Paper Deadline -- FYI

Hi -- I decided to extend the paper deadline for PLSC 432 to Wednesday at noon. If you have any questions, please email me!

Also, Carmen asked about the possibility of posting everyone's paper on the blog. If you're interested, let me know.

Thanks!
Dr. Hsueh

The pros and cons of photography

I found this article while taking a break from finishing up my paper today. It is an interesting look at how a famous photo affected the life of the subject. I know this photo came up a lot in class and I thought you all might be interested in taking a look at this.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-napalm-girl-photo-vietnam-war-turns-40-210339788.html

Understanding "Others"

           I thought that the Narayan piece was very interesting and it really triggered the question for how we understand these foreign cultures. It was interesting that she had a hard time gaining acceptance from American women when comparing dowry-murders to domestic violence. When she first said that even I thought that it seemed like a strange comparison but after she went into more explanation it seemed to be a really good example. One thing that really stood out to me was the idea that because these women are killed by a fire our culture has a hard time finding that relatable since guns seem to be the method of choice. But both these deaths comes from domestic violence. However, because Americans don't understand the Indian culture the deaths by fire tend to be looked at in a more exotic nature.

          I also find that the way women look at domestic violence and the way Indian women look at domestic violence to be very interesting. In America the domestic violence that leads to death tends not to be look at as much as it is in Indian culture. Both having their main focus for solutions in different places as well. In America we have the shelters and other programs to help women, but I found it fascinating that Indian women explained that their State doesn't help women in the same way. While women from here suggest that they just start shelters or have more welfare just shows how much ignorance there is about the other world cultures.

We can take this ignorance and expand it from the issue of women's rights to just other international issues, problems, policy, cultures and how little we know and understand these cultures can have a drastic effect on our foreign policy or support issues. For example the Kony 2012 was a movement because of a video seen around the internet but yet this was not a new issue, nor was the video exactly telling the truth. There is a very lazy and complacent attitude about understanding "others".

Are we better?

What I love about political theory is that it is constantly giving me new perspectives on how to look at almost everything in our past, present and future.  For me, Narayan's article offered just that. I found that I couldn't help but agree with almost all her arguments and the evidence she supported them with was done very well. It made me think (once again here I am going back to my paper) about my paper, Okin and many of the things we touched on in class that day on multiculturalism. We see ourselves in Western societies as setting the example for other countries, particularly in the form of women's rights and protection. Our culture is more humanitarian, better developed, superior. Sometimes I have to wonder, especially after reading her piece, do we really have that much more? "Death by domestic violence in the US seems to be numerically as significant a social problem as dowry murders in India." As Narayan argues, Western societies see acts like dowry murder as horrifying and nothing like we see here in the US. "Burning a woman to death in the Indian context is no more exotic than shooting her to death in the US context." I feel like her argument is right, we are really just often times doing the same thing to women here in the US as they do in countries in India but just under different contexts. Women are dying from domestic violence in all countries, including the US. Are these cultures really in different than ours? Narayan does not believe so, and I can't help but kind of agree with her.

Dowry Murder

I was really struck by the Narayan article, which essentially explains how domestic violence in the United States and dowry-related burnings in India are not easily reconciled. This if for several reasons, but the one that suprised me the most was that women (or more broadly society in general) assign a certain cultural significance to the matter in which the act was carried out. Dowry murder is for some reason more easily explained as "death by culture", as women in the United States do not understand it as fatal domestic violence. Although the author points out that these types of murder are generally preceded by events that Americans would more typically define as domestic violence, the fact that they die by burning is somehow viewed as exotic. Fire, however, is not chosen as a culturally specific weapon but for its abillity to conceal forensics. Claiming the use of fire is culturally specific would be the equivalent of stating that fatal shootings in domestic violence are a uniquely American phenomenon, and as such can be explained away by "culture". I appreciated the article, because I had never thought of the ways in which violence towards women is justified (for lack of a better word) by culture when it more closely aligned with patriarchy. Which is almost universal. Therefore, we should be less focused on the ways in which women are abused and killed than on the social institutions that more or less allow it to occur under the cover of culture.

One of the ideas that was touched upon was in the Sontag article about the "culture of spectacle." (pg. 265) Sontag discusses in her article that it is quite possible that our "culture of spectacle" has numbed us to images of violence and we react with detachment and apathy. Though Sontag doesn't fully outline the "culture of spectacle," I extracted that this is the way in which our culture has saturated itself with constant violent images and stories through the news media as well as the way in which violence is used as a form of entertainment. Sontag talked about how we are drawn to such spectacles, yet we are also repulsed by this desire (pg. 264). This is an interesting thought because of the increasing popularity of violent entertainment that include movies (Saw, Hostel, anything Quentin Tarantino) and video games. If anything, I would say that Sontag is incorrect for the most part in saying that images of violence make us feel more compelled to take action. I think that in most cases, people are detached: They don't know the people and to care about every single instance of violence one hears or reads about in the news would be an extremely heavy burden to carry. I understand that Sontag is trying to defend those who make these images and she is trying to stress how important these images are, and I agree that they are important but this "culture of spectacle" has made us feel apathetic to violence. I am not sure if most people allow themselves to be "haunted" by these images. Violence as entertainment may be a large part of why a "culture of spectacle" exists, but it is alongside these very real images of violence around the world. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to distinguish what is entertainment in the news and what part of it is genuinely trying to get people to care about these cases of violence. Often, it seems as though the news media capitalizes on the fact that people are drawn by violence--and the most extreme of cases--to sell papers or entice viewers. I am not thinking that we should immerse ourselves in solving every issue of violence we hear about, I am only suggesting that it is highly disturbing that we have turned human suffering into something we entertain ourselves with and respond to lightly in many cases. On page 272, Sontag says "we now have a vast repository of images that make it harder to maintain this kind of moral defectiveness." I would argue that this has forced most to become more detached. It also seems that there is much more evidence to say that our moral defectiveness has increased because of our use of violence as entertainment. 

Just FYI -- World Issues Forum: "Is Internet a vector of freedom or an instrument of repression? Lessons from the Arab Spring, China, Mexico, the USA"

Shirley Osterhaus Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 7:25 AM To: ; Attachments: 5-23.pdf‎ (238 KB‎)[Open as Web Page]

We are delighted to have Delphine Halgand, Washington DC Director of Reporters without Border, as our final speaker for the Spring World Issues Forum.  Please help spread the word on this important topic: “Is internet a vector of freedom or an instrument of repression? Lessons from the Arab Spring, China, Mexico, the USA.” Wednesday, May 23, Noon-1:20pm, Fairhaven College Auditorium                                      7:00-9:00 AW 210 (Sponsored by AS Social Issues Resource Center) The fight for online freedom of expression is more essential than ever. The Arab Spring has clearly shown that the Internet is a vehicle for freedom. In countries where the traditional media are controlled by the government, the only independent news and information are to be found on the Internet, which has become a forum for discussion and a refuge for those who want to express their views freely. However, governments are realizing this and are trying to control the Internet and stepping up surveillance of Internet users. Netizens are being targeted by government reprisals. More than 120 of them are currently detained for expressing their views freely online, mainly in China, Iran and Vietnam. (Co-sponsors:  Fairhaven College and Reporters without Borders)

Reading assignments for the next two weeks...

[FYI -- I changed the syllabus even a little bit more. I took off the Moallem and added the Scarry and Sontag. Let me know if you have any questions]

Week 9— Culture, Freedom, and Gender

5/22, Tuesday

--Uma Narayan,”Cross-Cultural Connections, Border Crossings, and “Death by Culture” in Dislocating Cultures (1997), pp. 83-96. ON ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE

--Saba Mahmood, “Feminism, democracy, and empire : Islam and the war of terror ” ON ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE

--Susan Sontag, “War and Photography” ON ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE

--Elaine Scarry, Chapter 1, “The Structure of Torture: The Conversion of Real Pain into the Fiction of Power,” in The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, 1985, 27-59 ON ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE

--Minoo Moallem “Transnationalism, Feminism and Fundamentalism”, in Women, gender, religion: a reader, Elizabeth Anne Castelli, Rosamond C. Rodman

Week 10—Power and Politics

5/29, Tuesday

– rough draft due

--peer reviews

--student paper meetings in class

self-empowerment

I was definitely taken aback when I started reading Laura Mamo's article. Do it yourself artificial insemination? I had not idea that used to be such a simple process. It also then amazed me then when she went on to explain how the process had changed and continued to over the years. Esther, in the beginning was self-empowered, able to attempt to conceive on her own. Just a little later, she is a patient with a 'condition' of infertility. She was no longer able to conceive on her terms, and she loses a part of her power. Is it good that she had to go to the clinics to get the sperm that was once so easily accessed? Although I am no doctor and cannot speak medically about the potential reasonings as to why this changed (which I am inclined to think there really aren't a whole lot), it makes me think of just another way that men are trying to control women's bodies. I feel like when we take away rights like these, we are taking away women's control of their own bodies, their own lives. I think of the many people in WEstern societies who criticize other more conservative, religious countries for their lack of rights for women and I think- are we a whole lot better in some ways? Obviously, yes women do have a lot more opportunity and rights here. But still ultimately there are so many ways, like this issue of artificial insemination, abortion, contraception, that take away self-empowerment of women and make them seem like second-class citizens, incapable of making their own decisions about their own bodies.

Organize on the basis of Motherhood?

I thought the idea of women being able to mobilize strictly on a basis of shared gender experiences (motherhood, in particular) was an interesting one. Ruddick essentially argues that maternal thinking is the antithesis to violence, and therefore should be investigated as it pertains to nonviolence in politics. Coincidentally, one of the student panels I attended last Tuesday for the PSA conference referenced a similar phenomenon currently unfolding in Japan. The "mothers of Fukushima" are a group of women who have used their status as mothers to protest in a way that would ordinarily be seen as more threatening by the state. They essentially make their arguments against the dangers of nucler reactors from their platform as mothers, as nuclear disastors (radiation poisoning, be it through air, water, soil, ect..) statistically effect them more than adult men. However, at some point you have to ask what is the cost of uniting as mothers. Although its wonderful that women have found a political voice in the patriarchal society, it essentially discounts women who can't have children, who don't want children, identify themselves as lesbians, and so on. Therefore in even being able to voice their opinions they are reaffirming the only gender roles that the government finds favorable enough to be used in protest. It's hard to say whether its worth having a voice as this cost, and whether these women are not complacent in their male defined roles as they recognize and intentionally use the fact that as mothers they are treated differently in society...or if organizing themselves soley on the basis of motherhood actually limits what they will be able to accomplish in the long run.

Motherhood and Sexual Beings

What I got from a few of the readings is that being a mother or being able to conceive is power for a woman. But I don't think that being a mother is everything and a woman shouldn't base her worth over it. Some women really want to have kids while others don't...either option is fine but there is power in both choices. It is an awful position to be in when you want to have a child but aren't able. But the fact that we can do artificial insemination and other such procedures should be empowering that you can overcome that obstacle. I think that women who find power in being a mother is great it isn't something that we should look down on as a weakness or something. But it just isn't the only thing. 

Women should be looked at as owning their bodies. I know Petchesky,  brings up that it make women seem like property if its looked upon that way. But the thing is, is that we do own our bodies. Just like a man own's his body. I think it is strange how there is a double lens of how we view words as applied to women and the same words applied to a man. I accept that there is a disparity in those regards and I think that that is one of the biggest problems facing women in their battles. 

On a different note I thought that this was pretty interesting from Spiraling Discourses... : 

      "Still, the campaigns around "women's human rights" have generally flourished- that is, gained the widest acceptance- when they parade the worst horrors (sexual violence, genital mutilation, forced pregnancy or forced abortions, sexual trafficking, etc.) and therefore capitalize on the image of women as victims....Does this victimizing tendency sometimes evade, or even mirror, more than it directly confronts fundamentalist images of women?" 

I think that is something I would like to talk about in class and hear what everyone's opinion is. 

From empowerment to patients

What I found interesting in the Mamo article was the transition of Esther from self-empowered to a patient. It was a different approach to women being empowered or dis-empowered in relation to their fertility. Most of what we hear is the right to control our reproductive system through birth control and abortion and feeling empowered through being able to use those methods. In Esther's story, her self-empowerment dissipated when she was unable to conceive. What this meant to me is that women are empowered in their ability to either bring life or not bring life into the world. With Esther, she was transformed into a patient and couldn't conceive a child in her own home by herself. She had turned to the clinics and was willing to be turned into a patient because she was desperate to bear a child. She left the conceiving up to the doctors and lost her empowerment. This brought to mind the idea that when women are left with little to no option for birth control, they are essentially becoming patients like Esther, only they are patients of the state. The state limits the methods of birth control and thus forces women into the designation of patient. I had never thought about reproductive rights in this respect before. I had not given much thought to the idea that women who could not have children would feel less empowered when turning to doctors to make them pregnant.

For kicks and giggles

While I'm at it... here is a funny or die video that I thought was funny for reproductive rights

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina

"Mistake of Letting Women Vote"

Oh boy. This is all this man makes me say. Here is an article I just came across you may be interested in reading.

Topics: fox news ♦ Jesse Lee Peterson ♦ Peterson

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Fox News contributor, tea party activist and personal friend of Sean Hannity’s said in a sermon recently published to YouTube that America’s greatest mistake was allowing women the right to vote, adding that back in “the good old days, men knew that women are crazy and they knew how to deal with them.”

In the video, published to YouTube in March, Peterson explains that he believes women simply can’t handle “anything,” and that in his experience, “You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love.”

Despite his statements being online for more than a month, Hannity welcomed Peterson on his show last Tuesday to castigate the Obama administration over “taking credit” for the Osama bin Laden assassination — but the segment didn’t exactly go as planned.

In his March sermon, Peterson adds thatSandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student who recently spoke to a House Democratic hearing on contraception coverage, was actually revealing “all the sex” college students are having. “It’s really all about maintaining the freedom to kill babies in the womb,” he says. “Women are now degraded. Women have no shame.”

At roughly 8:30 into his 12-minute sermon, he doubles down, amazingly, saying that he believes America went wrong when it gave women the right to vote.

“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says. “We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.”

“And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman,” he adds. “They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.”

Peterson, founder of the conservative religious group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), appeared on the Fox News Channel on May 1, more than a month after giving his controversial sermon. Fox News host Kirsten Powers even confronted Peterson about his “mysogynistic” speech and challenged Hannity to repudiate it, but the Republican opinion host did not, and instead gave Peterson a platform to denounce “liberal, women policies.”

That may not be a surprise, however: Hannity has hosted Peterson numerous times and even serves on BOND’s advisory board. “BOND continues to fight the good fight standing for the values of God, family, and country, and are deserving of our support,” he said, according to the group.

Speaking to Peterson on May 1, Powers protested his appearance on Hannity’s show, explaining that she was “hijacking” it because “I didn’t know I was going to be on with him.” She then accused him of “using God’s word to teach misogyny.”

“I don’t know if you noticed or not, but the liberal Democrat womens are calling themselves whores,” Peterson replied. “They came out with their so called group of women who are within the Democrat party, and they are admitting that they’re whores and they are saying that they are proud of it. I’m okay with that, I just don’t want to pay for it.”

“I have a responsibility to tell the truth,” he added “You’re on the side of lies. Why shouldn’t I be on the side of truth? And it’s the truth that’s gonna make us free. Somebody gotta tell the truth, so I’m going to tell the truth.”

That “truth,” it would seem, isn’t just about liberal women, or even women in general. Peterson made headlines in January after telling a Huffington Post reporter that he would like to see black people put “back on the plantation so they would understand the ethic of working… They need a good hard education on what it is to work.” On his website, Peterson has published an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that advocates the arrest of New Black Panthers members.

In another post, he explains what he calls “the end of one-sided defense,” in which Peterson insists that men should re-take the right to physically strike women. “While I certainly do not sanction men attacking women, neither is it right for men to allow themselves to be beaten by a woman,” he wrote. “It’s time for men to re-assert their right to self defense.”

Peterson has also been on the leading edge of racially-motivated Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood, alleging at a press conference in 2008 that the group is responsible for killing “over 1,500 black babies” every day.

Neither Peterson nor a Fox News spokesperson responded to requests for comment.

(H/T: RH Reality Check)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/07/fox-news-contributor-laments-mistake-of-letting-women-vote/

Came across these...thought you all might be interested...

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137106354/in-asia-the-perils-of-aborting-girls-and-keeping-boys

In Asia, The Perils Of Aborting Girls And Keeping Boys

by NPR Staff

June 15, 2011

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

[6 min 26 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

 

Courtesy PublicAffairs Mara Hvistendahl writes that women in Asia with access to technology are choosing to have boys over girls, which has led to an imbalance of gender that has left the region "missing" 160 million women.

text size A A A

June 15, 2011

In her trip through China's Suining County in Jiangsu province, journalist Mara Hvistendahl saw plenty of familiar signs of economic growth. But she also saw something at an elementary school that startled her: There were far more boys in the classrooms than girls.
After months of research, she discovered a wide gap in the ratio between boys and girls, not just in China, but in other parts of East and South Asia. In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, Hvistendahl writes that wider access to ultrasound technology and abortion has allowed parents in these developing countries to abort daughters in the womb and keep sons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
The Criminalization of Bad Mothers

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Timmy Kimbrough at home with his daughter Josie, 2, and his stepdaughters, Nicole, 13, and Brooke Borden, 10, left. His wife, shown in the framed photograph, is in jail.

By ADA CALHOUN

Published: April 25, 2012

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Email
• Share
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• 

On a rainy day just after Thanksgiving, Amanda Kimbrough played with her 2-year-old daughter in her raw-wood-paneled living room, petting her terriers and half-watching TV. Kimbrough, who is 32, lives a few miles outside Russellville, a town of fewer than 10,000 in rural northwestern Alabama, near the border of Franklin and Colbert Counties. Textiles were the economic engine of the area until the 1990s, when the industry went into decline and mills shut down. Now one of the region’s leading employers is Pilgrim’s, a chicken supplier. The median household income is $31,213, and more than a third of children live below the poverty line.

Enlarge This Image

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Heather Capps, 25, and her 5-month-old son, Malice, at a halfway house in Albertville, Ala. She was arrested after her son tested positive for Oxycodone.

As family members came in and out of the room and one daytime show slid into another — “The People’s Court,” “Intervention,” “Jerry Springer,” “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” — Kimbrough talked about her arrest following the death of her third child, Timmy Jr. Born premature at 25 weeks on April 29, 2008, Timmy Jr. weighed 2 pounds 1 ounce, and lived only 19 minutes. When Kimbrough tested positive for methamphetamine, her two daughters were swiftly removed from her custody, and for 90 days, she was allowed only supervised visits. Social services mandated parenting classes and drug treatment.

While reading Moral Duty to the Unborn and Its Significance, I was struck by several things in the article. The first was the wording that the author used when describing an unborn fetus through a pro-life or pro-choice lens. Some pro-life examples that stood at the most to me were: "Reactions of wonder can always be muted", the "dynamic development from conception to birth" or "its own eon worth of evolutionary genetic heritage". When describing pro-choice perspectives, some examples include "such a view of the contingent value of fetal development assails the foundational moral belief", or "all forms of life that are immature, unformed or pre rational". This use of language I believe could have a strong impact on the reader, creating a more emotional response to what the author is saying. The language helps to humanize the unborn fetus that the author is trying to protect, creating a positive image of this unborn being. "It is impossible to deny that fetal life only needs time and nurture to develop its full potential".

I also find her argument that draws attention to the relationship of the environment to fetal life very interesting. I think it is a different perspective that could definitely have the potential to force people to look at abortion in a different light. I know that for me this argument, in some ways, was more convincing than the standard religious argument. By drawing upon the environmental movement and feminist perspective within this movement as well as using wording that helps to humanize the fetus and stir emotion, I believe she does a good job of creating an unusual argument for pro-life that attracts a different audience.

PS sorry this is a bit late

Racism, Birth Control, And Reproductive Rights

Sorry! Late post alert!

I never really considered the extent to which race was involved in the reproductive rights movement, and the unique history African Americans has with the birth control, abortion, forced sterilization, and reproductive rights in general. I remember reading this article some time ago, and it is really relevant to the Davis reading.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017478774_sterilized12.html

A Woman's Right

   In recent decades, there have been many debates in the United States regarding to women’s rights and abortions. After Roe v. Wade, abortions have been categorized as a private matter and are to be protected from state-scrutiny. The battle however has not ceased between pro-life and pro-choice factions. Pro-life activists including Callahan see abortion as murder while pro-choice activists believe that abortion should be exclusively decided by the women themselves. A private matter has again become political and the fight carried on to deciding when life actually begins inside the womb. Aside from all political and legalistic definitions, I believe that a life before being born is as much a part of itself as a part of its mother. Therefore, the mother ought to have the right in deciding how she treats her own body and what’s inside of her. Callahan sees abortion as “…selfishly exploiting natural resources and arrogantly destroying other forms of life” (48). A child is a part of his/her mother and his/her survival before birth absolutely depends on the mother. Unless the state can preserve the embryo after extraction, it should not remove a woman from rights to her own body. Since the state cannot provide unified education concerning sexual health and contraception without interfering with religious and local values, it should not regulate the consequences of its inactions. A woman living in the Bible-Belt and other Southern states may not have as much access to correct sexual education as women from other states due to local religious values. If she became pregnant due to an un-unified education system, then the fate of her body and what’s inside of it should not be decided by the state. It is unfortunate that life is cruel and unforgiving especially for those that do not have a voice. However, if the state fails to stop a wrongful birth from the beginning, then it should not try to intervene in the end.      

Birth Control

"An abstract right to birth control does not guarantee women's freedom to choose how to make use of that right." This is from the Davis reading and I think that this is a very relevant issue we are facing right now. Though the right to birth control is there the cost for those who don't have insurance or a plan that doesn't cover most of the cost. We also have a big problem with those in our government arguing about whether birth control should be paid for by the people of the US. But that isn't the only problem women are facing with the right to birth control. Morals play a very big part. This moves into the Haker reading with the political vs. the ethical issue. I thought that this reading was very interesting, but I come away from this reading feeling that morals do play a lot into our politics, but they shouldn't. 

" Women are moral agents who claim all political and social rights, basic health care, information and education on birth control and health related practices, and generally equal rights to their well-being and freedom" 

I think that it is a woman's choice to whether she wants contraceptives. There is a need to bring a halt to those who rule by their own morals to stop others. Women have right's to do what they want with their own bodies. Our world is changing and the ease of controlling whether you have a child or not is important in a world where "women became more independent...educated...and [have] gained well-paid positions in society." Some women don't want to have children at all. I almost think you could look at it as the female non-invasive vasectomy that a man can get. (which is covered by insurance).

Moral Duty

"Can it be that only freely willed and consciously contracted relationships can create moral obligations? If so, then all moral responsibilities in relationships which we have not entered into with informed consent will be endangered". This quote can be found on page 48 of the Callahan article. I disagree with the point that Callahan makes with this. I do think that people must enter into a freely willed and consciously contracted relationship. Of course people will not have a moral responsibility to something they do not feel compelled to protect. People do not automatically feel morally obligated to protect family members, friends, or neighbors out of the blue. They choose to protect these people because they find that in their own set of morals. The same goes for strangers: A person may feel that it is necessary to donate to a good cause or help someone whose car has broken down because the moral guidelines they have created for themselves say that is the right thing to do. In applying Callahan's idea of moral duty to abortion, I think that it is extremely lopsided. Of course one can say that just because the woman did not think it was convenient, planned, or wanted she can devalue the "life" enough to get an abortion. Callahan is blatantly disregarding who will ultimately end up being at a disadvantage for making the morally right choice in her opinion. In the end, the woman will most likely end up taking the responsibility for the unplanned pregnancy: the process of pregnancy, birth, child rearing, expenses, etc. putting women at a great disadvantage compared to men, who are more able to walk away from the situation. The father's moral obligation to the child is not necessarily guaranteed. Callahan's idea of moral responsibility is nice in writing, but it does not actually work like she thinks it may. People choose their moral duties, they are not inherent and there are no moral obligations that we do not choose for ourselves, even when it comes to one's own child. Where it does matter is in the law, where some obligations are made for us, however it is still a personal choice to follow these laws (though repercussions may follow). In the situation of abortion and where life begins and Callahan's idea that medical terms and legal definitions devalue human life, I would argue that not allowing choice devalues a woman's autonomy over her body, and forces her in a situation where her power is greatly diminished. A male would never be placed in the same situation of not having control over their bodies like this, nor would they be judged by society to the same extent for not choosing to be morally obligated to taking care of another human life where they do not see themselves fit to do so.

War on Women

I came across this article just now and I think it has some pretty interesting facts about what is going on in America with reproductive rights; and just the rights of women in general.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-teegarden/war-on-women_b_1431796.html

REVISED SYLLABUS

Senior Seminar in Political Theory:

Politics, Representation, and Violence

PLSC 432

CRN: 13311 


3pm—5:30 pm
Tuesdays


Arntzen Hall 421


Instructor: Dr. Vicki Hsueh

Office: Arntzen Hall 405

Telephone: x2649

Email: Vicki.Hsueh@wwu.edu

Office hours: Wednesdays, 1-3pm, Thursdays, 2-4pm

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This seminar is a thematic examination of political theory’s complex relationship to violence. We will consider not only how contemporary political theory can (and at times fails) to address and respond to violence, but also how political theory uses violence in order to create conceptions of law, personhood, and power. Our examination will be focused and sustained, engaging several important new works in depth.

GRADING SUMMARY

10% attendance

10% class discussion

10% class presentations

10% Blackboard blog posting by Monday at 9pm

25% shorter essay, 5-7 pages, with draft and peer review

35% longer essay, 10 pages, with draft, peer review, meeting with professor

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

This is a seminar-style writing proficiency course and it will be conducted primarily through discussion and a variety of writing exercises: Blackboard blog postings, in-class writings, and papers. At certain points, I will lecture to provide historical and conceptual background on the readings, but the main focus of the course will be your analysis of the materials. Thus, you must be prepared to discuss and write about the materials for each class meeting. You will need to:

--read the assigned readings before class

--bring relevant texts and notes to class

--be prepared to write about and discuss the texts in depth

To prepare for class participation it will be helpful for you to think about the following questions while doing the reading assignments: What are the arguments of the reading(s)? How do the readings relate to one another? What are the terms and assumptions the author employs? Do you agree or disagree with the arguments of the author and on what grounds? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments?

In addition, your other significant responsibility for the course will be papers: one shorter and one longer. The first paper will be 5-7 pages; the second paper will be 10 pages. Both papers will include drafts, peer evaluation, and meetings with me. This is a writing proficiency course and a substantial portion of your grade in the seminar will be based on your writing.

**Participation**

You will be expected to participate actively in this class. Your participation grade will combine:

1)      attendance (10%)

2)      class discussion—asking questions and responding to others (10%)

3)      class presentations (10%)

4)      blog posting on Blackboard (10%)

**Attendance**

You are allowed 2 excused absences (for a grade of 94%). After that point, absences will lower your grade by 5% each additional absence. If you fail to attend, you diminish the course not only yourself but for other members of the seminar. For this reason, basic attendance is a significant component of your grade. 

Note: Attendance also includes appropriate behavior in the seminar room. 

When members of the seminar arrive to class late, leave early, whisper, read the newspaper, and wander in and out of class, it is a distraction not only to me but to other members of the seminar. Excessive disruptive behavior will negatively affect your attendance and participation marks.

**Class Discussion**

A -- frequent participation in discussions with strong evidence of preparation with detail, focus, and thoughtfulness. Encourages others, moves discussion forward. Participates diligently in peer-review process.

B -- intermittent participation in discussion. Good evidence of preparation and attention to detail in the arguments. Good participation in peer-review process.

C -- infrequent or limited participation in discussion. Sporadic or limited evidence of prior preparation and reflection on assigned texts. Minimal peer-review feedback.

D -- little or no participation in classroom discussions. Minimal peer-review feedback.

F -- no participation in classroom discussions and/or disruptive behavior.

**Class presentation**

Once during the quarter, you will be expected to guide class discussion. On that day, I expect you to prepare thoughtful reading questions to guide and prompt class discussion.

**Writing Assignments**

All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Monday at 9pm

Also, there are 2 essays (one 5-7 page paper, one 10 page paper). Paper topics will be distributed about two weeks before the due date. For each of these papers, you will need to prepare a draft, submit the draft for peer review, and also submit a final version of the paper. We will then discuss your paper in a separate meeting.

If you do not hand in a rough draft, your paper will be marked down 25%. The quality of your peer review also is a significant element of your participation grade.

LATE POLICY

Late assignments are graded down 10 points per business day.

Missed assignments receive a score of 0.

Valid excuses for re-taking tests or handing in materials late are those that include written documentation of hospitalization, emergency care, emergency travel, or other crises.

Retain hard copies of all work completed, as well as all work completed and returned, over the course of the semester.

GROUND RULES FOR SEMINAR CONDUCT

~basic courtesy to other class members

~no excessive walking in and out of class

~no late arrivals

~no side-talking during lecture

~ no cellphone use for texting or calls

~laptop use permitted, but can be restricted if disruptive

REQUIRED READING

Assigned articles available on the electronic materials section of WWU Library Course Reserves or on Course Links section of Blackboard.

BLACKBOARD

I will be using Blackboard in the course, mostly to send emails and to distribute reading questions. I reserve the right to make changes to the syllabus when needed. All changes will be announced in class and on the course website on Blackboard. Questions and comments on the course and readings are welcomed in and out of class.

ETHICAL POLICY

I will adhere fully to the terms of the Academic Dishonesty Policy, and I expect that everyone in this course is completely cognizant of the University’s policy. Penalties for plagiarism include an “F” in the course. If you have ANY questions concerning plagiarism or related topics of ethical conduct in the class, please see me immediately.

REQUIRED TEXTS TO PURCHASE

Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry

Sharon Sliwinski, Human Rights in Camera

Colin Dayan, The Law is a White Dog

Online texts to print for class

**SCHEDULE OF READINGS**

Week 1—INTRODUCTION

3/27, Tuesday 

--Introduction and overview of syllabus

Week 2—Making People, Making Law

4/3, Tuesday

--Colin Dayan, The Law is a White Dog, preface, and pp. 1-137.

--Guantanamo Bay http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-bay

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Monday at 9pm

Week 3—Making People, Making Law

4/10, Tuesday

--Colin Dayan, The Law is a White Dog, pp. 139-252

--Abu Ghraib http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact

--Film: Special Operating Procedures

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Monday at 9pm

Week 4—Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?

-- Susan Moller Okin, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? available at

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html

--Homi K. Bhabha, “Liberalism’s Sacred Cow,” www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/bhabha.html

--Bonnie Honig, “Complicating Cultures”

www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/honig.html

--Katha Pollitt, “Whose Culture?”

www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/pollitt.html

--Cass Sunstein: "Sexual Equality vs. Religion: What Should the Law Do?"





www.bostonreview.net/BR23.5/Sunstein.html


--Susan Okin Responds





www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin2.html


--Katharine Viner, Feminism as Imperialism, The Guardian, Saturday, September 21, 2002 http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0923-07.htm

Week 5—Gender and Reproductive Rights – ON WWU COURSE RESERVES/ELECTRONIC MATERIALS

--Carol Gilligan, “In a Different Voice,” in Meyers, Feminist Social Thought

--Angela Davis, “Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights”

--Sidney Callahan, “Moral Duty to the Unborn and Its Significance,” ERESERVE.

--Wendy Brown, “Reproductive Freedom and the Right to Privacy,” in Irene Diamond, ed., Families, Politics, and Public Policy, (New York: Longman, 1983):  322-38. On ERESERVE.

--Hille Haker , “Reproductive rights in the twenty-first century ”

Week 6—Rough Drafts

5/1, Tuesday

--writing discussion

--rough drafts due

--peer evaluations in class

Week 7—Sandison

5/8 Sandison Lecture

**5/10, THURSDAY – PAPER #1 DUE in my office/mailbox by 6pm**

--2^nd paper topics distributed

Week 8— Reproductive Freedom

5/15, Tuesday

--Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, “The Body as Property: A Feminist Re-vision”

--Laura Mamo, Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience

--Sara Ruddick, “From Maternal Thinking to Peace Politics,”

--R. Petchesky, "Spiraling Discourses of Reproductive and Sexual Rights: A Post-Beijing Assessment of International Feminist Politics" from Cohen, Jones, Tronto, Women Transforming Politics 


Week 9— Culture, Freedom, and Gender

5/22, Tuesday

--Minoo Moallem “Transnationalism, Feminism and Fundamentalism”, in Women, gender, religion: a reader, Elizabeth Anne Castelli, Rosamond C. Rodman

--Uma Narayan,”Cross-Cultural Connections, Border Crossings, and “Death by Culture” in Dislocating Cultures (1997), pp. 83-96.

--Saba Mahmood, “Feminism, democracy, and empire : Islam and the war of terror ”

Week 10—Power and Politics

5/29, Tuesday

--Susan Sontag, Regarding the Pain of Others

--Elaine Scarry, Chapter 1, “The Structure of Torture: The Conversion of Real Pain into the Fiction of Power,” in The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, 1985, 27-59

--Sharon Sliwinski, “The Spectator of Human Rights,” in Human Rights in Camera, chapter 1

– rough draft due

--peer reviews

--student paper meetings after class

Week 11—Finals Week

**6/5, Tuesday – FINAL PAPER DUE IN MY OFFICE/MAILBOX by 6pm**