Oppression vs Inequality
I am not bringing in any original twists, we've heard it all before: the argument against women's oppression. Many discuss the problems from and resulting to women's inequalities in society. The significant difference between oppression and inequality are clear, but both feed off one another for a heightened impact. Radical Feminists claim women to be oppressed. Liberal Feminists say it is merely a case of inequality. But what is the difference? And which side is right? And why should it matter whether women are burdened with inequality or oppression if we all know women are treated like crap anyway?
Liberal Feminism strives for Equality, it does this through reasoned, intellectually based ideas. They see power as a resource, a resource that has been re-distributed unequally. Radicals give emotional and political statements, for a bigger change: social change. They are not interested in fancy arguments, they are too busy with standing against the degradation of women. Unlike Liberals whom see power as an unequally distributed resource, to Radicals, the formula is power = domination. The only way to conquer power is to dominate, domination happens by denying access to the other. Once access is denied, the person in power can re-define definitions and re-purpose their intents to fit their desired social, cultural and economic framework. As many women fail to realize: power is not just given, one must take it.
I will discuss two philosophers whom looked into women's oppression and what steps can be taken to solve the issue. Their opinions on education and the economic system are two ways of how oppression is shown in society. I will then conclude with my opinion on why I believe a radical Feminist makes a stronger case in the eradication of injustice.
John Mills, an 18th century philosopher, was very big on education. One of my favorite ideas about Feminism which he discusses is Association: women are shaped through their experiences. How can we expect a woman to be any other way when what society's views is all she knows? Women had no political rights, money or property because they were (are) considered property themselves. Even for the longest time, women were (are) denied from representing themselves in legal matters. Change women's experiences if you want a change of outcomes. Good experiences on what's right and good for one's self and the culture they live in will result in great outcomes, repressive societal ideas? Not so much. Before you assume a woman is unfit for something, think about what blocks her path to success, think even further about their impossible patriarchal expectations already set in place that demand her failure.
Mills lived during the Victorian era, where rape within the marriage is impossible and women had virtually no grounds for divorce than men. Mills believed in the harm principle: your personal freedom ends when you end someone else's. he advocated for women's access, education and their right to vote. He did not like the inequality that was settled in society. He saw that through education and different (improved) experiences, women were just as capable as men in the jobs women were banned from in public spaces. He then goes on to reject Essentialism, which is the idea that you are born the way you are because of biology, if you are incapable, then there is nothing you can do to change it. This was the view on women, incapability, and inability to change, which is why they needed men to take over for them, rule for them. Women's "incapability" and "inferiority" are the radical results of Essentialism. Finally, he believed that women would only freely be able to choose if we demolish all social organizations that influence her decision (marriage, nuclear family, etc.) If women are able to make free decisions, they would have reached true liberalism and freedom. But, seeing as show long women's "inequality" has been around for so long, will women's shackles ever truly be broken from society? More importantly, will society ever be able to get off the addiction of treating women like they are incurable from the incapabilities set forth by men?
Engels was another philosopher who argued against women's oppression. He blamed this on the new economic system that required a women's monogamy. A woman's faithfulness to her one husband ensures the children's legitimacy for the family's inheritance of private wealth. In early society.
In the early past before capitalism, all individuals of the tribe worked equally towards collecting the food, hunting, and communal child bearing. As time passed, inheritance evolved into society, in with private wealth, and out with the fruit of one's own labor, therefore making the need for more working hands. It was no longer the tribe's job to provide for everyone, but more the family's job to provide for itself. The woman's job became to produce only, therefore making her "incapable" of doing anything else. Leaving no choice to choose, her only job becomes just that. Engels believed the only way to get rid of women's oppression is to abolish the capitalist system that endures private property, supports exhausting working hours, and publically pays women significantly less than men, if it even hires them in the first place.
It's important to note that only radical Feminist use the word "oppression" to refer to women's situation, this is why Mill, a liberal Feminist, does not really use this word.
I side with Engels, purely because of the fundamental differences in the meanings of the words Inequality and Oppression. To be unequal with someone is to have different capabilities. This is fine, and it most certainly would not have been a reason to start an entire Feminist movement world-wide. Oppression is when you are excluded from the rest because of something you can not change: gender. Women up to the 18th century owned nothing, not even themselves. Women's education is only a recent 20th century phenomenon, something that did not exist in the past. Do women not want to work? Do women like to be beaten and kept at home? Do women enjoy being treated like ignorant children? Sexual objects? Lower class citizens? NO! Women have and still are oppressed in some or many ways. Denying someone a job or refusing to pay an equal salary like the rest of the men because you're a woman is oppression, not inequality. Because being a woman is something one cannot change, but being religious, for example, is changeable. I agree with Mills, education does help in freeing women from societies shackles. But I agree more with Engels because the current economic system has a big chunk of influence on why women are sill oppressed.
Liberal Feminism strives for Equality, it does this through reasoned, intellectually based ideas. They see power as a resource, a resource that has been re-distributed unequally. Radicals give emotional and political statements, for a bigger change: social change. They are not interested in fancy arguments, they are too busy with standing against the degradation of women. Unlike Liberals whom see power as an unequally distributed resource, to Radicals, the formula is power = domination. The only way to conquer power is to dominate, domination happens by denying access to the other. Once access is denied, the person in power can re-define definitions and re-purpose their intents to fit their desired social, cultural and economic framework. As many women fail to realize: power is not just given, one must take it.
I will discuss two philosophers whom looked into women's oppression and what steps can be taken to solve the issue. Their opinions on education and the economic system are two ways of how oppression is shown in society. I will then conclude with my opinion on why I believe a radical Feminist makes a stronger case in the eradication of injustice.
John Mills, an 18th century philosopher, was very big on education. One of my favorite ideas about Feminism which he discusses is Association: women are shaped through their experiences. How can we expect a woman to be any other way when what society's views is all she knows? Women had no political rights, money or property because they were (are) considered property themselves. Even for the longest time, women were (are) denied from representing themselves in legal matters. Change women's experiences if you want a change of outcomes. Good experiences on what's right and good for one's self and the culture they live in will result in great outcomes, repressive societal ideas? Not so much. Before you assume a woman is unfit for something, think about what blocks her path to success, think even further about their impossible patriarchal expectations already set in place that demand her failure.
Mills lived during the Victorian era, where rape within the marriage is impossible and women had virtually no grounds for divorce than men. Mills believed in the harm principle: your personal freedom ends when you end someone else's. he advocated for women's access, education and their right to vote. He did not like the inequality that was settled in society. He saw that through education and different (improved) experiences, women were just as capable as men in the jobs women were banned from in public spaces. He then goes on to reject Essentialism, which is the idea that you are born the way you are because of biology, if you are incapable, then there is nothing you can do to change it. This was the view on women, incapability, and inability to change, which is why they needed men to take over for them, rule for them. Women's "incapability" and "inferiority" are the radical results of Essentialism. Finally, he believed that women would only freely be able to choose if we demolish all social organizations that influence her decision (marriage, nuclear family, etc.) If women are able to make free decisions, they would have reached true liberalism and freedom. But, seeing as show long women's "inequality" has been around for so long, will women's shackles ever truly be broken from society? More importantly, will society ever be able to get off the addiction of treating women like they are incurable from the incapabilities set forth by men?
Engels was another philosopher who argued against women's oppression. He blamed this on the new economic system that required a women's monogamy. A woman's faithfulness to her one husband ensures the children's legitimacy for the family's inheritance of private wealth. In early society.
In the early past before capitalism, all individuals of the tribe worked equally towards collecting the food, hunting, and communal child bearing. As time passed, inheritance evolved into society, in with private wealth, and out with the fruit of one's own labor, therefore making the need for more working hands. It was no longer the tribe's job to provide for everyone, but more the family's job to provide for itself. The woman's job became to produce only, therefore making her "incapable" of doing anything else. Leaving no choice to choose, her only job becomes just that. Engels believed the only way to get rid of women's oppression is to abolish the capitalist system that endures private property, supports exhausting working hours, and publically pays women significantly less than men, if it even hires them in the first place.
It's important to note that only radical Feminist use the word "oppression" to refer to women's situation, this is why Mill, a liberal Feminist, does not really use this word.
I side with Engels, purely because of the fundamental differences in the meanings of the words Inequality and Oppression. To be unequal with someone is to have different capabilities. This is fine, and it most certainly would not have been a reason to start an entire Feminist movement world-wide. Oppression is when you are excluded from the rest because of something you can not change: gender. Women up to the 18th century owned nothing, not even themselves. Women's education is only a recent 20th century phenomenon, something that did not exist in the past. Do women not want to work? Do women like to be beaten and kept at home? Do women enjoy being treated like ignorant children? Sexual objects? Lower class citizens? NO! Women have and still are oppressed in some or many ways. Denying someone a job or refusing to pay an equal salary like the rest of the men because you're a woman is oppression, not inequality. Because being a woman is something one cannot change, but being religious, for example, is changeable. I agree with Mills, education does help in freeing women from societies shackles. But I agree more with Engels because the current economic system has a big chunk of influence on why women are sill oppressed.
Comments