The Rights of Human Violations of Women - Essay Example

Should Feminists Promote Women’s Rights as Human Rights? Introduction This essay reflects on the question should feminists promote women’s rights as human rights? While women generally have been able to raise the human rights machinery when they find themselves in situations as such, some of their gender experiences of human rights such as abuse and rape in detention undoubtedly have not been quite visible within the established definitions of abuse (Cook 1994, p.76). This is precisely because women have held the "private" sphere of the family and home in the past; the archetypal citizen has been generally male, and, therefore, the characteristic notions of rights on humans have unreservedly had a man as their epitome (Charles 1999, p.337-354). A significant effect of the nature of gender of the public or even private split is that the rights of human violations of women occurring in "private" individuals have gone invisible and said to be beyond the sate purview (Charles 1999, p.337-354). It is predominantly relevant to note that gender is a noteworthy factor in the decisions of interventions in the so-called private sphere, in prosecuting human rights violations (Smart 1989, p.138-165). However, many arms and groups overlook much of things and issues affecting men in the context of human rights than what happens to women (Kerr 1993, p.94; Elizabeth 1988, p.78). Many abuses done to women are justified in the name of religion, family, and culture hide by the sanctity of the “private sphere” with perpetrators of human rights violations enjoying immunity from being accountable for their actions (Handrahan 2001, p.156). The human rights act is non-discriminating against either gender. It bounds to treat both women and men the same giving them individual rights as humans and promoting equity (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). There are, however, violations of women rights on the basis on cultural justifications that compromise the execution of women rights (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). It is out of this that feminists who campaign for women’s rights should structure an approach and lobby for women’s rights as human rights in their goal of achieving the rights of women (Kim 1993, p. 49-105). The essay will look into a brief history of feminism in promoting human rights as well as how the practice has changed over years. It will also detail an analysis of some of the rights of women detailing how well or bad they have been in practice, in the society (Handrahan 2001, p.156). The essay will rely on statements from scholars and other influential leaders worldwide to detail the state of women’s rights practice (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Nussbaum 1999, p.75). It will also detail how these rights feature as human rights and instances where the cultural element compromises the rights by treating them as different and not honoring them to detail (Elizabeth 1988, p.78). It will sum up by making an analysis of women as human rights practice and making some recommendations of what should be done to promote women’s rights as human rights (Kerr 1993, p.94; Smart 1989, p.138-165). Feminism generally refers to cultural, political, and economic movements establishing better rights and protections for women legally. Feminism general concern is the gender difference issues (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). The movement lobbies for women's rights as well as interests to seek for their voice in the midst of humiliations and rights violations (Kim 1993, p. 49-105). Nancy Cott describes feminism as the general belief in the relevance of gender equality, with an invalidation of the idea of gender hierarchy as a being a socially constructed concept (Smart 1989, p.138-165). Human rights framework applied to women The Universal Human Rights Declaration defines human rights as inalienable, universal and indivisible (Kim 1993, p. 49-105). Together, these defining highlight tremendous relevance for women's human rights. The universality of rights of humans means that the rights apply to every person by the sole virtue of being human (Smart 1989, p.138-165). It also means that rights of humans apply, to everyone in equal status, because everyone is equal by simply being a human being (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Nussbaum 1999, p.75). It does not matter what rights are for men or women, feminists have a sole reason of lobbying for women rights as human rights (Handrahan 2001, p.156). In varying ways, the theme of universality may patently seem obvious, but its general egalitarian premise has a far-reaching edge (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). By invoking the human rights universality, women can demand their precise humanity acknowledgement by lobbying for their rights as human rights (Charles 1999, p.337-354). The concomitant women recognition as bearing human rights mandates the inclusion of women and other general gender perspectives into ideas and institutions already committed to promoting and protect human rights (Smart 1989, p.138-165). The concept of human rights being universal challenges the controversy that the women’s rights can endure limits in cultural specific definitions of their respective human rights meanings (Kerr 1993, p.94; Elizabeth 1988, p.78). The concept of human rights being inalienable literally means that it is quite impossible for an individual to abdicate a woman’s human rights, since every individual is accorded the respective rights being human (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). It also justifies that no individual or group can deprive another of her or his human rights. Therefore, no rules can go beyond discriminating women rights as, not human rights (Kim 1993, p. 49-105; Charles 1999, p.337-354). For instance, debts incurred by women workers cannot justify indentured servitude, food deprivation, freedom of movement, or compensation (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). The concept of inalienable rights generally means that all human rights cannot be, sold, forfeited or ransomed for any given reason (Charles 1999, p.337-354). The concept of inalienability has also been extremely relevant in negotiations over the precise priority given to religious, social and cultural practices relating to human rights (Kerr 1993, p.94; Elizabeth 1988, p.78). For many years, work to change practices that are psychologically or physically damaging to women and, which have often received "protected" generally under the rubric of tradition, religion or culture has been predominantly difficult because of the integrity of culture justified by the Universal Declaration and the Northern domination history in much of the world (Handrahan 2001, p.156). Therefore, it was relevant that the Vienna Declaration as well as Programs of Action relatively from the World Conference on Rights of humans held in 1993 in Vienna, and the UN Declaration against Violence on Women affirm that in conflict cases between human rights for women and cultural or even religious practices, the rights of humans on women must prevail. This justifies that feminists have a right to value women rights as literally human rights (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). The human rights indivisibility means that none of the human rights considered elementary human rights is in any way more valuable. The rights remain inter-related justifying that the so-called women’s rights are in the bracket of human rights (Elizabeth 1988, p.78). Human rights cover civil, social, political, economic as well as cultural facets of existence of humans; the indivisibility principle highlights that the people’s ability to live their lives as dignified and exercise respective human rights depends fully upon the recognition that the respective aspects are interdependent (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). The justification that human rights are truly indivisible is relevant for women, since their political and civil rights remain as human rights. The feminists, therefore, hold value and can stand on strong ground of justifying them as solely in human rights concept (Charles 1999, p.337-354). Historically the so-called women rights have been compromised by respective economic status, cultural or social limitations placed on women’s activities, and by the threat of violence often constituting a veritable obstacle to participation of women in the political and public life (Kim 1993, p. 49-105; Charles 1999, p.337-354). The idea of indivisibility provides women with a framework through which they can emphasize the complexity of respective challenges, which they face, and lobby the necessity of women inclusion in the policy development and implementation (Smart 1989, p.138-165). By looking at the indivisibility of women's human rights, women have rejected a human rights hierarchy, which places either political or civil rights or socio-economic rights as primary (Kerr 1993, p.94; Elizabeth 1988, p.78). Approaches to women rights There should be no difference in women and men’s rights because the rights run across both sexes and might affect them similarly or in a different way (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). Looking into some approaches, it is ideal to have a strong perception regarding women rights as human rights. Liberal feminism is an approach asserting the equality of men and women in legal and political reform. It is an individualistic type of feminism focusing on women's ability to relatively manifest as well as maintain their equality in their own choices and actions. Liberal feminism generally uses the interactions between women and men as the place from which they transform society (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). As per the liberal feminists, all women have the capability of asserting their capability to achieve equality; therefore, it remains possible for change without altering the society’s structure. Issues relevant to liberal feminists are among others sexual harassment, education, voting, affordable health care, and affordable childcare of which they can as well affect men. They are issues surpassing gender and should not be held as women rights as if men deserve and already hold them. In fact, there are men who fight to have the same rights (Nussbaum 1999, p.75; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). Presenting them as women rights is distinctively promoting the oppression of women and justifying the superiority of men, they should be merely human rights (Kerr 1993, p.94; Elizabeth 1988, p.78). Anarchist feminism is another approach justifying why women rights and human rights. The approach combines feminism and anarchism (Kim 1993, p. 49-105). It views patriarchy generally as a voluntary hierarchy meaning that it holds no ground within the society. In this case, just because culture dictates the men have more or better rights do not justify that women should sit back and cope with discrimination (Kerr 1993, p.94). Patriarchy is voluntary, and any woman can choose to go against the whims of society as an individual. Just because a woman was born in that society does not justify that, she is a less being. There are many other societies and cultures, which respect women and give them rights as men (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). Only the barrier of culture should be broken, women’s rights held as men’s rights and this is reasoning enough for feminists to classify women rights as human rights (Charles 1999, p.337-354). Socialist feminism links up the women oppression to Marxist ideas on exploitation, labor and oppression. Socialist feminists believe unequal standing in the workplace as well as in the domestic sphere is what holds women down (Charles 1999, p.337-354). Otherwise, not that they have less rights but there is a negative perception that should not be a bias against their rights. Socialist feminists view domestic work, prostitution, childcare as well as marriage as ways through which women experience exploitation by a patriarchal system, devaluing women (Kim 1993, p. 49-105). The Socialist feminists put principal focus on broad change affecting society wholly in the rights concept rather than on women basis (Nussbaum 1999, p.75; Kim 1993, p. 49-105). The oppression and discrimination of women are merely a pattern affecting everyone involved especially in the capitalist system meaning that their rights should stand ground as human rights and no divisions should perceive them as the so-called women’s rights (Smart 1989, p.138-165). With the responsibility of a society being bearing and raising future generations of both male and female beings, women's reproduction role should be held in the high esteem not taken as the basis for prejudice against women (Charles 1999, p.337-354). This seemingly involves the men only that women are mandated to carry the baby for nine months, but this does not justify a compromise of their rights. Feminists can stand ground because women are same as men only that biologically, they hold different roles (Charles 1999, p.337-354). Roles do not justify the superiority of men in either way; men not taking the responsibility of carrying the pregnancy do not mean that whatever role they take is superior of should be in favor when it comes to perpetuating the rights (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). In addition, the responsibility nurturing and raising future generations should be under both sexes not singly the women’s role (Elizabeth 1988, p.78). Parents, female and male alike, have the right to up bring the children according to their respective dictates of consciences (Peters 1994, p.23). Women's relevance and, often, unpaid input to the family as well as the community is fact enough to justify that their rights are seemingly human rights and not any different from men. Further to this, law does not discriminate against women or men when extending its arm of governance. Both men and women are equal in the eyes of the law and subject to same laws meaning that, the subjective religious and cultural laws discriminating against women rights as human rights have no basis (Cook 1994, p.76; Charles 1994, p.107). The law does not recognize a man or a woman but implements justice under the human concept overall. This should be a substantial basis under the law for feminists to lobby for women’s rights as human rights (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). The equality extends to equal rights of men and women to the same access to clothing, shelter, food, medicine, job training, education, and employment meaning that no women’s right are noteworthy, they are same as men and can be put under the umbrella of human rights (Charles 1999, p.337-354). One major reason why feminists still find it difficult to classify the women rights as human rights is solely the narrow down of opportunity to express what women are going through in a daily routine. The rights of women are violated on many grounds more than men therefore need to specialize on women as the figure of rights violations. The voice of the woman is down in the cultural and religious context bringing in a need to have women as a pertinent figure in the line rights discussions (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). However, what they need to realize is that majoring on fighting for rights of women only exacerbates the situation by pronouncing the women gender as violated and weak (Peters 1994, p.23). This should stop and women rights treated as equal to human rights to justify equality for everyone. Generally, handling women’s rights as a separate entity will only make the situation worse by portraying them as emaciated and a group of people who require solace. It would rather be handled under the human rights context for the rights to surpass gender and apply to everyone. Furthermore, there are also men whose rights similar to the ones termed as “Women rights” that are violated (Cook 1994, p.76). Turning again to handle them as separate might mean, separating gender in handling the rights of humans and this is disastrous in the concept of universality for all human beings. Conclusion Practically and from the discussion, women rights are simply human rights. Why the women’s rights stand out even today as separate rights is the justifications given to them by cultural and political definitions (Katarina 1995, p.56). While women generally have been able to raise the human rights machinery when they find themselves in situations as such, some of their gender experiences of human rights such as abuse and rape in detention undoubtedly have not been quite visible within the established definitions of abuse (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). This is precisely because women have held the "private" sphere of the family and home in the past; the archetypal citizen has been generally male, and, therefore; the characteristic notions of rights on humans have unreservedly had a man as their epitome (Charles 1999, p.337-354). This has always made women stray in the contention of own rights and seek for sympathy from the threshold of the “mighty” men regarding them as weaker sex. It therefore alienates their rights and separates them as private rather than merging them with the human rights, which should be the case (Smart 1989, p.138-165). Many abuses done to women are justified in the name of religion, family, and culture hide by the sanctity of the “private sphere” with perpetrators of human rights violations enjoying immunity from being accountable for their actions (Charles 1999, p.337-354). Reading this essay clarifies that in the order of all dimensions women rights stand out as human rights and not distinct as culture, religion and politics of a given society. It should be clear that it is a violation of human rights in situations where women are enslaved to prostitution, infringed in domestic violence, raped, genitally mutilated, denied the right of planning for their own families, and any other accoutrements infringed to them against their will (Charles 1999, p.337-354; Charles 1994, p.107). There is not sound justification of any kind that should counter the women rights and present them as less important to those of men. However, in deriving this point of view, there are many challenges countering the argument. This is because the society still holds to the archaic cultures of patriarchy where men hold strong positions and which presents women as the minors (Katarina 1995, p.56). These cultural grounds compromise the argument and suppress women to develop believe of equality (Smart 1989, p.138-165; Charles 1999, p.337-354). A considerable limitation is that feminists cannot approach the rights of women as human rights because it is more general and cannot serve the purpose of saving the women from the wrath of discrimination (Smart 1989, p.138-165). It becomes adamant for feminists to justify women’s rights as human rights because the rights are compromised already and viewing them from a women’s perspective is rather better to help overcome the discrimination. References Charles, H 1994, "What are 'women's international human rights'?" in R. Cook (Ed) Human rights of women: national and international perspectives, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, p.107 Charles, H 1999, “Women’s Rights as Human Rights’: Feminist Practices, Global Feminism, and Human Rights Regimes in Tran nationality,” Citizenship Studies 3, no. 3 (1999): 337-354. Cook, R 1994, Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, p.76 Elizabeth, S 1988, Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought, Boston: Beacon Press, p.78 Handrahan, L 2001, "Gender Apartheid and Cultural Absolution: Saudi Arabia and the International Criminal Court". Human Rights Tribune 8 (1) 156 Katarina, T 1995, Women and Human Rights, Zed Books, p.56 Kerr, J 1993, Ours by Right: Women’s Rights and Human Rights, London: Zed Press, p.94 Kim, N 1993, “Towards a feminist theory of human rights: straddling the fence between western imperialism and uncritical absolutism”, Columbia Human Rights Law Journal (1993) pp. 49-105 Nussbaum, M 1999, Religion and Women’s Human Rights’ in Sex and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.75 Peters, J 1994, Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, Rout ledge, p.23 Smart, C 1989, The Problem of Rights” in Feminism and the Power of Law, London: Rout ledge, p.138-165 Read More