relationships that cause interpersonal violence inevitably falls under the private or public spheres. Eisler goes on and logically speaks about a world where human rights are valued. In this world the distinction between public and private violence, cruelty, and discrimination is seen as wrong and absurd. Eisler continues to explain that “private or family relations as separate and distinct, or at best as far less important than, political and economic relations in the public sphere” (Eisler 163). Although this view may be correct for some, it is can be considered false once analyzed. It is the view that shaped and later distorted the development and growth of human rights theory and action. (Eisler 163) Later in the article Eisler speaks of the split of human rights involving families relationships, which incorporates “women’s rights” and “children’s rights”. Eisler explains the split as “the ‘public’ (man’s) world and the ‘private’ world to which women and children were still generally confined by custom and sometimes also by law” (Eisler 164). To conclude her argument, Eisler brings all she spoke about together: social forces, such as human rights of people in families, represent the public sphere and the “women’s rights” and “children’s rights” represent the private sphere.

of the micro-level is family relationship. Many problems that oc

Some topics in this essay:
Interpersonal Violence, Violence” Eisler, interpersonal violence, human rights, private sphere, family relationships, domestic violence, social force, Riane Eisler’s, family violence, world violence, private public, social force family, violence interpersonal violence, force family relationships, “children’s rights”, private public spheres, “women’s rights” “children’s,