Jean Jacques Rousseau Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality

“I still insist, that not only the virtue, but the knowledge of the two sexes should be the same in nature…and that women, considered not only as moral, but rational creatures, ought to endeavor to acquire human virtues by the same means as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind of half being, one of Rousseau's wild chimeras” (38).

Most importantly for Rousseau, however, is not necessarily how history lets him see how men might have been or how history lets him strike a balance between grasping the intricacy of human history and succeeding fluidly from one thought to another; it is how framing his work in such a way lets him give the greatest demonstrative proof of the point he makes. The first part of the work consists in a history of mankind until the institution of the social contract, and it reads easily and freely, just as man in Rousseau’s conception was in those days. The second part of the Second Discourse, which deals with the critique of the social contract itself, however, reads much more heavily, as if Rousseau were attempting to give the reader a taste of the gravity the social contract itself imposes upon man. The opening lines of the second half already launch his scathing attack on civil society by associating this notion with a man who takes advantage of his fellow men:

Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality of Men, discusses the beginning and development of inequality of individuals. Rousseau seeks to discern whether the unequal treatment of men is dictated by natural laws or if it is a man made creation. When Rousseau analyzes humans in the state of nature, he claims we are all animalistic by nature. Humans in the state of nature are motivated by self-preservation much like animals and also pity. The difference between man and animals according to Rousseau is man’s perfectibility. Because man has very minimal needs in the state of nature, no concept of morality and limited interaction with other individuals, he is generally happy. Because in the state of nature man embodies the quality of perfectibility, he is able to adapt with his environment. As nature drives men to leave certain areas it forces them to learn new skills as they come in to contact with one another more often. As man connects with more and more individuals around him he becomes aware that he has more needs. As men begin to live in societies with more people they start comparing themselves to those around them and self-preservation and pity are no longer their main goals. Now, they have to do more work in order to be happy such as raise to greater heights then their fellow humans. Moral inequality is created as division of labor and property rights are invented. Owning property allows the rich to take advantage of the poor, leading to unstable relations

Feminism is the fight for equality between the sexes. It can be dated back to the mid-19th century with women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The first wave feminist procured the right to vote for American women. The following second and third waves built upon what the founding feminists created. The second wave of feminism was set off by the disenchantment women across America were experiencing. This disenchantment was caused by the nuclear family and the roles that the women in the 1950s were thrust into. The second wave is said to have lasted from the 1960s-1980s. Sometime after the 1980s, most likely the early to mid-1990s, third wave feminists began to rear their heads. The third wave built upon the advancements made

What is it that separates and elevates human beings from the rest of the animal world? It is the ability to logically explain an action, decision, or conviction; it is the capacity to reason. As Rousseau states, “Only reason teaches us good from evil” (Wollstonecraft 238). According to him, as well as countless other intellectuals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, through the exercise of reason men become moral and political agents. Of course, this Enlightenment theory does not include women. Rousseau declares his opinion of the female, “O how lovely is her ignorance!” (253) The woman is the man's fantasy, the man's student, the man's plaything. Controlled,

As amour-propre is the main drive for distinction and self-importance, competition between humans becomes more violent and deceitful which creates a greater degree of inequality within society. Moreover, as the sentiment is an artificial and reflective trait, it could be described as morally unjustified. The artificial trait is highlighted by Rousseau when he writes ‘’amour-propre is a purely relative and factitious feeling which arises in the state of society’’ (Rousseau, f/n pg.73); it is due to the need for comparison with other human beings that it arises only in society and the coming together of human beings. It is this correlation that the trait has with society that leads it to having a significant role within the development of society.

Throughout my life, certain identities have remained consist. And these identities have come to shape my perspectives and my needs and wants within American culture. Typically, my social

Rousseau also suggests that in modern society, men are unequal because of dependency or "moral and political inequality" (101). The men with power and status control and manipulate others into lives under themselves. Those under then have to act not on their own will and freedom, but subject themselves to those atop. Those being controlled are like puppets on a stage that are not able to think and make choices for themselves and thus, never know who they truly are since they are always doing and saying things to please others. The problem with this is that such a person is confused where he is in life and is constantly under social pressures. Thus, Rousseau argues that "rather than subjecting themselves to a universal dependence and obliging themselves to receive everything from those who do not obligate themselves to give them anything" (128), why not look to the savage man? Savage man does not have such pressures and constraints.

The club that Rousseau would support would be Bros . This club has a specific gender, which is male. “I may be no better, but at least I am different” (Rousseau). In shorter words, it would be pleasing to be unique and not be the same as others. Some girls want to be in Bros but they do not join because there are only males

Is love a societal construct or is it natural? Before society was formed man lived in a savage state, also referred to as the state of nature, and slowly evolved to what today we call modern man. Through this process language, tools, and reason were all developed and in turn helped to form society; but where did love come into play? In the book Discourse on the Origin of Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau argues that love is not natural, because it only further hinders man and does not benefit him. The only contact that man needs to have with women is to reproduce so that generations can continue growing and evolve.

To begin, inequality remains an injustice in which society strives to avoid because it often addresses the definitive distinction between the wealthy, and impoverished, oppressing those who are slaves to the rich. Rousseau indicates the inequalities of society when he states, “...Labour became necessary; and boundless forests became smiling fields, which it was found necessary to water with human sweat; and in which slavery and misery were soon seen to sprout out and grow with the fruits of the earth” (Rousseau [1761] 2004). Thus, Rousseau indicates how slavery became essential to human life, and that without the existence of slavery a civil society would cease to exist. A proper-functioning society only exists if there is slavery, and those

Inequality in a Democratic Society Even before the establishment of democracies worldwide, monarchs have ruled the earth. Meaning, kingship is passed from one generation to another. To the people, kings are anointed by God. As such, disobeying their king would tantamount the disobeying Him. That is why way back then, people regarded their king with all loyalty and respect.

While the second wave seemed centered on the rights of upper middle class white women, the third wave embraced women of all races, classes, and cultures. Many more specialized types of feminism arose from this wave, such as ecofeminism, which combines environmentalism and feminism, and womanism, which is aimed toward the rights of women of color. While the third wave has ended, there are still many active feminist movements happening today.

Now, we have two gender views, dealing with the issue of the harem, in the Western literature: Montesquieu’s view, which presents it in a negative way, and Rousseau’s view, which supports it. Being Enlightenment thinkers, both Rousseau and Montesquieu support the gender politics in Europe at that age, but their presentation of the harem differs. One presents the harem as an ideal place with which the Western woman should follow for her safety, while the other presents it in an exaggerated way, as an oppressive and degrading place, not to let his Western woman avoid or revolt against it, but to rationalize and mitigate the European one. Through his Oriental oppressed harem, Montesquieu tries to convince his Western women with the kinder and gentler suppression of patriarchy at home, and thus, obtain her “willing submission”.(mohja).Besides, he justifies this patriarchal suppression for the Western man: at least our women are "free"; at least our women are autonomous individuals with souls, and not animals; at least we have a single sexual standard; at least we Christians

In light of this change in man’s nature, several of Rousseau’s more shocking claims can be reconciled. The most striking—that man must be “forced to be free” by compelling him to obey if he does not wish to abide by the decision of the general will voluntarily—appears much less paradoxical when viewed in the context of society’s shaping effect on the individual. Rousseau sees human nature as a constantly changing set of predispositions, and law is one of the forces shaping these dispositions. This is most clearly seen in his justification of censorship, in which he contends that “not nature but opinion determines the choice of [people’s] pleasures” and that “when legislation weakens, morals degenerate,” establishing a causative relationship between good laws and good natures (IV.vii.3-4). Thus, for a man to be forced to be free is merely for his nature to be fully