Jenesis Laurence C.

Oquiana 2020101610
MRR3

1. What are the three (3) things that you significantly learned from the reading?

Before reading the article, I believed men's rights came before women's. I now
believe that all genders are treated equally in terms of human rights after reading the
article. According to reports, many human rights organizations concur with this
viewpoint, and I think it is moral in the absence of discrimination. Additionally, men and
women needed to be present when preaching peace to demonstrate the equality of the
sexes. I now believe it would be wise to have only women preach for peace because
that would also convey the moral and respectful treatment of women. Last but not least,
there was no relationship between the climate and specific genders, and people
generally influenced it. By changing perspectives, there are relationships between the
two, given that women and children are allegedly affected by the effects of climate
change.

2. What three (3) things about the reading are unclear to you?

When it is stated in the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

section that discrimination against men harms the equality of men's and women's rights,
why does it still occur? Why can't others act better despite being instructed to treat
everyone equally regardless of gender? Finally, although numerous organizations
support these rights, why do they occasionally fail to end such violent acts?

3. What three (3) questions that you want to ask about the reading?

I'm interested in learning how one can assess whether a human rights law is just
for everyone, regardless of race or gender. Another issue is the point at which a law
protecting human rights will no longer be moral. Lastly, do gender-based human rights
adhere to ethical or legal principles?