For a very long time, the voting rights of the citizens have been a problem in the US. It started out with only men with land being able to vote, and then expanded to white men, and then to all men. However, women were never in the situation, they were disregarded and believed to not be worthy enough to have the same rights as men. They were essentially being treated as property, therefore having no rights. But, in Susan B. Anthony’s speech, she hits upon the point that women are just as righteous as men to uphold the same rights.
Woman suffrage was a rough time for woman. They proved in many ways, to men and the government, that they were capable of having the responsibility to vote. Except, no one seemed to care and thought that they were not ready. Allowing women to vote is a right because otherwise it would be considered oppression, women are just as capable as men to vote, and they will help improve the government. First of all, if women were not granted the right to vote, it would be considered oppression.
Alexia Redondo p3“Control: To direct the behavior of; to have power over; to direct the actions or function of;” (merriam-webster). The overview of the society in the novel Anthem is, the people of the society believe in equality, the opposite of individuality, and a Dystopian society which is the “perfect” society, but one citizen named equality 7-2521 does not believe in a “perfect” society. The process behind creating a collective society in Anthem requires control over education, family, and knowledge. Education is a huge roll in every person's everyday life, but in the novel Anthem the society doesn't not agree. In the novel Anthem there are a plethora amount of occupations the society controls over a individual, such as education.
The Importance of Absolute Equality in “Harrison Bergeron” For hundreds of years, humanity has struggled to define equality, as well implement the concept properly into society. Slaves; prisoners of war; and even in today’s society, we still see people of color treated as lesser than their Caucasian counterparts. Interestingly enough, color is never introduced as a problem in Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s “Harrison Bergeron”. While most people nowadays would agree that the word “equality” refers to equal opportunity, Vonnegut forces this word to the extremes, and warps its meaning into something much more controlling, to the point where it harms society more than inequality ever did. But why would the author do this?
Seeing that there is still indifference in the world and seeing that after many years people are still fighting for their rights, It can be presumed that Humans have not changed. To conclude, human rights cannot be actualized for every person because of the lack of compassion people have for others. To achieve human rights for all people, everyone would need to understand one another and accept each other’s differences. Indifference is still an occurring issue in our time and it needs to end. If we are to truly change we need to be more active when it comes to shaping the future for Human
Sexuality rights is often overlooked in history especially in the 20th century as not many historians talked about the inequality for gays and lesbians therefore it is hard to say this form of inequality shaped the United States. Gay liberation can be linked to feminism as in the 1960s homosexuals also stood up for their own rights in the fight against inequality. Throughout the 20th century gay and lesbians were described as “sinful or mentally disordered”, as it was illegal in most states, seen as irregular and against the traditional American values of heterosexual marriages. McCarthyism pronounced gays to be a source of “national weakness” a focal point that caused controversy around gays and lesbians. Carl Wittman declared a Gay Manifesto stating how San Francisco is a “refugee camp for homosexuals” a place where people had fled from “blackmailing cops, from families who disowned or “tolerated” us”, it shows the inequality as gay people were treated horribly but of fear of abuse has to pretend “everything was OK”.
Religion aside, political and governmental issues have a long-standing and historical place in the gay marriage debate. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges symbolizes the growing abuse of federal power. The Framers of the U.S Constitution understood their sense of duty to Americans when tediously crafting the basis and principles of our government. Being so, we put a great emphasis on the establishment of the U.S Constitution as our nation’s ultimate doctrine and the supreme law of the land. But one amendment has only been ignored and eviscerated by elected officials, Amendment X.
There are many views and opinions of the state of the United States on this subject. It has long been a puzzling issue that never seems to seize. America should have religious freedom, because it is a constitutional right to Americans. Prayer in school, gay marriage, and governmental control, are among some of the main issues in this topic. Over the past few years, anyone can tell you that religious importance in our country has become less, and less vital.
During the 1960s, there has been dramatic arguments about whether two of the same genders should be able to marry each other. Is this true, apparently because they made it legal for them to. The gay rights and civil rights are very opposite from each other; they need to be recognized that its nothing to play with or reconcile the problem. Also, that this a problem and they need a solution or our country is going to run even more down hill. The authorities of our country needs to come to their right senses and put these rights straight into the ground.
Issues like these may well be controversial, being based on an individual 's creed and principles. After researching for months about homosexuality, I came to a conclusion that the homosexuals should be treated no less than the heterosexuals. What the antagonists of homosexuality say are: it is unnatural; it is against the divine will of God, it runs counter to the tradition and more. Occasionally someone would bring up a "real" problem but most of the claims by the opposing side stand on the basis of a highly subjective valuation. As a result, they had to go to great lengths to expound on their position.