Debate Essay Example

Debate Essay The debate over whether men should wear long hair seems to be one that will never end. On one side there are conservatives who believe that long hair is the domain of women and that men are interfering with the status quo. On the other side are the liberals who believe that it is only fair for women to let men keep their hair long as a sign of equality which they advocate so much about. Long hair together with other exclusive feminine characteristics like such as breasts is what distinguishes men from women. This differentiation is biological and sociological. It is biological as women’s’ hair grows faster than men’s due to the hormone estrogen. Women also grow their hair because they know its attractiveness. A counter example can be given to clarify the social aspect. A woman with rather short hair-cut will resemble a boy regardless of other feminine features. This is because of the traditional association of women with long hair and boys with short hair. Before Britney Spears shaved her head, she was considered hot. Afterwards, due to the social stigma, she was rightfully but unfortunately labeled weird and her bald head was not attractive but was equivalent to that of some heavy metal rocker. Longer hair thus is a social symbol of feminine beauty, which all males are entranced by. Short hair is associated with discipline and a militaristic at titude and since Greek and Roman times men have had to shave their heads before battle. Female expressivity is directly tied to hair length. Lastly, there is some indefinable quality about hair in general that makes longer equal to better. We will write a custom essay sample on Debate specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Debate specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Debate specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This research paper sought to get the views of both men and women on men with long hair. It was specific to find out if this hair makes men more masculine and handsome. It also sought to find out if long hair is a sign of beauty and femininity in women. Literature review Hair is highly valued as a sign of masculinity. It is taken to be an index of male virility and a traditional sign of power and youth. Hair signals man in his uncivilized, natural wild state which can be translated to being sexual and primal. Apart from hair being a powerful symbol, it has been easily manipulated now and throughout history. Men went to jail in the early to mid 1800s for growing beards. It was hard to find a general without a beard during the civil war era. This fashion was replaced by militant clean shaving at the end of the century. Hair has also been used to protest. In England for instance, short hair was worn by the antimonarchists to protest the long flowing locks that got approval from the monarchy. (Chapkis 1971, pg 67) Some people feel that having long hair for a man is indicative of setting one apart from an existing social order through rebellion. Others feel hair is a concrete reflection of males’ roles in the society. For instance, in the 1960s rebellious boys grew beards and wore their hair long to make a statement. The generation that followed was of clean shavers. The punks spiked their hair, dyed it fluorescent greens and pinks, and shaved it in Mohawk designs. This was an attempt and a disguised threat to defy the existing order. Most men fear losing hair. Women on the other hand accept baldness. Both women and men today prefer men who are clean-shaven. Interestingly, two of the main secondary sex characteristics are body hair and facial hair. These tell apart men from women. (Synott 1987, pg 383) Entirely contradicting conclusions on the attractiveness of bearded men was reached by studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Bearded men are usually regarded as more masculine, courageous, dominant, confident and looking older. However some women find them sexually unappealing and associate them with being dirty. Fashion and individual preferences determine whether someone likes beards or not as they have no basis in evolutionary history. (Sutherland 1999, pg 347) It is considered masculine for men to have on their arms, faces, chests and legs in western modern societies. However, relatively speaking, hair growing on the top of the head is generally kept short. On the same point, with the exception of hair on the knuckle, it is equally considered feminine for women not to have hair on their bodies. They are expected to have a lot of hair on the heads. This is a development that is fairly recent. Men had long beards and hair before the First World War. Men were forced to routinely cut their hair to a severely short length by an order given during the trench welfare between 1914 and 1918 as they were exposed to flea and lice infestation. This shorter style became the norm and has not gone away since. (Stevenson 2001, pg 45) Any hairstyle which is relatively long is known as long hair. The constitution of long hair changes within cultures or from culture to culture. For instance a man with chin length hair would be said to have long hair while a woman with the same would be said to have short hair. According to scientists, long hair plays big in natural selection in any animal species. This is because health is signaled by the length of the hair. It is also seen in a sexual light by Freudian psychoanalysts as a representation of the id’s release from the super ego suppression. (Stevenson 1999, pg 340) The signal is reversed among women. Short hair signals rebellion from culture while long hair represents an acceptance of it. In western cultures, long hair is accepted as a female characteristic traditionally. Women right’s activists and feminists have long debated whether to call for short hair as a stereotype opposition or advocate long hair as a solely feminine trait. Asian cultures see long, unkempt hair in a woman as a sign of recent sexual behavior or sexual intent. This is because their hair is usually tied up. (Brown Miller 1986, pg 74) Long hair on men in the 1960s was worn as a protest, political or countercultural symbol. This cultural symbol extended to several countries in the West, Western Europe, Australia and South Africa. Specific long hairstyles such as dreadlocks have been part of Counterculture movements seeking to define other alternative lifestyles. They have used specific long hairstyles such as dreadlocks. The view of hair as a solitary signal of political or radical culture identity in the 1980s was parodied and countered in films such as Rambo and many other militaristic media heroes. The then contemporary view of what was masculine was challenged by this. Longer hairstyles remain popular today among heavy metal enthusiasts. (Weltz, 2001 pg 675) Compared to men, women often have a stronger inclination towards long hair than men do. Some feminists have declared long hair as irrefutably feminine while others argue for shorter hair. Other scholars have also remarked on how, without hair or long hair, a woman cannot be a woman. Often, men and women will protest the social system by adopting the hair length considered acceptable in the other sex; men growing their hair long, and women cutting it short, again pointing to the strong trend of long hair being a female commodity. Since short hair is frequently considered masculine, working women sometimes face a challenge in balancing between having hair long enough to appear a woman, but short enough to fit into the male-oriented business world. (Kumar 2002, pg 263) Hair also has social implications. It helps us determine age, economic, intellectual and marital status, as well as religious affiliations. Hairstyles can signify conformity, for example to army regulations, monastic celibacy, or any group-determined aesthetic. There are basically three fundamental human values beauty (aesthetics), truth (logic), and goodness (ethics). The quest for beauty has deep psychological roots in human beings and is as necessary to them as any other quest. It has endowed our lives with an enjoyable depth without which it would be dull and drab. Our quest for beauty is as old as human civilization and there was never a time when humans have been without it. Our persistent experimentation with beauty has resulted in the creation of various forms of art including a mixture of art and science. (Stevenson 2001, pg 47) In Rapunzel’s Daughters, Rose Weltz addresses a broad audience on the subject of women’s hair. But every woman has a hair history that â€Å"reflects internal struggles and external pressures. Weitz’s book combines her own experiences and informal conversations with interviews with 74 women of different ages, sexual orientations, ethnicities and class backgrounds. The result is an engaging account of how women feel about their hair, how their feelings have changed over time, and more generally, how their hair has shaped their sense of self. Many sports women maintain docile feminine beauty regimes, like wearing make-up and long hair to avoid being labeled butch or lesbian. (Weltz 2001, pg 680) The historians studying the private history of the middle ages stress the importance of physical appearance in the culture of the time. This attitude had its reflection in the literature, especially in the romance. People were judged by their appearance and status and was clearly indicated by their clothes, and physical appearance, firstly the face and their hair, and secondly the shape of the body. The question of hair is particularly significant. Hair was an important element of a person’s self image. When scrutinizing somebody’s physical appearance primarily the hair was taken into consideration. Its purpose was to manifest, the angelic quality of a lady and her utmost attractiveness combined with innocence. Hair is another highly valued masculine sign post. It is a traditional sign of youth and power, an index of male virility. (Stevenson 1999, pg 346) There were several heroes in ancient Greece who kept their hair long. These included Zeus, Hector, Achilles, and Poseidon. In battles, both Trojan and Greek and soldiers are said to have kept their hair long. These warriors considered long hair to be a sign of aristocracy. They combed it in the open in order to show off.   They left their hair long in the back and cut the front short during battle. This was to keep their enemies from holding it as it was now out of reach. The Greek switched to shorter hairstyles in the sixth century. Women in the Greek culture continued keeping their hair long. They took it to signify freedom, wealth, health and good behavior. On the other hand, it was a sign of false pride in this time for men. In Roman culture, women valued long hair especially the center part. Mens hair was shorter than womens. Greece, long hair in men was also associated with philosophers who were viewed to be too busy with their learning to even find time for their hair. In Ro me province however, the more popular hairstyle was the shorter one. When the Gaul was conquered by Julius Caesar, he ordered their hair to be cut short as he favored long hair. (Chapkis, 1986, pg85-86) Shorter hair often signified peasantry and servitude in the European Middle Ages. On the other hand, long hair was associated with freemen, such as the Merovingian and Germanic Goths. Long-haired men of non-Germanic cultures such as Byzantines were viewed as barbarians. English colonists in Ireland were considered to be giving in to the Irish life and rejecting their role as English subjects if they wore their hair long in the back. Irishmen in turn, scolded people of their culture who copied the English men by cutting their hair. A true English man would be judged by the hair length in this period Many American Indian men wore long hair before their culture was influenced by the arrival of Western people. Males said to be handsome in Cherokee legends were described to have long hair almost reaching the ground. As much as they faced opposition, men and women of these cultures struggled to maintain their tradition. To have short hair or these cultures means giving in to western influences. Native long-haired men were seen as rebels to the civilized society by early American settlers. Trappers and mountain men who adopted the native customs were considered immoral because of keeping their hair long. Native Americans have felt less pressure to have short hair since the cultural movements of the sixties and seventies. Different movements have been defending their rights to practice their culture. Many states have loosened regulations in prison by letting Native Americans in incarceration to wear their hair long. Women with long hair were highly valued in the culture of West Africans. Long thick hair was seen as a sign of strength, health, and capability to bear many children. Women who were considered too young for marriage would shave a portion of their heads in keeping with this general theme. In Polynesia during the historic times, the head hair of both sexes was allowed to grow long with males gathering theirs into a topknot when activity was required. In some places however male wore their hair short and female wore theirs long, in other places, the reverse took place. The variations did not end there. In Samoa, for example men’s long hair was tied in a knot called fonga and worn usually a little to the right side of the crown. Some men never cut their hair, others did it up in two horns, still others arranged the crown in fantastic ways, as one half shaved the other long, or the front shaved and the back long, or in a series of shaved strips, with long hair between. In times of war, finger bones or other trophies of slain enemies were attached to the hair. Hair styling was not limited to males. In Samoa, for example, virginal females had their leads shaved in the middle from front to back; allowing the hair on both sides to grow long and older women used lime in order to dye their cropped black hair to a favored brown. The western reader might find the above to be primitively bizarre but we should consider the parallels in our own society, such as periodic changes in women’s hairstyles based on current fashion and differences in men’s e.g. flowing locks, crew cuts, skin leads, Mohawk cuts etc that are based not only on currency of fashion but serve to identify a person’s occupation or social class or political views. In addition most people valued sweet smelling bodies and hair, and endeavored to attain them by pomading the hair and rubbing the body with flow-scented or when available sandal wood scented coconut oil. What count as markers of sex category depend heavily on cultural circumstances and thus vary widely across time, place and social group. For example, long hair on men became more common among some segments of American society during the 1960s that it had been previously. Since many men on college campuses during that time had long hair, this attribute was not a reliable marker of sex category in those settings in the way that it had been in the 1950s. Matters of appropriate hair length for women and men as well as views about appropriate clothing or decoration are clearly governed by social norms rather than biological or genetic factors. That these and other related characteristics are used to assign a person to a sex category underscores the idea that assignment to sex categories relies heavily on social criteria. More over, as the hair length example shows, social understandings about gender also enter into these judgments. Freudians and some psychologists argue that long hair represents aggression and that cutting hair is equal to castration. For both men and women, hair is considered to be a potent emblem of sexuality. Historically, women married to adulterous men would have their hair cut off if they threatened to reveal their secret as this was seen as a violation of the husband’s role. Famous long haired men include Rene’ Descartes, Giacomo Cusanora, Oliver Cromwell and George Washington. In some cultures profuse chest hair on men is a symbol of virility and masculinity; other societies display a hairless body as a sign of youthfulness. Hair has had social and sexual significance in a number of societies, as a sign of masculinity in men, and femininity in women when in the â€Å"right† place and as a sign of effeminacy in men and unfemininity in women when in the â€Å"wrong† place. (Chapkis 1971, pg 70) The short hair of the 1920s was a shock to nearly everyone who was older than twenty five. For centuries, women had been encouraged to keep their hair long and then wear it in a variety of ways. Long hair was associated with femininity, beauty, and the hair was considered a woman’s crowning glory. When women began bobbing their hair in the 1920s, older women were appalled. Many of the bobs were very straight lined and severe, often looking just like the hair cut of a man; but near the end of the decade, more women began introducing wares back into their hair, and allowing it grow below their ears. Therefore for long hair goes beyond social or cultural expectations for women’s beauty.   research has shown that there is an evolutionary reason for men to prefer long hair to short hair on women. According to evolutionary theory, indicators of reproductive fitness are the features considered attractive by the opposite sex. (Synott 1987, pg 383) Experiments and observations have demonstrated that a woman’s hair plays a major role in how men rate a woman’s attractiveness. The quality and length of hair serves as a marker of genetic strength and overall health. Several studies have demonstrated that men find women with medium length to long hair more attractive than shorter haired counterparts.   Men also rate longer haired women as healthier as and fitter than shorter haired women. â€Å"The hair† said Martin Luther, is the richest ornament of women.† To shave one’s head, therefore, is to display an aggressive bucking convention. Women’s relationship with their hair is a subject explored by Desmond Morris in the Naked woman, in which he proposes that women’s penchant for long hair might be a remnant from the age when we were aquatic apes, and our ling locks gave our babies something to hang on to. In more modern times, Morris argue, women have styled their hair to reflect their self-images-short hair suggesting an assertiveness and competence and long tangled hair implying certain wantonness. Long hair is also a symbol of status, evidence of â€Å"wealth and leisure†. Sociologist C.R Hallpike equates cutting the hair with social control and equates long hair with being outside society. In medieval Europe, married women only were their hair down in the privacy of their homes when they were with their husbands. Women like long hair because they can style it in many more ways than short hair. Long hair is also noted as being more feminine than short hair due to the media. If we look at Disney characters we see examples of what children grow up to think is the norm Big hair in past history has always been popular. John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever and James Brown is known for the hairs the Beatles wore their hair long, men in New Guinea build large ways when counting women. Past history European males in the 18th century wore big wigs. Research sample and methodology 15 women and 15 men aged between 19 and 34 years were interviewed through the administration of a questionnaire. Each of them was asked to answer all the questions in the questionnaire to the best of their ability. The age group of the informants was chosen not accidentally various research shows how sensitive the teenagers are to their appearance. This paper will present some ideas that came from discussing the interviews in relation to already existing theoretical and research framework. The sample also integrated women with short hair. This is because their viewpoint is important to the research based on the assumption that long hair is ideal for women. Men with long hair were also included. This was done to get their view. It was very important to know their attitudes towards themselves and how other people view them both men and women. The questionnaire included a question asking the men if they felt that having long hair made them more handsome and masculine. Women were asked if they would be attracted to or find men with long hair handsome or masculine. Indeed, the research went ahead to establish if they would be keen on dating a man who had long hair and if so the reasons they would have. Young people were also included in the research sample. These were done with the assumption that they were more informed and were aware of the modern trends in hair styles. It was also important to get their radical views on long hair on both women and men. The age range was chosen because of the popular view that it is at this time that the hair is most vibrant and grows more. Respondents from diverse professions were also questioned. Different professions take long hair differently and this affects their perceptions on the same. A lawyer, a doctor and a performing artist were interviewed and it was interesting to get their view on men with long hair and also women with short hair. The data was then analyzed and summarized find a conclusion was reached upon. Graph showing female respondents attitudes towards men with long hair t Majority of women aged in the age range19-24 (80%) do not think it is wrong for men to grow their hair long. They feel that the world is liberated and even male people should be allowed to do as they wish with their bodies. They equate a man growing long hair to a woman growing short hair. They see it as a sign of independence and optimal expression of power. 60% of most women did not have a problem with men growing long hair as long as those men did not come from their family or are not related to them in any way. They respect the right to utilize and individual bodies the way the individual wishes but admitted that it would be strange or uncomfortable for a man they felt close to growing their hair long. As the age bracket progresses, the attitude changes to the negative. Women aged between 30 and 34 years have a low opinion of men growing their hair long. They almost hate men with long hair claiming that they are giving women unfair competition for no reason. It is their view that men should stick to having their hair short as having long hair does not make masculine or handsome in any way. Graphic showing men’s views on men with long hair From the graph, it can deduced that generally men’s view on their fellow men is negative compared to men. Only the young men in the age range (19-24) appear to have an accommodative attitude towards men with long hair. Interestingly even these men feel it is only okay for men in the music and entertainment industry to grow their hair long. Older men do not advocate for men to grow their hair long and only 20% of them approve of the idea. The people who approve this in the age bracket (29-34) all have long hair so it would be understandable why they agree with the notion. Graph showing female respondents’ attitudes towards women with long hair. Female respondents within the age range 19-24 had diverse views on women with long hair. Some felt that it is a personal choice. It takes an individual determine whether the hair would be short or long and the society should not be determinant. Some explained that women should not give in and agree for the length of hair to be the determining factor of femininity and beauty. In contrast female respondents aged between 25-29, confessed that indeed other people’s judgments is what drove most of them to grow their hair long. Most of them claimed that in the course of their dating, they realized that men liked long hair on women. They further claimed that when they were finally settling down (getting married) their husbands used their long hair as one of the determining factor to get married or not. Women aged between 30-34 were the most liberal surprisingly. They are career women and for them women with long hair cannot be taken seriously. Most felt that short hair was a statement of seriousness and independence. They also claimed that as a woman grows older, the hair thins and this is why they should start keeping it short. They also believed that men who used hair as a judging factor of femininity and beauty were being backward, unfair and stereotypical. They believe a woman should be judged by her handwork and character and not the length of the hair. Graph showing male respondent’s attitudes towards women with long hair. Male respondents aged between 19-24 did not seem to care or were not bothered by the length of women’s hair. They appear to be more liberal. According to them, the beauty and femininity of a woman or someone they would take as a girlfriend was not determined by how long the hair was. Rather they believe that the beauty and femininity of a woman is determined by her character or what most of them called inner beauty. For male respondents between the ages 25 and 29, they felt that to a large extent a woman with long hair would be attractive to them. Hair is the first thing that strikes them when they see a woman and it is a great determinant of whether they go ahead and date that woman. Men within the range of 30-34 years were the most conservative. Most of them 80% confirmed that their wives/girlfriends had long hair and it was what drew them to the women. They further said that they would be very uncomfortable with a woman with short hair. Some claimed that if their wives or girlfriends were to shave their heads, they would appear to them as different people. Results and discussion One respondent had a very interesting view which was shared by almost all respondents. According to her hair is central to every woman’s identity, regardless of class, ethnicity or race, sexual orientation, or age. From the woman who cuts her hair after a divorce (in the fashion of â€Å"I m gonna wash that man right outta my hair†) to the lesbian with an attitude who shaves her head, women are obsessed with their hair and go to great lengths to tame, curl, dye style, or remove it. Changing a hairstyle is a way to mark a life transition or to make a statement about wanting to change. The respondent states that, â€Å"there were things in my life I could not change after divorce and for some reason it was real important for me to change something. So I got my hair cut†. For her, this made a big statement. Another respondent also contributed a lot to the research. She highlighted various instances showing how a â€Å"woman’s hair is linked to her femininity and beauty. She gave the example of an undergraduate student who perfects the hair flip in order to catch a guy’s eye or the migrant woman who gets up early every morning so that she can fix her daughter’s hair before going into the fields. She also gave the example of the business woman who manipulates her hair to meet the demands of her career (not too cute too sexy, too severe or too dated). Respondent 3, a male hair dresser also gave useful insight. He provided myriad instances of how women can laugh at their â€Å"hair problems† and their everyday struggles to make the best of a bad hair day. He provides examples of his clients who use hair as part of their rebellion against the traditional norms or heterosexual femininity. He indicated that they do so at their own peril, saying that these clients are forced to leave behind not only social approval from men, employers, families and others, but also many personal pleasures of hair. He described the sensual pleasures of having one’s hair washed, the comforts of a women only space, the intimacy of conversations, and even the occasional flirtations with a hairdresser. Such differences make all the difference in understanding what hair means to different women in different contexts. Most respondents contented that facial hair (beard or moustache) is thought to enhance masculine beauty in western culture. While the American Indians consider facial vulgar, they appreciate long hair for men. Another respondent still noted that there was an ancient association between hair and status. He gave the example of classical Rome and Greece where the supernatural power was symbolized by hair. The rulers distinguished themselves by wearing flowing and abundant locks. This kind of symbolism continued operating in the middle ages. Chieftains and long-halved kings disgraced criminals and political rivals by shaving their heads or cropping their hair. The ability to grow long hair is a useful indicator of youth and good health. Since women do not bald and can generally grow longer hair than men, most cultures associate longer hair with femininity. Some respondents felt that men and women are supposed to wear their hair differently. Being uncovered is as shameful for a woman as cutting or shaving her hair. Long hair is a woman’s glory. Some respondents felt that it should be acceptable within society for a man to wear his hair in whatever way allow him to express his own personal choice and in a style that suits him. The reason why long hair has not increased in popularity may be complex, but in part it is due to anti-long hair on men feeling in society, particularly in business, but also in society in general. With the exception of certain vocations such as rock stars, fashion models and artists, long hair on men is disapproved. Even in society many men and women generally disapprove of long hair on men. It is as though it is a symbol of something that is not right in with society, perhaps a link with the hippy era. Despite this more and more men seem to be growing their hair and it seems as though this time this trend is here to stay. The stereotype image of men with long hair is certainly of an unkempt, scruffy look. For long hair on men to become acceptable in society these barriers and stereotypes need to be broken down. Health appearance plays a part in physical attraction. Women with long hair are often thought to appear more beautiful. This is because the ability to grow healthy looking and long hair is an indication of an individual’s continuous health. The debate over hair symbolism is both complex and ancient and applies to both politics and gender. This has been well demonstrated by the hippies, punks and skins among others. Individual and group identity is powerfully symbolized by hair. It is powerful because it is extremely personal. As much as it is personal it is also more public than private. Furthermore, hair symbolism is usually not imposed but voluntary. Hair is singularly apt to symbolize differentiations and changes in group and individual identities because of its malleability in various ways. In the USA, the hair industry is worth $2.5 billion and this shows the immense social significance of hair in economics. Hair is one of the most important ways humans have of both presenting themselves and judging one another socially, being one of the parts of the body which is easy to manipulate. Throughout many cultures, hair is seen as representing sexual control over one-self those having long hair having less control than those having shorter or no hair. Also, having short cut hair, is often viewed as being under society’s control while having long hair signifies being outside of the system of society specific long hairstyles such as dreadlocks have been part of canter culture movement seeking to define other alternative cultures and life styles. Asian cultures as a whole tend to view long hair as a sign of youth and femininity. Usually, long hair is hidden in turbans or tied up in public, as long hair is associated with private life and sexuality. Asian cultures see long unkempt hair in woman as a sign of sexual intent or a recent sexual encounter, as usually their hair is tied up. Some feel women hide behind their long flowing hair thinking it’s what makes them beautiful. In the end you confidence and your soul is what make you beautiful. Women know how much men love their hair, and so when they cut it off they are effectively cutting men off, from their beauty, from their attractiveness to them, from their love. It’s a clear gesture showing defiance, despair or dissatisfaction. This is because hair represents femininity and beauty for almost every woman and therefore what she thinks if herself. The famous actress Nicole Kidman cut all her hair off and announced divorce a month later. Jennifer Aniston shaved off her famous after her wedding to Brad Pitt. She later claimed that she was under a lot of stress during the first days of her marriage. Almost all women have the ability to grow long, feminine beautiful hair, something that is not on

Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right

Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right Introduction A human right according to the UN Organization (2010) refers to alienable rights if every human being which is inherent to them and upholds their dignity. Recognition of human rights is the foundation of peace, justice and freedom in the world. The declaration of human rights highlights the rights that every human being is entitled too despite the fact that in many instances people are not aware of these rights. Even in situations when people are aware of their rights, these rights can still be abused.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Freedom from poverty is embodied in many of the rights stipulated by the UN declaration of human rights (UN Organization, 2010). Several articles pertain to poverty directly while others address situations that affect poverty. This paper will examine various thoughts on poverty as a right especially basing its argument on the international declaration of human rights. This is the basis upon which freedom from poverty can be understood and supported. The arguments will show that freedom from poverty is a fundamental right. Enabling people to have means to live dignify lives and is therefore a human right since poverty prevents them from reaching this end. Freedom from poverty is a human right in as far as many who are poor have had so many of their rights taken away. As a consequence, they cannot rise above poverty. When freedom from poverty is addressed and treated as a human rights, other rights are respected as well. Poverty in the world is largely as a consequence of denial of human rights in various ways. In the words of Louise Arbour a UN high commissioner â€Å" freedom from want is a right, not merely a matter of compassion† (UN News center, 2006). According to the (UNDP (2005) a right to development entitles people to the right freedom from poverty. This is one o f the most efficient support for freedom from poverty as a right. The UNDP states that people have rights to the realization of â€Å" cultural, social and economic goals .working†¦ and life allowing the person to health and well being† (UNDP, 1998) Type of right While positive rights obligate action negative rights require holding back or curbing actions. The right of freedom from poverty can be compared to other negative rights like freedom from violent crime, freedom from abuse and torture among others. Although negative rights require inaction towards something they do not necessarily mean lack of action. They advocate and require action that will ensure that the undesired factor is avoided. In the case of freedom from poverty, it requires action that can guarantee people overcome poverty. These actions may be direct like setting up systems to increase development, or indirect by ensuring that activities that promote poverty are neutralized.Advertising Lookin g for term paper on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Arguments for Freedom from Poverty as a Right In 2006, Kofi Annan attributed failure to achieve human rights to deprivation (UN News Center, 2006). Those who are poorest in the world are the most likely to have their rights violated. Their right especially to decent living standards, essential health care and food remain undefended. Mr. Annan stated that unless the world recognizes that most of the population survives on less than a dollar per day there wouldn’t be any considerable progress made in ensuring human rights in the world. Louise Arbour stated that poverty is a product and cause of human rights violation. Freedom from poverty should therefore be treated as a right as only when eradication of poverty is attained can millions of families achieve other rights. Louise affirmed that the fight to end poverty is a duty for governments and other b odies in the same way that it is a duty to ensure other rights like those of speech and life among others (UN News Center, 2006). Fighting poverty should therefore not be viewed as a altruism or charity. Targeting poverty as a human rights violation is additionally a strategic and moral obligation. According to President Sheikha, the General Assembly president, when poverty is fought in order to uphold peoples dignity much more is gained in attaining other rights (UN News Center, 2006). As a result this should be greatly considered as one of the foundation of human rights. Poor people are not in a position to enjoy other rights. As a result they are easily discriminated against. In addition poverty creates a cycle of more poverty and more opportunities for the violations of human rights. Speth an administrator with UNDP stated that freedom from poverty has to be treated as a right since for the billions who are in poverty, it leads to deprivation in fundamental ways (Speth, 1997). S peth advocated for for eradication of poverty through a rights-based approach. The benefit of which includes avoidance of many other violation of rights and social ills. In this way eradication of poverty is also fundamentally functional (Speth, 1997). Poverty has been linked to many social and political problems. Speth states than only when poverty is taken as a right and properly addressed can many of the problems in poverty-stricken states. One of the implications of taking poverty as a right can allow legislature that address stumbling blocks to economic progress (Speth, 1998). One example that Speth gives is that states would be more open to empowerment of woman and end discrimination based on gender (Speth, 1997). Speth (1998) points out that it is through this approach that multiple rights aims can be attained using the same plans and principles. Poverty is often associated with pre-existing denial of rights. Lack of education for example interferes with other rights in the l ater part of peoples lives. It is therefore imperative to attend to other rights before poverty can be adequately handled. This reveals the nature of the interrelatedness of the whole boy of human rights and the need to address human rights in that context (Speth, 1997).Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More To argue for the right not to suffer from poverty, Caney (2007) states that human rights should be informed by human interest. Since it is a human interest to not suffer deprivation poverty should be taken as a violation of human rights. Further more poverty restricts people from following their interests and what they judge to be good (Caney, 2007). This can often be seen by the failure of the poor to attain good education, secure good jobs or even afford provisions for their families. These are things of interest to people of all races and c lasses. Poverty for example restricts the rights of children to education when their parents or governments cannot afford it. As a result poverty violates a basic human right. International bodies that are responsible for promoting human rights and social progress need to impress it upon the international community that poverty is at the heart of violation of most human rights (Speth, 1997). The international community therefore has the obligation to make international polices that take this into account and bring about the desired effects. It is the developed countries that are in a position to ensure fair decisions are made on international matters. They have more economic and political powers than the developing countries ridden with poverty that are not able to effectively advocate for their case (Speth, 1997). Implications of Freedom from Poverty as a Right One of the implications of treating freedom from poverty as a right is that people are entitled to resources and means tha t will get them out of poverty. This means that governments and other stakeholders have a responsibility to actively fight poverty, engage in poverty eradication measures and make sure they are implemented. For instance governments will be obligated to reduce unemployment. Unemployment is one of the leading causes of poverty in the developing world. Mismanagement of public funds, corruption and poor governance can be addressed in new light and offenders held to accountability. Through the international bodies of justice those who commit crimes against humanity are pursued and tried. In the same way those who are involved in practices that lead to poverty would be held accountable which would lead to lower rates of these cases in the developing world where poverty is prime.Advertising Looking for term paper on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More When deliberate and serious practices that increase poverty are treated as crimes there can be hope that societies will be more careful. Crimes against humanity especially in the modern world are greatly reduced due to the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By extension abuse of human rights through such practices like mismanagement of public funds and corruption can be reduced at the threat of international and local prosecutions. According to Pogge (2005), poverty is the common denominator in most cases of violations of human right. Poverty has in most cases been confounded by government officials in developing countries liaising with leaders in the developed country to the detriment of the developing countries. According to Pogge (2005), poverty in developing countries lead to illiterate and stunted masses. These people are too involved in survival to give election of good government leaders time. They therefore get leaders who do not advocate for their interest. Pog ge (2005) advocates for the kind of measures that go beyond the interest of a country within its borders. This is because the systems in the world that have been set in motion have been unfavorable to poorer nations. Eradicating poverty is not a matter of charity but one of justice in which richer countries owe it to the world to try and regain a balance in power as well as decent life for all. Within the framework of socio economic human rights this end can be achieved (Pogge, 2005). According to (UNDP (2005), rights equate to obligation while violations of rights require remedial solutions. UNDP (2005) reports that in its Vienna meeting, there was obligation collectively given to the international community especially the developed countries with key emphasis on alleviation of foreign debt burden which the UNDP cited as imperative (UNDP, 2005). This obligation is additionally to be expressed in the form of support for development in the developing countries as well as economic rel ations that are equitable between different countries. The meeting also stressed need for creation of reasonable economic environments so that countries can have fair chances at global level. Another implication is that there would be distributive justice. Most of the wealth in many countries is concentrated on few number of people. Fighting poverty would entail ensuring that resources and goods are fairly and equitably distributed. Unjust ways in which wealth is accumulated by the cream of society would have to be eradicated. Unfair economies would be reevaluated and solutions found for systems that will ensure each society balances its wealth. In addition richer countries would be required to be more committed to fighting poverty in the developing countries. The fight is often left to charity and so far that has not been successful in making headways in eradicating poverty. An issue that is raised as an implication is the effect of transnational economies in increasing poverty. Ac cording to Meckled-Garcia (2009) transnational economies have been associated with poverty in developing countries raising the question as to whether they violate human rights. Meckled-Garcia (2009) states that although these transnational businesses do not set out to cause harm, they non the less operate in ways that might be deemed unfair, exploitive and manipulative. They often lead to unfair competition against which the economies of developing countries cannot compete (Meckled-Garcia, 2009). These economies are formulated in ways that offer the domestic sector advantages. To counter these arguments, economic policies aim to ensure that trade is promoted and that the basics of trade are followed. Naturally, business entities need to make profits, look for new markets and capitalize on cheaper labor and resources. In addition many parties are involved in making decisions and most of the outcomes are unintended by the participants to the trade agreements. However, Meckled-Garcia ( 2009) argues that although there is argument that the choices are not forced, in most cases struggling economies find it hard to refuse what is offered. Developing countries do not have the authority or power to bargain for better deals and often take deals that might not favor them in the long run. Making fair agreements and choices therefore becomes an issue not only of morality but also of justice (Meckled-Garcia, 2009). Only when freedom from poverty is treated as a right can there be systems put in place in economic circles to protect the poor. This is because trade agreements can be regulated by international bodies to ensure fairer agreements and transactions (Meckled-Garcia, 2009). In this way ethical choices ca be made since it is clear that decisions by subjects in one jurisdiction can have dire consequences on the jurisdiction of another country (Meckled-Garcia, 2009). According to Singer (1972), developed countries do now make nearly as much pledge or implementation towa rds ending poverty in the developing world. When reporting on the refugee situation in east Bengal India in 1971, he noted that countries which were in a position to contribute towards the country failed to do so. Instead they engaged in other developments (Singer, 1972). He reported that in total out of the country funds given amounted to 65,000,000 million pounds. At the same time Britain committed more than 275,000,000 million pounds to a transport project while Australia gave amounts about 8% of what it spent on an opera house. According to Singer (1972), this kind of response passes as long as countries take their aids as charity. However if it was part of their responsibility there would be more effort to increase foreign aid and eradicate poverty. However, this is one area in which there has been and still remains arguments against forcing developed countries to bear the financial burden of developing countries. The developed countries cite their own burdens. In addition have already contributed developing countries through aid, loans and grants for development projects. Handing out money does not strike them as the solution. Singer however uses arguments in his report to make a case for more responsibility. He argues that developed countries have a moral obligation to aid fight poverty in countries while doing so will not lead to a sacrifice of other things of moral importance (Singer, 1972). It is this international outlook and approach that will lead to enhancement of human rights. Caney (2007) states that according to the UNDP reports in 2000 more than a billion people have less than a dollar to live on daily. In addition over a billion lack clean drinking waters while about two and a half billion have no sanitation (Caney, 2007). These conditions exacerbate their health problems. Caney (2007) argues that if poverty makes it impossible for people to enjoy other rights like access to food, water and essential health care then poverty becomes a violat or of human rights and should be addressed by all stakeholders as such. Carey (2007) cites the burden that is tossed around in provision of negative rights. Avoiding poverty is a negative right and often times, there is much argument as to who should provide it (Caney, 2007). According to Caney (2007) there have been suggestions to place the responsibility on the national government, institutional schemes and lastly on any persons who are in a position to help. However all the three parties have a role to play in the eradication of poverty and owe the poor all the help that can be justly given. Carey states that the extreme poverty that is witnessed in the world is as a result of neglect of negative duties by those in a position to effect change. Negative duties in human rights are as binding as positive duties since they contribute to the overall aims of human rights (Caney, 2007). White and Perelman (2010) like Carey advocate for changes in the approaches used in addressing povert y eradication. They point out to the cultural transformation required in order to make concrete head ways in poverty eradication (White and Perelman, 2010). Unless cultural issues are addressed systems that embed poverty in society will continue to thrive. Additionally, there has to be a move for a reform in institutions and practical approach to social and economic rights advocacy (White and Perelman, 2010). These according to White and Perelman are some of the ways in which a rights approach would change social, political and economic grounds in poor nations. The people who are in most influential position are developed countries. Developed countries on the other hand have expressed resistance to shouldering the whole responsibility. Poor nations have a responsibility to sort out their economic, political and social problems. In many ways the developed countries have tried to give aid in various ways. However governments in the developing countries compromise their efforts. Oborne (2010) in an article states that there has been numerous questions about the real role that foreign aid plays in improving development. This has been further fueled by arguments that the effects of foreign are often unmeasurable (Oborne, 2010). How foreign aid is intended for use and how it is actually used are often different things. The experiences of developed countries with foreign aid has been negatively affected. In some cases foreign aid has even been associated with human rights abuse. This is because in many cases those who are in power use the funds to oppress their countrymen Oborne, 2010). Funds may often not create the intended effect since there are many factors that the international community cannot help. One instance of this is funding for education in poorer nations. While schools may be set up and resources given unless efforts are made to create jobs, the economic prospects of those who receive the education are not substantially improved. Drawing from the exper iences of British government aid in Ethiopia Oborne (2010) states that the much of the 300 million pounds sent from Britain towards developmental aid was used to sustain the government in power. The Human rights bodies often find abuse of foreign aid in countries as a result of improper management. Additionally, funds meant for foreign countries sometimes find their way into the pockets of people in the country of origin (Oborne, 2010). People who have no intentions of making developmental contributions to the developing countries can still set up NGOs. These organizations often have no solid regulations leaving then open to abuse and abuse of taxpayers money. It is for these reasons that developed countries are resistant to pressure to give aid towards developmental programs. Instead they advocate for deeper collaboration with developing countries. When the developing countries are involved and contribute to the solutions, there is more opportunity for success. This has been part o f the practice in addressing environmental issues. There have been arguments for developed countries to help developing countries reduce environmental pollution. According to White and Perelman (2010) this is one of the issues in tackling poverty in developing countries. Land has been a key issue in fighting poverty in Africa for example. There is need to maximize the use of land so as to maximize food production (White and Perelman, 2010). Conclusion Poverty is clearly a big issue that determines if other rights will be achieved. Poverty can be linked to violation of human rights as people and societies try to attain economic development. One of the most effective ways of eradicating poverty is by addressing it from a rights approach because in essence it is a right. This approach has the opportunity to not only secure favorable assistance from developed countries but will also make developing countries more responsible in eradicating poverty. Only in the context of fundamental nee d to deal with poverty can real changes be made to human rights as a whole. References Caney, S. (2007). Global poverty and human rights In Thomas Pogge (ed.), Freedom  from poverty as a human right. New York: Oxford University Press. Meckled-Garcia, S. (2009). Do transitional economics violate human right? Ethics and  Global Politic., Vol. 2, No. 3, 259–276. Oborne, P. (2010) Overseas aid is funding human rights abuse. Retrieved from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100061337/overseas-aid-is-funding-human-rights-abuses/ Pogge, T. (2005). Severe poverty as a violation of negative duties. Ethics and  International Affairs. Vol 19, Issue 1, 55-84. Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs. Vol 1, Issue3, 229-243. Speth, J. G. (1997). Advocating and promoting governance and UNDP. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:G6JsC8OLL04J:www.pogar.org/publications/other/undp/governance/directline14.pdf+James +Gustave+Speth+1997hl=enpid=blsrcid=ADGEESgl5XF5pqFvKG-Y4pK8Tdzt_s19JzuBRwBGhlJNKw2JQmZYYVPeGF07KxezNxJAKUsG-qVdjgnDg_UyaiWuUMJ17bcqz8P_x8qkanp2OTqgJZrIU2hmRRtuDsHxm5oLT1wSVwbBsig=AHIEtbRWxdmnEzNnQo9litku8FKTaKvp9Q Speth J. G. (1998). Freedom from poverty: a fundamental human right. Focus. Vol 12, Issue 3, 14-17. UNDP. (2005). Human rights in UNDP. Retrieved from: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vq=cache:J6LEJoMvi_EJ:www.undp.org/governance/docs/HRPN_English.pdf+UNDP+speech+in+1998+on+human+rights+and+povertyhl=enpid=blsrcid=ADGEEShscmIVZ8WaHzQHMxKfs2kGTDhTd2UqeHu7npEXgY2Nb0_k9qoc58w4stAjmtHqIVrKQ0IiavSWB2qCDdTDclqEdhFAPiAQYP9njz9vTjHih9bqY0mT8ML35SG7k5toPXb7YZKTsig=AHIEtbTuh-OQi0pEORmVS51B_SfkU7rVag UN News Center. (2006). Freedom from poverty is a human right and not a matter of  compassion, say UN leaders. Retrieved from: un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsid=20913cr=human UN Organization. (2010). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from: un.org/en/documents/udhr/ index.shtml White, L. and Perelman, J. (2010). Stones of Hope: how African activists reclaim  human rights to challenge global poverty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.