Citizenship and Human Rights
Why are human rights so difficult for Women to realise?
The “Rights of Man and of the Citizen” (1789) are, for women, arbitrary, innate, a document that speaks volumes in the silent exclusion of women. Women, in this document, are not accounted and therefore it must be assumed that women are not (at the time of printing) recognised as citizens and are without rights, at least the rights bestowed upon their brothers, fathers, sons and uncles. This blatant hierarchal placement of rights removes women from the public realm and their rights seemingly in to that of the private, the home, the woman’s domain where interestingly the role of the woman is still one of sub ordinance to men.
The societal role of woman is vital in understanding why rights for women are difficult to realise. The rise of capitalism marginalised the mothering capability of a woman. The biological capabilities of a woman’s body, being able to carry a child and to lactate, ties women to their children, imprisoned by their womb as De Beauvoir would conclude. Men are able to continue to work in the public sphere where women remained in the private sphere resulting in women not only be tied to mothering but to the home, the private sphere where rights did not exist. The “seemingly natural connection between women’s child bearing and lactating capacities [assumes that it is] their responsibility for child care” (Chodrow:3) therefore the role of primary caregiver resides with the woman and is the socially accepted reality for a woman, to be that of care giver, nurturer and mother, regardless of their right to work. In this example it would be fair to say that the rights for women are somewhat performative. Human rights, although written as a standard right are not easy to attain due to societal pressure on women to rear children and be the primary care giver.
‘Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own
The “Rights of Man and of the Citizen” (1789) are, for women, arbitrary, innate, a document that speaks volumes in the silent exclusion of women. Women, in this document, are not accounted and therefore it must be assumed that women are not (at the time of printing) recognised as citizens and are without rights, at least the rights bestowed upon their brothers, fathers, sons and uncles. This blatant hierarchal placement of rights removes women from the public realm and their rights seemingly in to that of the private, the home, the woman’s domain where interestingly the role of the woman is still one of sub ordinance to men.
The societal role of woman is vital in understanding why rights for women are difficult to realise. The rise of capitalism marginalised the mothering capability of a woman. The biological capabilities of a woman’s body, being able to carry a child and to lactate, ties women to their children, imprisoned by their womb as De Beauvoir would conclude. Men are able to continue to work in the public sphere where women remained in the private sphere resulting in women not only be tied to mothering but to the home, the private sphere where rights did not exist. The “seemingly natural connection between women’s child bearing and lactating capacities [assumes that it is] their responsibility for child care” (Chodrow:3) therefore the role of primary caregiver resides with the woman and is the socially accepted reality for a woman, to be that of care giver, nurturer and mother, regardless of their right to work. In this example it would be fair to say that the rights for women are somewhat performative. Human rights, although written as a standard right are not easy to attain due to societal pressure on women to rear children and be the primary care giver.
‘Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own
Bibliography: 1) Shashi Tharoor (1999) Are Human Rights Universal? World Policy Journal vol 14. 2) Church Wedding Vows from the 1966 Solemnisation of Matrimony 3) Keck M and Sikkink K (1998) Activists Beyond Borders 4) The Qur’an English ed. (2000) Kitab Bhavan, 5) Beauvoir, Simone de (1949 (translated 2009)). The Second Sex 6) .The Bible, King James ed. (2004) Hendrickson Publishers Inc 7) Padma Srinivasan and Gary R 8) Chodrow N (1999) The Reproduction of Mothering University of California Press. 9) Calvert R (1974). "Criminal and civil liability in husband-wife assaults". In Steinmetz S, Straus M.Violence in the family. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 88–91. 10) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 11) The Rights of Man and Citizen 1979 12) Woolenscroft. M (1998) The Wrongs Of Woman. Cox & Whyman Ltd, Reading, Berkshire 13) Marx (1867) Capital, Volume I , 14) Oakley. A (1981) Subject Women. William Collins Son & Co Ltd, Glasgow 15) Klein, V (1949) The Emancipation of Women: it’s motives and achievements London Sylvan Press 17) Hooks. B (2000) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre. Cambridge South End Press 18) Echols, Alice (1989). Daring to be bad: radical feminism in America, 1967-1975 19) Brennan. W (1995) - Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 20) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwtwo/women_at_war_01.shtml