After reading the chapter on Inequalities in Law and Justice, I have to admit that not a lot surprised me. We live in a country where media is highly valued and tends to stereotype and dramatize all the time. Given the injustices we know are present today still, it was not shocking to read Newman's closing statement that complete justice for all remains an unattainable goal. Going back to my comment on how our nation relies so heavily on media, Newman said something in the very beginning of the chapter that verified my thinking: "we went to bed comfortable in the knowledge that everything we saw was just phony"(228). Unfortunately, this comfort is the problem. It's a problem because comfort perpetuates the status quo and vicious cycle of inequality and unjust actions. It is the comfort that keeps us from changing and challenging our belief systems.
There was no surprise to read about laws and how they are constructed by those in privilege to control those "regular folk." Money is power, and when you have power you can change things, such as the law. Pretty simple logic here. I hate to say it, but money buys pretty much anything in our country, and it doesn't necessarily have to be something tangible.
I realized when reading about the section talking about same-sex marriages that I had never really thought of how the homosexual partners of the September 11Th victims were treated. It didn't cross my mind that they would be treated differently, but to read that they were not eligible for the same survivor benefits as heterosexuals...that just greatly upset me. I never thought of this from that point of view. I put myself in the shoes of a partner who just lost their loved one...I feel nothing but a reoccurring, "why?"in my mind. This is so sad to think that not even such an atrocity such as 9/11 can bring justice to people who are trying to unite in grief together blew my mind.
It was interesting to read about the past historical and cultural views on rape and sexual violence. I couldn't believe what I read when it said it used to be believed that rape was a crime committed on the male because the female was his property--he owned her. Once again we see this patriarchal society still today, although it has improved, women are largely still subordinated under the male population.
Will justice ever be blind? Is there such a thing? Power, class, gender, race, age, whatever it may be...they may divide us, but do they always have to define us? Imagine a society where it didn't. That is hard to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Brynn, We had very opposite experiences in this chapter. When I read the section about 9/11 I had already known about that.I considered the possibility that partners weren't receiving benefits is that there were laws already in place that prevented any sort of action, but that doesn't really make sense to me. I wouldn't say the rest of the chapter was especially eye-opening to me, I would say that Newman added a lot to my view and gave me some thoughts to expand upon.
I foudn the section on the history of rape particularly interesting. The etxt states that, historically, rape of women was meant as a crime against man, or at least against his property. Obviosuly, thsi holds far less true in today's society, but it was fascinating to note that rape was a construction built by the dominant power, in this case, as in so many others, men. At the same time, I'm quite disgusted that the violation of one huamn being is supposed to be an offense to someone who probably treats the person with the same amoutn of disdain.
Post a Comment