Healing in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Shomer Shalom: Network for Jewish Nonviolence, viewed 4 May 2014,
<http://shomershalom.org/2013/08/21/never-give-up-nonviolent-civilian-resistance-healing-and-active-hope-in-the-holyland/>.

Medical Bias: From Obesity to Genital Surgery

In her article on obesity, Murray describes medical bias and its basis in norms of morality. As well as declaring what is healthy, medical discourse positions people as either normal or pathological. Murray relates this to social discrimination against 'fat' people. This bias can also be seen in medical discourse around intersex people who are generally described and treated in terms of normality. There are ethnicity, class and gender biases that influence medical discourse around genital surgery in general. This is evident in the way 'female genital mutilation' is perceived in Western society compared with the general acceptance of cosmetic genital surgery.

Feminist ≠ Man Hater

I've always wondered why feminism so often has so many negative connotations. It seems to me that one reason for this stigma is that feminists and "man haters" have been boxed together to become one and the same. Perhaps what is needed in order to destigmatise feminism is greater recognition of the social constructionism of men (or all genders) in patriarchal society and an understanding of "gender as a structure of social relations, a system of material practices resulting in material inequalities" (Connell 2002, p. 94) in opposition to seemingly widely held views that feminists generalise men to be the sole cause of women's oppression. Unfortunately it is the negative and extremist memories of feminism that seem to linger in people's minds for the longest. Who wants to claim to be a feminist if in doing so they are risking being accused of something else altogether?

I saw this article today, in which Elle Hardy claims that feminism values equality over opportunity and choice. What I'd like to ask is, in what way is the fight for equality not also a fight for greater opportunity and choice?

The Personal is Political: Intersections of Politics in the Private and the Public

"Feminism grasped the reality that politically, liberal citizenship was derived from a basic distinction drawn between the private and the public, thereby intrinsically excluding women from public life and leaving them unprotected from abuse within the family." (Krishnaraj 2009, 44)

The private lives of families are generally seen as just that, private. However if we delve a bit deeper and look instead at the patterns and repeated occurrences within families that make up part of the bigger picture, suddenly the "private" comes into focus as part of the public domain. Gal describes this effect as a recalibration (2002). By bringing the private domain of families into a public perspective, repeated incidences of, for example, abuse can be gathered as a political problem that needs to be addressed on a public level and no longer swept under the carpet as individual private issues. According to Menon, that which is seen as 'personal' needs to be recognized as "...completely submerged in power relations, with significant implications for what is called 'the public'"(2012, p. 35), and is, therefore, 'political'.  By understanding the feminist slogan, "The Personal is Political", the intersections between politics in the public sphere and politics in the private sphere become visible.

References

Gal, S 2002, "A Semiotics of the Public/Private Distinction", differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 77-95.

Krishnaraj, M 2009, "Women's Citizenship and the Private-Public Dichotomy", Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 17, pp. 43-45.

Menon, N 2012, Seeing Like a Feminist, Zubaan, New Delhi

Gendered Work and Play

I used to be absolutely certain that boys shouldn't play with dolls.

Now I'm absolutely certain that I was wrong.

In this week's reading, Barbara Pocock talks about unpaid work in Australia (such as child care, cleaning and cooking among other work that occurs mostly in the private domain of the house) and describes maternal guilt as how "many women feel criticized for their choices (whether in paid jobs or at home, whether with children or without)." (p. 47) Pocock describes women at home as being seen as "loving, selfless care-givers", while those who work carry the stigma of a "selfish career woman". Yet, women are still pressured to work, and to become educated before having children. In the current system it seems that women can't win. They are criticized for not pulling their weight as dependent house wives, however if they have a career they are seen as selfish. Greater recognition needs to be given to unpaid work so as to limit the suffering that comes about from "maternal guilt". Children are still brought up with gendered expectations that reinforce their roles in the workplace. Here is an article that looks at the increase in the gendering of children's toys:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4617704

An Alternative to the Northern Territory Emergency Response: a Partnership Instead of Control

The main problem I have with the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) is it's failure to address that which it was implemented in response to. Namely, widespread sexual abuse of Aboriginal children and violence against Aboriginal women.

From Nicole Watson's account of the NTER, there has been a lack of research into any correlations between the NTER and improvement on safety for either children or women in Indigenous communities. This, combined with evidence of negative impacts caused by the NTER, show us that at the very least further research into its negative and positive effects should be done so that improvements can be made.

Rather than responding to problems of child abuse, child malnutrition and lack of safe water supplies, the NTER has resembled early colonial treatment of Aboriginal women including invisibility of rights and regulation of spending leading to loss of autonomy, loss of cultural authority and an increase in stigma towards those using BasicsCards as a part of the income management regime.

"In light of this history, it beggars belief that anyone would rationally argue that legislative interventions that regulate en masse are an answer to the multiple levels of disadvantage endured by Aboriginal women. Yet this is precisely what key NTER measures have delivered." (Watson, p. 158)

Perhaps the greatest thing that the NTER has achieved is recognition of the immense problem of the abuse of children and women within Indigenous communities, and the need for this to be addressed. However a different approach is needed. The NTER didn't include any prior consultation and has followed a top down approach. I agree with Watson and would like to suggest that success will be better reached through partnerships between the government and Indigenous communities, rather than through legislation for women and children's safety put in place by a society that is itself suffering from patriarchal violence.

Ban the Veil: Oppressive or Liberating?

Throughout the debate over banning the veil in France, those in support of the ban generally saw the veil as representing "the subordination of women, their humiliation, and their inequality." (Scott 2007, p. 153) However, if a veil is worn by choice, then how can we consider it to represent subordination and inequality? Further, Scott suggests that "...uncovered bodies are no more a guarantee of equality than covered ones." (2007, p. 156)

Liberty has has many different meanings in different places and at different times. It is necessary to remember that "...what is plausibly liberatory in one context is clearly repressive in another." (Asad 2009, p. 26) In the case of Saudi Arabia where according to Chesler, "...no Saudi woman dares appear open-faced in public" (2010, p. 39) then her garments may come to represent subordination and inequality. Perhaps in those specific situations, the ban would be a viable way to address oppression. However if a woman in France (or anywhere for that matter) who has autonomously chosen to wear a veil is told that legally she must take it off, then couldn't that also be viewed as a kind of oppression? After all, the choice is being taken away from her.

Compliments as Discipline

I used to be absolutely certain that no harm could ever come of complimenting somebody.

Now I am absolutely certain I was wrong.

Wilchins describes the power present in gender norms as being "bottom up". "It is not held by authorities and institutions; rather it is held by no one but exercised by practically everyone." (2004, p. 63)

When I have complimented someone about a feminine or masculine trait I have unknowingly reinforced gender norms. Although it is not as damaging as say, shaming someone for not fitting into a binary gender role, it is still adding to an individual's self surveillance and self consciousness.

In the same way that Foucalt described prisons, the gaze of society can be seen to monitor and influence the behaviour of, and then become internalized by individuals in regards to, among other things, gender norms: "The prison was designed to change inmates' consciousness of themselves. Its aim was to make them, under infinite observation and control, infinitely self-conscious and self-controlling." (Wilchins 2004, p. 66)

When I visited Sachsenhausen, a concentration camp near Berlin in Germany, it was shocking to see how the entire camp was designed in such a way that from one central watchtower the entire camp could be observed and thereby controlled. Check out a map of the camp to better understand Foucalt's description in practice.

I've realised that when I compliment someone I am often reinforcing gender norms that the individual I'm complimenting may then internalise. The same has happened when people compliment or shame me. The gaze of friends, family, teachers and strangers and eventually myself have all acted to discipline myself and others within a specific norm based society. Therefore, I have realised that in an indirect way, compliments I have given may have lead some people to feelings of shame for not conforming to gender norms.

Biases in Science

I used to be absolutely certain that science is truth. That's how it was taught through Primary School and High School.

Now I'm absolutely certain that I was wrong.

There are varying degrees of truth in science, and instead of seeing it as stable and constant, it should be seen as a fluid, changing path toward truth. Kant's (?) paradigm of a thesis, antithesis and synthesis can help us explore this idea. 

In this paradigm, the thesis is an idea, the antithesis is a negation of the idea, and the synthesis is a combination of the thesis and the antithesis made up from the logical 'truths' of both. The synthesis can then become the thesis for further arguments. This can be seen in technology. Cornelia Fine reminds us "state-of-the-art brain scanners offer us unprecedented information about the structure and working of the brain. But don't forget that, once, wrapping a tape measure around the head was considered modern and sophisticated." (2010, p. 133) This demonstrates the way science changes through processes of being the current 'truth', being criticised, and eventually changing to satisfy those criticisms so that it can once more be considered truth,

Gender studies provides an antithesis to the male-female dichotomy that is still prevalent throughout society "...at increasingly early ages, making the two-sex system more deeply a part of how we imagine human life and giving it the appearance of being both inborn and natural" (Fausto-Sterling 2000, p.31).

Haraway states that "struggles over what will count as rational accounts of the world are struggles over how to see." (1991, p. 194) Haraway demonstrates that scientific knowledge is based on power and is thereby susceptible to bias.

If we look at science as a paradigm rather than a truth, and consider that it doesn't go unaffected by bias, then we can begin to pull apart 'knowledge' about gender and the male-female dichotomy to better understand the existence of gender as a spectrum.

Reserved Seats and Representation of Minority Groups

Reserved seats in politics (where a number of job positions are allocated to individuals from minority groups) has brought up public debate as to their success and their opposition to a merit based system (one where jobs are allocated to those considered most suitable based on ability and experience).

A friend of mine suggested that instead of reserving seats in politics, seats need to be reserved in primary school, high school and university, so that people from lower classes can succeed in a merit based system  upon graduation. Assuming they would reach a position where they could succeed, I wonder if upon taking a representative position they may no longer be particularly representative of the group. Having lived different experiences and having had a more privileged life with greater access to opportunities, it is likely that they would have a different perspective and possibly also different interest and opinions to the group, thereby creating distance between themselves and the group they should be representing. This brings to front the question explored in the criticism following Diane Bell's article in which she speaks for Indigenous Australians: who can speak for who?

Such a method would also fail to take into account possible prejudices based on, for example ethnicity or gender that are present within institutions and which could create further hurdles on the path to a representative position.

Reserved seating sidesteps these problems to an extent. Perspective is important for a representative as "...members of structurally differentiated groups often have different understandings of the causes of the problems and conflicts and the possible effects of proposed solutions." (Young 2000, p. 145) Without having the perspective of the group, the representative may fail to understand the specific problems of that group. Reserved seating can also ensure representatives won't be selected with ethnic or cultural bias. However that brings us to the question "...who has the right to choose those representatives" (Young 2000, p. 50)? And furthermore, how can someone create a guideline for selecting a representative on the transient guidelines of interest, opinion and perspective?

I believe that reserving seats should be continued as a tactic of increasing representation of minority groups in politics, however I'd like to explore further the ways in which representatives are selected.

On the Social Constructionism of Gender, Race and Disability

I used to be absolutely certain that disability was biological and factual and these things needn't be questioned.

Now I am absolutely certain I was wrong.

Meekosha's article on Intercategorical Analysis explores the necessity to include disability in contemporary social, cultural and political theory. Meekosha believes it has been ignored so far because it hasn't made it into the category of the 'socially constructed'. Meekosha makes it rather obvious that just as gender and race were once considered to be biological and therefore fact, disability is still stuck in that kind of medical framework. Instead we should understand disability as a "socially generated system of discrimination" (Meekosha 2006, p. 163) that is built upon impairments (functional limitations of an individual). Similarly gender was - and distressingly still often is - understood to be biological.

I remember taking a philosophy class that touched on the topic of disability. The lecturer used an example of a community where the majority of the population was hearing impaired so everyone knew sign language. In this case would you consider a hearing impaired individual to be disabled? Another example was of an individual in a wheelchair. If ramps are always available as well as stairs can we still say that the individual is disabled?

These are quite simplistic examples however they can help us to understand the way impairment, physiognomy and sex are different to disability, race and gender. Just as impairments can be made disabling by society, sex and physiognomy also become disabling when gender and race are socially constructed into hierarchies.