Feminist Technology Redesign Rebecca Neurauter PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Feminist Technology Redesign Rebecca Neurauter PDF

Description

Rebecca Neurauter Knowledge and Power: Issues in Women’s Leadership Monday, March 27th 2017

Feminist Redesign of the United States Constitution

When most think of a feminist redesign, especially along with the word technology, the United States Constitution might not come to mind. For one thing it is a government document. How would it relate to technology? It doesn't outright. However, when looking at society and how it shapes technology, one is able to acknowledge that the Constitution has played a rather large roll in shaping our modern day society. Starting from there, the domino effect is able to take place as we see how one document not only represents so much more, but effects so much more. To go into all of the Constitution's effect on society, especially from a feminist perspective, would be a rather long journey. Instead an analysis and redesign on only parts of the Constitution, such as the Preamble, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the 24th Amendment. The Preamble of the Constitution is stated as ““We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In more simple words, the text is used as an introduction to the document, stating that the citizens of the country will continuously be able to work on changing and adjusting their country and its legalizing documents as deemed necessary by the citizens in order for all to receive proper protection, care, freedom, and fairness in all new and old experiences. This does not designate any one power or describe the governments limitations or the extent it should be managing its citizens. With it's starting statement being “We the People...” the document seems to be all inclusive, especially the Preamble. That's when looking at just the document and it's text. When looking at how it is analyzed and used today, it is clear that not all of the people of the U.S. are staying true to the

message of “...provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...”. For instance, many minorities, despite being American citizens, are still disproportionately incarcerated compared to the the privileged white population. When looking at incarceration rates, hate crimes, and protection for those who choose to love whomever they wish and/or portray themselves as something other than what their birth certificate states, it is clear to see that many citizens are regarded as outsiders. To address the modern day issue of discrimination, the feminist redesign is to change the wording of the Preamble to state “We the people, in order to protect and defend our humanity, establish justice and ensure freedom to be, and the right to self, and all shall have a right to necessary conditions for life and dignity.” By stating more specifically that citizens should work together to protect one another's “humanity” and “necessary conditions for life and dignity” it protects the people more inclusively. For instance, many have the opinion that those sent to prison deserve no rights, either as citizens or as well as human beings. These opinions are harmful as they have caused problems such as over crowding in prisons, difficulty assimilating back into civilian life, and abuse of prison labor. With this being just one example out of many, it is important to have the Constitution include and specify the protection of “humanity” and “necessary conditions for life and dignity” to allow all American citizens to be able to further legally protect themselves, and be able to argue in a court, congress, etc, to make the required changes to remove many hurtful situations. The Equal Rights Amendment is not an actual piece of the Constitution, and is actually an Equal Rights Act, despite it's purpose to become apart of the document in order to secure equality for women. The document was officially preposed around the 1920's, but due to a divide among women of different social and economic classes concerning what the document should specifically say and how it should effect citizens lead to it being pushed aside until the 1970's. Again the document was disregarded as congress did not see it as a priority or that the amendment was necessary. The Equal Rights Act, also known as the ERA, states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or

abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Put simply, the U.S. will not deny women the same rights as men. This is however, an act that can be removed at any point and time the United States government sees fit. Even though the Constitution's 19th Amendment allows women to maintain the right to vote, it does not protect women's rights overall. As part of the feminist redesign the wording of the text should be adjusted for modern day society before its official inclusion in the U.S. Constitution. The ERA was created specifically for women, but modern day American society has many other citizens that need the same protection of rights. Therefore, the wording should be changed to “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of, including but not limited to, sex, gender, sexual identity, race, or ethnicity.” The new text specifically names social categories that are facing the greatest discrimination, but must include the line “but not limited to...” as societies are constantly changing. To limit a document that determines if a person is able to go and defend themselves and seek proper protection creates situations that call for an Equal Rights Amendment. The starting line of the Constitution, “We the people...,” is not enough to protect American citizens. The Constitution was written by white males during a time when women were seen as property, anyone with the skin a certain color was seen as non-human or a lesser-human, and any diversity among sexual orientation or identity was seen as a sign of insanity or the work of the devil. Modern day American society no longer sees women as property, that any non-white skin tone as non/lesser-human, and even that loving who you choose is not cause for incarceration in a mental hospital. However, the change did not come easy, and there is still a long way to go. Not just for women. Recognizing a necessary change and acting towards that change is what has allowed our society to adjust its original views to its modern day ones. The 24th Amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state

by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” In simpler words, the text is saying that the U.S. Government may not create unequal barriers for those who are not white males to keep them from voting. Personally, I see no feminist redesign necessary for this section of the Constitution. However, since my group members and I decided to use the divide and conquer approach for this project, and I had no part in this specific section, my group member was the one that proposed this redesign. Even she disagreed with it the redesign, which was to specifically address voter identification laws and included it in the amendment's text. What made this project difficult is the limited timeline to work together as a group. With not being able to obtain group members contact information until the last minute, and the time given being during spring break when all members of the group were either traveling or working full time, it made coming up with an idea and executing the project as a group extremely difficult. If given even just an extra week I feel as if our group would have been more prepared and would have been able to dive into specifics instead of quick general ideas. Another difficulty is that our group's choice of feminist redesign did not have a class reading that related well. The closest one being Felicia L. Montalvo's article “Debugging Bias: Busting the Myth of Neutral Technology.” Her article addresses the effects of large corporations having such control over social media and society that its ideas and issues expand outside of technology itself, and is able to include the “big picture” instead of just the specifics of one idea. She mention's modern day American society's reliance on technology to communicate, and how it can easily be controlled by the companies that own that technology. Companies that own that technology must follow American laws, and if the laws, or even their fundamental documents, do not protect all of its citizens, then those companies are able to have more freedom to share and portray information that could be harmful to some American citizens. Fighting for justice is not an easy task when documents as important as the Constitution can not do what they were created to do; protect its citizens.

Works Cited Baltzell, George W. "Constitution of the United States - We the People." Constitution for the United States - We the People. MMXIV by George W. Baltzell, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017. Kim, E. Tammy. "A National Strike Against." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 03 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017. Montalvo, Felicia L. "Debugging Bias: Busting the Myth of Neutral Technology." Bitch Media. Bitch Media, 26 May 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017....