Category Archives: Wollstonecraft

It has come to my attention that long after I wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, its readers have failed to grasp its vast and overarching themes. Though my work centered on the liberation and equality of women, I proposed many theories on what held women in such a subordinate state. In one of these such theories, I discussed the state of childhood, claiming that men attempted to confine women in this subjective state to enforce good conduct and obedience. Over the course of history, many men have argued a women’s role was to serve, to please, and to obey men. Children, similarly, are to serve, please, and obey their parents until their minds have been stored with knowledge, reason, and virtue. While male children are able to develop beyond the state of childhood, female children are not. Thus, the state of childhood is beautiful as it fosters development, but to maintain its beauty, humans must leave such a state. Forcing women to remain in a child-like state far beyond its necessary boundaries forms a state of childhood that is no longer beautiful, as “children” cannot develop the necessary faculties to make decisions when their knowledge hasn’t had time to grow, to dwell, and to fortify.

This message was not as popular at the time as it may be now; it seems it is more common for the majority to understand a woman’s development to continue past childhood. However, it is not entirely clear that the masses have understood my true and deep sentiments of childhood itself. Though my work’s purpose was to uplift women, I found it irresistible to expand my political thoughts elsewhere, even if it were only for a brief moment. To expand my claim of women’s weakness in a state of childhood, I provided an example of military men, who like women, were sent into the world before their minds had been stored with knowledge or fortified with principles. Like women, young soldiers had not exited the state of childhood. They had acquired little knowledge; they only possessed manners and customs which may seem like branches of knowledge, yet are never brought to the test of judgment or comparison. As such, both young soldiers and women acquire manners before morals, common nature before grand ideas of human nature, and they consequently become prey to prejudices; they blindly submit to authority. 

It is baffling that such a comparison went unnoticed. How could a society advance from confining women in a state of childhood, yet rationalize recruiting children for war? It is nothing short of deplorable that a nation’s army could spend such a significant amount of its funding recruiting on Twitch, a platform where an abundance of its users are children. As I pointed out long ago, children cannot develop the necessary faculties to make decisions when their knowledge hasn’t had time to grow, to dwell, and to fortify. Children, in this light, are impressionable beings. They are prey to prejudice, they submit blindly to authority. To sow seeds of the military’s glory into their minds long before they develop the ability to contrive morals is a reprehensible abuse of power, one I argued women have long been subjected to. As such, I call for the U.S. Army to immediately halt the recruitment of impressionable minds on the esports streaming service, Twitch.  

The expectation of motherhood is a heavy burden that weighs on the hearts of many women in their fertile years. Terms like “biological clock” are flung around so carelessly that women are more taken with the pressure to reproduce than they are about their own virtue. Women who decide they don’t want to have children of their own are considered to be selfish or immature, and women that cannot have children are seen as broken or unstable. This immense pressure to enter into motherhood is a blatant contributor to the state of gender inequality in our current time.

The expectation of motherhood is not merely the act of raising a child. It is also fed by the expectation that a woman put her life and career on hold for an indefinite amount of time. It demands that a woman risk her physical and mental health both during and after a pregnancy, even a healthy pregnancy can take a insurmountable toll on the life of a woman. Motherhood may also require that a woman relinquish her life savings to support her young, and renounce the opportunity to pursue a life of travel, leisure, or success. Much is at stake when choosing to have a baby, but women are not alone in its potential consequences.

The nuanced societal expectation for women to reproduce does not lend that men are excluded from the equation. If there is pressure on women to become mothers, there is subsequent pressure on men to succeed and provide for his family. Whereas without a child, both men and women have the freedom to pursue opportunity equally, while bringing a child into the world tips the scales in favor of male success and domination within society. Biologically, women will always require more leniency and consideration from an employer both during and after a pregnancy, so until men can give birth, there will be fixed, immovable inequality on that front. However, this follows the assumption that a woman desires to reproduce at all, thus leading to the present inequality where a woman’s best route to the top 1% is via marriage to a rich male.

If a woman did not experience the societal pressure to reproduce, higher rates of women would finish high school, college, and progress into not only stable, but successful careers that could balance the scales of inequality. The key for women is not to see children as the end of the race, but a journey that has many different paths and alternate finish lines – with or without a growing family tree.

Proper love is not merely a passion—not the love of a marital relationship. Passionate love cannot be reasoned with, like the whims of the wind it will carry you where it unwittingly wishes, following the effervescent scents of a flower. Passionate love, if not properly maintained is merely a desire to be swayed by the next suitor. Thus when entering into a marriage, in order to maintain a strong and equal relationship, it is wise to hold both the husband and wife responsible for the well being of the relationship.

With the various ways the sexes may attract each other, it is not uncommon that the passions of love may wander, but this does not make such things acceptable in the realm of marriage. So it must be that a proper marital relationship goes beyond such charms. The beauties and virtues of the mind ought to be recognized by both parties of the marriage. And to do so requires an honest intellectual endeavor from both sides. Such an endeavor would be that of a marriage contract.

Some may scoff at the idea of placing love on signed piece of paper, yet when a well-intentioned person falls pray to charms that are not supported by an equal respect of the other’s virtue, then hindsight will show that a marriage contract would have been a wise choice. A well-constructed marriage contract would enforce the ideas that both parties have faith in: respectful treatment, equal decision-making, support of careers, joining of property, care of living space, and most importantly the continual evaluation of the relationship. Such evaluation can comprise many aspects of the relationship from which trouble may arise. One such aspect that has often been addressed by these evaluations is the arising of gender roles in heterosexual marriages. By agreeing to constantly evaluate the relationship, the couple will not only recognize the appearance of such limiting gender norms, but also find solutions to end these unequal tropes in a respectful manner. Thus constant evaluation of the relationship is necessary to maintain an equal and loving long-term relationship because love is not merely a passion—it is a practice and a faith.

No equal relationship can arise from charm alone. There is a duty on both ends of a marriage that must be upheld. Though, a marriage contract may not necessarily be legally binding, it is binding between to the two who have entered it. Thus recognizing the equal virtues of the married couple.

Fraught with the ghastly doctrine of coverture, the expectation for female subservience has long subsided.  History and expectation have intrinsically outlined women as caretakers- I have testified against many arguments that Nature dictates the dynamic of this union. Now that women have reached a point where they can be content with their virtue, they are granted opportunities to express their intellect for public and individual good. This greater participation in labor makes leaps and bounds beyond a singular purpose of motherhood. Nevertheless, a question of which sex should sacrifice their public livelihood to take care of their child has risen. It seems there is much uproar about men upholding the tender role of a caregiver – leading women to pursue greater potential.

Some challenge that this reversal sets precedence as new standard. I would contend the modern partnership of men and women is not a question of women’s into an upheaval of deserved superposition – quite the opposite – what heedless conjecture! It is hardly my intent to support that such a new criterion would be healthy. Seeing as how attitudes perpetuate behavior, and thus, crude notions repeated through hereditary, we should refrain from complacency in confinement.

For the tenderness in childcare is not an impediment to free thought, nor should the objective of raising a child confine one’s limitations. Is it inconceivable that men could not possibly explore greater emotional capacity? Demonizing a man for taking a caregiver role is to demasculate his pride and simultaneously imposes scrutiny of feminine qualities. This brutal sentiment would perpetuate the prejudices we have worked so hard to expunge from our public lives.  More than ever, the divergence of women from obstruction in financial stability and intellect has proven to heighten individual self-realization and sensibility. Being able to provide for themselves, free of gender bias, allows for great exploration and virtue – could that not be the greatest catalyst for societal morality? For when we limit the role of one sex, we also restrict the prospect and growth of the other. Such stratification would surely produce a most flagrant display and continuation of unfashionable and discriminatory manners.

This is to say, greater public recognition in parenthood as a complementary responsibility will help to eradicate arbitrary prejudice – that both men and women play equal role in mutual respect and  cultivating the fertile mind of a child. Does a child not benefit from the qualities and lore that both sexes poses? The absence of equal participation and example will have ravenous effect on the independent thought of children.  As parents we may house their bodies but certainly not their own conviction. In consequence, it is my own supposition that sharing and crafting a common appetite for independent thought is the utmost commitment to mankind.

For now, we should push both sexes to truly explore the meaning of sharing the responsibility of parenting, meaning, we should expel the notion of dominance within partnership. Cultivating equal opportunity for both men and women to partake in early childhood is fundamental. Once the workplace recognizes that the sacrifice of a child is not left to the responsible of the sex who bares it, pillars of equality can be ingrained into the workplace and the pubic.

To say that women deserve to be paid less than men is foolish in more ways than one. For without equality, corruption is sure to breed among the workplace. If a man and a woman are both clearing my table after afternoon tea, then why must the man receive $10 and the woman $7.70? Perhaps I am overlooking the quality of the work. Did the man clean the table better than the woman? Was the man faster at cleaning the table than she? It seems necessary to say that nothing preponderates the immorality of the pay gap, whether it be quality or effectiveness.

To pay men more than women is to open the door to corruption. A woman remains stagnant in her position, repressed by the dominant relationship of men. This time, the dominance is fueled by the very democracy meant to rule. What does this inequality do to the mind of a woman? The answer is as clear as the difference between red and blue; it lessens her confidence and self-worth. Going back to the roots of our society, women were seen as lesser. For this to be supported by lesser pay, our society must still believe this. Feeling as if she is inferior, the woman goes home with less money in her pocket than the man next to her.

On the contrary, providing women with the same pay as men will contribute many benefits to society. Going back to the condition of her mind, a woman will feel not only equal but confident of her abilities and worthy of her pay. Abler to realize her virtue, the woman will be strong and assertive, making for a better mother. She will have the same experience as a man, including the feeling of bringing home a hearty paycheck. This shared experience and equality between the genders will allow both to better realize virtue, a trait that was previously clouded by the corruption of inequality. Without the anger of lesser pay, she might be more fit to control her emotions.

Overcoming many inequalities, women should need not worry about their husbands, companions, brothers, or fathers bringing home more money for the same occupation as her. This inequality will only hinder both the man and woman, denying them both of realizing their virtue. Not only should this change within our legal system, but in the way that we recognize these problems. Going forward, we should recognize these sorts of inequalities immediately, and work to diminish the chances of a similar situation occurring once more.

Heteronormativity remaining the underlying standard in a society increasingly diversified by differing sexualities and identities seems, at the very least, paradoxical and counterproductive. Examples that display a societal attitude regarding nature and the “natural” order of things are affluent, but why would one play this card in some situations in which it applies and not others? Many of these attitudes are reflected in social habits and attitudes rather than tangible legal mandates, meaning that condemning heteronormative ideas on the basis of cold, hard fact becomes difficult. However, if we take a homosexual relationship, for instance, one party is still expected to be the “man” and one the “woman,” despite their biological genders. Based on this observation, it may safely be assumed that this traditional idea of heteronormativity is being projected even onto things that contradict its definition in the most literal way.

Many like to come to the defense of heteronormativity and the rigid gender roles it assigns for the perceived fact that these beliefs are natural. Considering this logic, these people should also argue against the consumption of synthetic food products and the wearing of man made fabrics. This means that the argument for heteronormativity is merely a socially constructed belief, and those playing the “natural” card in its condemnation are merely picking and choosing a convenient time for their logics to be applied. Should it be that society truly does only include room for heterosexual, masculine men and heterosexual, feminine women, surely the validity of this claim must be based on a piece of information other than the hollow opinion that it is simply the natural way.

It should also be mentioned that this heteronormative view includes a condemnation of femininity in men, setting masculinity as the ideal standard that, if unreached, compromises a man’s ability to be called what he is: a man. This view assigns a connotation to femininity that implies weakness and claims, whether explicitly or not explicitly, that femininity is something to be feared and avoided. Even if this heteronormative viewpoint is only arguing that this is true for femininity in men, this cannot be mutually exclusive from femininity in women. In arguing that femininity is an undesirable trait in a man, the term must retain its negative connotation when applied to a woman as well. How does it make sense for a word of concrete definition to be deemed positive for one gender and negative for the other? While men and women retain indisputable biological differences, femininity has never been deemed a biological trait and thus automatically becomes eligible to be applied equally to people of either gender.

Shifting focus away from expectations traditionally assigned exclusively to men or exclusively to women can ensure that the value of individuals of either gender is fully recognized and appreciated. In the same way that femininity in women made them subordinate in traditional societies, this same trait in men may sometimes put them even below feminine women in these same societies. Similarly, masculinity in women has also been highly discouraged and condemned, for reasons suggesting that a woman displaying masculine traits is either undesirable or threatening or often both. Why must this be the case? Why must these people who go against our traditional definitions of man and woman be disallowed from reaching their own intellectual potential and thus contributing to society’s betterment and progress? A focus on upholding these rigid definitions is dangerous, and it provides an immovable barrier to intellectual progress and success until it can be disregarded.

John Dewey fails to educate society in Another Mass Shooting, a post which degrades progressive movements and perpetuates ignorance following the mass shooting in Las Vegas. The article summarizes events proceeding the attack, referencing Devin Kelley as a criminal and criticizing loose gun control for allowing the mass murder to occur. Dewey predominantly asks for improved conversation, led by experts and elitists, to improve gun ownership regulations. He  prefers a Great Society where the individual is silence, wrongly assuming communication would thrive, “The only way we will be able to move past this is if we communicate. There are thousands of studies on this topic, and every citizen needs to work to try and understand the actual research, rather than just spewing their [uneducated] opinions… Then, and only then, we will be able to come to a gun control solution that works for everyone and actually passes into law.” He proposes that communication, orchestrated dogmatically by expert opinion, will be fostered in communities where the individual is lost. He mentions research, but gives no citation for his readers to study. Dewey’s Great Society ignores the isolated or abused, leaving children and the underprivileged behind in a race for education. Such mentality results in our current society, where the lower class is more likely to be exposed to gun violence and has limited access to expert opinion. And, if multiple classes are involved in the same shooting, the upper class will surely have the final word on innocence and blame. Gun violence targets underprivileged communities, women and minorities, limiting their positive liberties and restricting their potentials. Survivors of gun violence may struggle with physical damage or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), affecting their negative liberties by preventing them from being as happy or productive as they might have been without the shootings.

Individuals will care more others’ lives when aware of disorders resulting from violence, humanizing the reality of mass shootings. For the individual to best contribute to society and debate, they must be educated in gun control and the consequences of domestic violence. Women fail their rationalities when disregarding the abused rights of their fellows, limiting their sex from greatness and perpetuating oppressive behavior. Ignoring gun violence due to privileged experiences, assuming everyone has the same access to police protection and information on gun control, is preferring vanity over rationality. The rational desires informed communication, while the vain prefers lectures full of technical jargon and biases favoring the elite. Educating citizens will better representation in the gun control debate, trusting the integrities of individuals and allowing American citizens to decide on gun laws instead of politicians funded by large corporations like the National Rifle Association (NRA).

If our representatives truly favored the lives and liberties of civilians affected by shootings, they would restrict gun laws following mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas, instead of passing legislation prompted by NRA funding. Laws were already lax, as Dewey writes, before the shooting: “Kelley was able to pass the background check required to buy guns on four separate occasions and in two different states. In a time when we can share information across the world in just seconds, it is absurd that none of his history showed up.” Elected representatives clearly do not favor the lives of Americans still, considering recent legislation passed allowing guns to be carried across state lines. Despite the mass shooting, and others like it, politicians ignore research and silence conversations on restricting gun access. If the general public were better educated, they could elect officials who call for restrictions following mass shootings, instead of being duped into making it easier for people like Kelley to kill others and cause physical and psychological harm to survivors or families of those affected. Preferring ignorance to life is another type of vanity for fastidious sensualists who spread their unnatural biases by preventing gun control, themselves acting as instruments of tyranny and destruction.

Instead of demanding experts (who substitute simple terms with a jargon of words) to act as patriarchal magistrates in conversations about life and morality, we should encourage the individual, by means of reflection, to be educated so as to improve understanding, which can only render communication and society more agreeable. Our rational conscience is the most enlightened philosopher and will lead educated individuals to prevent further shootings, acting in the interests of life and liberty.