The Western world is full of half truths and half lies, but the most exaggerated claims of all is the new wave of feminism that started in the 90's and has propagated into today, and is generally accepted as some sort of indisputable truth. Let us now dissect the history of feminism, honestly I prefer to call the first waves as women's rights activists, because they were fair and totally legitimate in the search for gender equality, not the feminazi radical beliefs we have today in the West.
There are three waves, the first started in the XIX century and ended around half the XX century, however, the first precursor of the Women's Rights movement was Mary Wollstonecraft.
In her most known work "A Vindication of Rights for Women" she argues that women are in no way inferior to men, but appear to be so because they lack education. She envisions a social order founded in reason, in which men and women have essentially the same rights. As equals.
Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously writes: "Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things; I have already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard? I must therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they have the same simple direction, as that there is a God."
We can, in all certainty, give validity to Wollstonecraft's assertions, she does not state than man and women are "equal" in the literal sense, but that they are rational human beings and should both be treated as such, in accordance to dignity and even common sense. She can be considered the "mother" of Women's rights in general.
Secondly, we have John Stuart Mill and his work "The Subjection of Women" , he states his argument of equality between the sexes. At the time it was published in 1869, it was a declared affront to the European conventions for the status between men and women. Mill attempts to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality.
"Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile - a traditional prejudice. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men. And there would be benefits for society at large - it would double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great effect on human development.
If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests and abilities.
Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also. The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. Mill felt that men and women married to follow customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women, Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands, thereby improving relationships.
Mill attacks marriage laws, which he likens to the slavery of women, "there remain no legal slaves, save the mistress of every house." He alludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery did before it. He also argues for the need for reforms of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business agreement, placing no restrictions on either party. Among these proposals are the changing of inheritance laws to allow women to keep their own property, and allowing women to work outside the home, gaining independent financial stability.
Again the issue of women's suffrage is raised. Women make up half of the population, thus they also have a right to a vote since political policies affect women too. He theorizes that most men will vote for the MPs which will subordinate women, therefore women must be allowed to vote to protect their own interests."
"Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."
He defends three fundamental principles regarding society as a whole:
- Personal Liberty As long as we do not harm others, we should be able to express our own natures, and experiment with our lives
- Liberty to Govern our own Affairs Civilized people are increasingly able to make their own decisions, and protect their own rights. Representative government is also a useful way of getting us to think about the common good.
- Liberty for women as well as men All of Mill's arguments apply to both men and women. Previous ideas about the different natures of men and women have never been properly tested. Women can participate in determining their own affairs too.
As we can easily understand, there are no false dogmas or exaggerated claims in Mill's assertions, we can describe his philosophy regarding women's rights in the following sentence:
"I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely."
This concludes the prologue.
