( Joan Scott) The ideas about women being more spiritual and less intellectual were widespread among secularist movements in Europe. Moreover, the previously discussed differences suggested in religiosity of genders were reasons for low participation of women in early secularist movement (Infidel Feminism). Women were often excluded from the secularist movement as it emphasised rationalist intellectualism which was not compatible with Victorian understanding of femininity. Therefore, it would be misleading to suggest that secularism is inherently a feminist principle. Despite that, secularism was embraced by feminists and eventually adopted as a principle favouring gender-equality for its stance on neutrality of citizenship and a potential to ensure a weaker role of the Church in state affairs, which would ease the campaigning for gender equality.
Her foregrounding of feminist ideas in indigenous culture reflects, among other things, the nationalist fervour of her time. She was against the adoption of Western culture without understanding its value in a different social setting (190). She compares a person who relinquishes her own cultural belonging and houses elements of different cultures within herself with a disfigured, strange animal (Hossain, 2006 : 249). She wants women to be educated at par with men, yet at the same time does not want them to be divorced from their native cultural values. She argues that Western education and feminist ideas must be acknowledged for the good and harm they can potentially bring to the people of India (190).
Today, millions of women can implement their rights to vote in all elections in the united states of America, but this (rights) did not come easily to those women who sacrifice their lives to make this happen. In the speech “Address to Congress on Women’s Suffrage”, Catt delivered her message for women’s right from a firsthand account of what she had experienced as a woman living in the United States of America in the 19th century. She advocated for the rights of women to vote because she believes in equal rights and justice for all citizens. The speech was very successful because of the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. The purpose of the speech was to pressure Congress into passing a legislation that would give women the right to vote in the United States of America.
According to Oxford Dictionary, it is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Modern-day feminism does not represent equality between the sexes. It has become pro-women and anti-men. It has become the opposite of gender equality. As Emma Watson, HeForShe Ambassador has said, "fighting for women's rights became synonymous with man-hating."
It lacks a theory regarding what female oppression’s deeper mechanisms consists of- and that is something other directions tries to answer . That is the main critique against this theory but there are other aspects of critique also. Some of the critique is aimed at the idea that women have the same capacity for reason as men, the critique against this warns for an uncritical acceptance of a view of reason that actually degrades women. Another point of critique is that liberal feminism is possible because it looks away from the importance of social standing and from women’s material conditions. A third point of critique is the that liberal feminism, at least in its abstract form, discards from sexualities importance for power configuration between the sexes
The Renaissance’s attitude towards gender and sexuality was completely different from that of the Middle Ages, which considered women as dangerous sexual creatures. "For the first time in Western history," for example, "men stressed the fact that females should be educated. The Platonic orientation in humanist thought may have spurred them to do so" (Bell, 182). (mohja)Actually, the primary purpose behind the call for women’s education was not to heighten her position in society, or to “overturn her subordinate domestic role”, but to make her a better wife and mother. Indeed, it was only the high rank women who were allowed to be educated*.
First, we should define feminism. Basically, feminism is a philosophy that advocates equal rights for women and men. The more feminists seek to overthrow any sign of male dominance in our society, to the point where they disapprove the biblical roles of husbands and wives, defending abortion, and so on. Modern feminism is a forged solution to the real issue of the inequality of women. Feminism assumes to itself the right to demand respect and equality in every aspect of life.
Wollstonecraft proved that marriage doesn’t have to be the center of every woman’s world, and that education can be more beneficial to a woman than marriage. Anthony proved that despite the laws of the time, women are, and have always been, important, contributing citizens of society and therefore should be treated as such. Friedan proves that marriage isn’t everything, and women should place more focus on themselves and their careers. However, despite these valuable lessons we have learned, we have also seen that the realm of liberal feminism also contains a lot of contradictions. As I have stated time and time again, liberal feminism seeks equality, but not for everyone or to everyone.
Outline Question: How does the text conform to, or deviate from, the conventions of a particular genre, and for what purpose? Source: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen Points: Pride and Prejudice received much criticism by authors, such as Charlotte Bronte and Ralph Waldo Emerson, for being a mundane book with female characters that fit the cookie-cutter image of English life. Pride and Prejudice deviates from the social norms it is being accused of by showing and portraying female characters going against what was expected of them. An example being the refusal of marriage that would be financially securing for the family. Pride and Prejudice also deviates from social conventions at that time because Austen writes Pride and Prejudice as a social satire and makes humor of the traditional roles of women.
Mary Wollstonecraft does not agree with the statement that women don not have enough mentally strength to become morally good by themselves. She says that: “To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.” Mary Wollstonecraft believes that if women have souls they supposed to have rational power as men. “Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation.” Then she added that the women should be kept as children and taught nothing but skill for pleasing the husbands. She agrees that children should be kept innocent.
Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in rebellion against the traditional strictures of the behavior of women, recoiling from the traditional social hierarchy that determined the roles of lives and rejected ideas that she felt confined women. She rejected the notion that women were to bow down to men, questioning “who made man the exclusive judge?” and why it was that “the men stand up for the dignity of man, by oppressing the women.” (Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark: 1796 Letter 3). By looking to the state to reform education and believing that legislation would end women’s subordination, Wollstonecraft initiated a new era in feminist discourse. If women were not innately inferior, and if they could be educated to be the equals of men, then they could prosper to the same degree as men. Wollstonecraft initiated a new era in European feminism with her outspoken ideas, which were piloted by Richard Price and his followers of the Newington Green Circle.
These philosophies made human beings, not God, the center of attention and preached that humans have free will and as individuals can accomplish great things. Skepticism caused scholars to question the authority of the Church. These developments, if only a little, freed women from the gender roles thrust on to them by the church and created a climate in which Christine could express her radical philosophies. Christine advocated for women’s rights, something few women were able to do for centuries. Simone de Beauvoir wrote that Christine’s Épître au Dieu d’Amour was “the first time we see a woman take up her pen in defense of her sex”.
It is important to realize that Sanger’s campaign for a women’s to choose birth control was at a time when women where not thought of as equals and contraception was considered to be obscene at the time. In fact, she provokes a hostile reaction among Christian leaders that considered her concepts for birth control to be offensive and evil to society. Her advocacy work drew controversy from political followers that criticized her association with science to be immoral for seeking to improve or change the human population. She was often criticized and associated which eugenics, the branch of science that believed in improving the human species through selective mating. However her goal was to allow women to have control over how many children
She continues her piece with another appeal to logic by proving that the Bible was “wrong” on previous “issues”. Navratilova points out that the Bible “justified slavery” and denied “women the right to vote” amongst other things. She describes how she believes that fundamentalists have been on the wrong side of the past “over and over again” and that she believes that they are once again on the “wrong side”. Navratilova aims to make the reader feel as if the Bible isn’t such a reliable source to determine what can be consider right and wrong. She uses both appeals to logic to strengthen her argument and to attempt to influence the audience into believing that marriage is more of a “contract” than a religious