Caylan Center

Intro to Political Theory

12 April 2017

Making the Case for Feminism

By the middle decades of the nineteenth century, the cause of feminism, the

explicit assertion of the individual autonomy of women, against their husbands, had

clearly emerged. It can be seen in the arguments of individual writers, following Mary

Wollstonecraft and William Thompson, outlining the case for equality from varying

political perspectives. (276, Rendall). Wollstonecrafts call for revolution in female

manners near the end of the eighteenth century is what sparked the feminist idea that

women should behave in ways that represent their true selves and give thought to the

meaning of womanhood (5-8, Herman and Stewart). The differences of politics and

womens experiences as individuals has since been cause of division in the feminist

movement- but does not inherently divorce women from their goal of establishing

wellbeing and equality for women and vulnerable minorities specifically in the same way

egalitarianism does by means of erasure. Becoming unified under one single identity,

i.e. feminist, egalitarianist, is admittedly difficult but I believe that feminism as an

identity and theory has much more to offer marginalized groups than one which is one-

dimensional and lacking in criticism of those causing inequality in the first place.

John Stuart Mill was a prominent feminist writer whose work attacked the idea

that differential moral standards ought to apply to men and women. Influenced by Harriet
Taylor, Mill became sympathetic to the condition of womens treatment, rejecting August

Comtes idea that women were biologically inferior entirely (286, Rendall). The

Revolution of 1848 brought forth a time of explosive feminist beginning, where working-

classes of women began to add their concerns about womens education to their demand

for political and civil equality (291, Rendall). That pursuit for political and civil rights

was a difficult one- one that would not be satisfied by being told they should be equal to

other human beings. Later movements (lead by Susan B. Anthony) in the United States

explored the idea of womens moral superiority and the effects of different measures of

education on the nature of womens wellbeing, finding that the efforts to equalize women

elevated their autonomy and better participation in broad public life as citizens, taking

part in contributing to anti-slavery and other movements towards equality for people

305). Social reformers can then be classified as feminists because of the consequences

of their activities, and not because they share any particular social analysis or critical

spiritThe way feminisms past is understood and interpreted thus informs and is

informed by the ways in which feminism is understood and interpreted in the

present (Stewart, Herman, 9-10). Feminism as a theory, enacted through as a movement

has actualized equality for women and furthered a real sense of better wellbeing in

society.

Egalitarianism: A class of distributive principles, which claim that individuals

should have equal quantities of well-being or morally relevant factors that affect their

life (1, Hirose). Egalitarians believe in the the equal distribution of wellbeing. John

Rawls A Theory o f Justice is a work of philosophy used to examine egalitarianism

principles but Rawls principle of differences doesnt take aim at equality of well-being,

but instead which conditions justify socioeconomic inequality (6, Hirose). Another

theory of egalitarianism is luck egalitarianism, developed from the extensive works of

Ronald Dworkin and later by Richard Arneson and G.A. Cohen (7, Hirose). It furthers

the theory by contributing the notion of responsibility into the idea of distribute justice

and considering the effects of luck and whether or not they are within a persons control,

or thus whether or not inequalities ought to be reduced. The problem with this theorists

principle when compared to feminism is that it considers gender to be irrelevant, not

considering its role in how justice may be unfairly distributed. According to Rawls,

some features of actual individuals are morally irrelevant when we choose the basic

structure of society. These features are individuals position in society (wealth, race, class,

gender, et.), natural endowments, conception of the good life and generation (23.

Hirose).

Rawls second principle is the one which comes closest to addressing the issues of

women in that it proposes that when it comes to social inequalities, the most benefit

ought to be given to the people who are least advantaged (23, Hirose). So, which group

would be considered the least advantaged in society? Rawls suggests one could identify

the least advantaged by comparison of their social primary goods- goods every rational

person would like to have, like income, freedom, and self-respect. Feminists would argue

that according to this rationale, their world view that women are the most marginalized

and at the least advantage is true and should be therefore given at least as much benefit as

men.
 What most theories of egalitarianism seem to aim to do is improve the condition

of the worst off and thereby lessen inequality, but not unconditionally pursue strict

equality. Maybe the most interesting objection to egalitarianism is based in the thesis that

all people are, in fact, equal. An objection is that the egalitarian distributive justice is

insufficiently considerate to both deservingness and human agency.

Achieving justice in the name of greater equality for people whose inequality

stems from a metric: A lack of resources and wealth or capacity to perform certain

tasks (Hirose 24). Gender as a topic of inequality is largely unaddressed. Feminism

recognizes that its possible not all persons are already being treated equally and is

arguably more sensitive in its awarding recognition and deservingness of justice to

groups of people whose suffering is not necessarily caused by a metric of inequality. I

think that womens equality must be actively addressed and the concerns of marginalized

people given specific attention, if they are to be given equal justice in an unequal

society- different humans all experience different expectations in life. The experience of a

womans denial of equality in life is dramatically different than that of a man (and such

could also be said for that of a white woman versus a black woman, for example.)

Feminism is the most useful tool and has most merit because it specifically

targets their issues and recognizes we must go above the vague and broad: Everyone is

equal to say: Everyone is not equal, and here is how we can dismantle the problems

created by that. Egalitarianism, in my opinion, is not concerned with a true, genuine

wellbeing of others but instead is directed at ensuring everyone is at an equilibrium of

equality, even if that position in which everyone is equal could mean everyone is in a

state of suffering and a lowered quality of life. Egalitarianism addresses a broad sense of

equality for all humans but by doing so, erases anyone identifying problems of their

existence to be anything other than a human problem, which leaves those people

without any institution. Feminism unites women to speak about their experiences of

discrimination and empowers them to relate to other women, whereas Egalitarianism

does not; but instead calls to unite the individual as part of humanity- a concept which

is probably most appealing to a person whose identity is not involuntarily built through

the inconvenience and prejudice of minor and major institutional injustices- a call that

marginalized people dont pick up. Individuals in society seek to have their humanity

actualized to be able to reach ones full potential (which egalitarianism does not prevent

but also does not explicitly promote, when it comes to the concept of gender) and to be

equal in the sense that they are free to pursue a life that brings happiness. Women and

minorities cannot always attribute their poor circumstances to bad luck, per Rawls

theories, nor would they be likely find an inclusive community of people to welcome

them. Feminism has made actual its ideas and concepts and realized equality for people,

where egalitarianism has not.

As a woman, I have found much more value in a theory that may be used to examine

some of my own life circumstances and why others may treat me differently. It offers

ideas of how to conquer these differences (and how to be a better ally and further equality

for the women around me who are suffering in other unjust ways) than a theory that
explains that I ought to be equal to others and may just be experiencing instances of

sexism due to some bad luck (by which gender is considered morally irrelevant).

Marginalized groups cannot afford the time to sit around and theorize about their own

injustices or to decide whether or not they are deserving of justice when compared to the

rest of humanity- sexism can lead to the individuals economic destruction, violence, rape

and death. It is the ability of a privileged person to be able to consider egalitarianism as a

valuable tool for women- someone who is not consciously aware of their own ability to

move freely in the world and thus unaware (and inconsiderate) of those who cannot. It is

for these reasons that I make the case that feminism has much more to offer women and

minorities than Egalitarianism.

References

Herrmann, Anne, and Abigail J. Stewart. Theorizing Feminism. 5, 7 ,8. 1st ed. 2017.
Print.

Hirose, Iwao. Egalitarianism. 1, 6, 7, 23, 24. 1st ed. Print.

Rendall, Jane. The Origins Of Modern Feminism. 276, 286, 291. 1st ed. 2017. Print.
References