Pursuing Equal Opportunities By Lesley Jacobs

Judith Sargent Murray’s On the Equality of the Sexes reveals the struggles women had in the 17th-18th centuries when it came to equal education opportunities. Women were expected to become people of domestication while men had many opportunities to expand their minds and be ambitious, and be leaders. Women were expected to focus on taking care of their family, not to have minds of their own. They wanted change.

Judith Sargent Murray was a revolutionary woman- born into a socially prominent and wealthy family during the start of the American Revolution, Murray was recognized for her intellect at a young age and given an education along with her brother. Later in life, she had her written works widely published and read during a time when women’s voices were seen as fundamentally inferior to those of men. In one of her most influential and strongly opinionated works, ‘On the Equality of the Sexes’, Murray makes a strong case for the spiritual and intellectual equality of men and women, arguing that women and men are born equal, but that men are simply given more education and

Rawls’ principles of justice also take individual wellbeing into account. The competing theory of the day – utilitarianism, summarized in the slogan ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, did not consider the good of individuals in society. Rawls’ theory, however, caters not only to individuals, but also to minorities who might suffer at the hands of utilitarianism. A Utilitarian might argue that Rawls’ assured individual liberties are not conducive to the betterment of society as a whole, in that individual welfare may sometimes conflict with communal welfare. This argument is somewhat negated on consideration of the annulment of disparities, which is not only beneficial to individuals, who could potentially possess some handicap either socially, economically or physically, but also to society, as it is the meritorious individuals who induce economic and social growth. Relative wealth, health and social position are mitigated in the interests of fairness. It stands to reason that the society in question will prosper from a system of formal equality, as it encourages excellence within the community. It also stimulates competition – rational individuals will naturally want more primary goods for themselves , and will be willing to compete for these. This is vital to a healthy economy because it prevents stagnating monopolization by individuals.

My experience, or “biography” with gender and gender inequality can be attributed to what C. Wright Mills’s calls “history”, or the social world. According to Mills, our individual lives interact with society to formulate our experiences. This perspective “enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society” (C. Wright Mills 3). As discussed in Module Twelve: Gender, Work, and Family, women and men are placed into two separate spheres; the private sphere and the public sphere. My life experiences relate to the private sphere, which is associated with femininity and domestic work. Society reserves the public sphere for men only, in which they are dominant and “breadwinners”. This is the sphere that I have been conditioned by society to not pursue.

As long as an American woman is putting in the same amount of hours with the same qualifications and experience in the same occupation as an American male, and yet taking home a wage that is any lower, she is not being treated fairly as an equal. Contrary to many arguments, it’s undeniable that a wage gap exists, and while there are various ideas as to the most probable cause, there is no reason why this gap should continue to go uncorrected or unchanged. Our government should take concrete steps to close the gender wage gap because it violates women’s rights and equality.

Every writer has a story to tell. No matter gender, religion, or any other classification they all share equal importance. When readers overlook those things, they find great pieces of literature such as Mary Rowlandson’s A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson and Judith Sargent Murray’s On the Equality of the Sexes. Unbiased readers get to experience the tragic story of Mary’s life in captivity alongside the revelations of Native American stereotypes and Judith’s take on the unfair world of being an educated woman in America. Although they are talking about two different topics they both share the similar conclusion that Americas identity revolves around using stereotypes to defend against anything greater

In this short story, Equal Opportunity, written by Walter Mosely, Socrates Furtlow, an ex-convict, faces the dilemma of getting a job. Socrates served 27 years in prison after killing two of his friends while drunken. Furtlow was now living life as a bumb who went around selling old bottles and cans to make a living. This story tells his struggle to find honorable work as a black man in society because of his background. He ended up lying on his application because he was afraid of what people might think. Although there was discrimination and disrespect not being completely honest with people may come back to haunt you later.

Stewart Lansley, author of ‘The Cost of Inequality: Why Economic Equality is Essential for Recovery’ speaks very seriously in “The Hourglass Society” article about inequality.

We live in a society that holds equality as a paramount value. Most, if not all, of the Western World generally believes in equality for its citizens, not as a privilege but as a fundamental right, and not to be infringed upon except for under the most egregious of circumstances. Not only is it a right, but it is a necessity, as claimed by philosopher Simone Weil, “Equality is a vital need of the human soul” (Simone Weil, 1940). In her essay “Equality”, Weil attempts to reconcile mankind’s need for equality with the preexisting inequalities in our societies. She does this by explaining two types of equality that she has defined: quantitative inequality, the inevitable inequalities due to the conditions of privilege or disadvantage under which we are born or find ourselves victim due to no fault of our own, and qualitative inequality, the inequalities contributed exclusively to the values which we have placed on one another as a result of our quantitative inequalities. By this definition, then, Weil communicates to the reader that equality is, in many ways, a function of the respect we express to one another and that every person is due the same amount of respect from individuals as well as institutions and customs; however, though contrary to intuition, Weil’s argument that there may be a certain level of inequality essential to creating the balance between the two types on inequality has altered my understanding of the justice system.

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

The concept of equality is multi-faceted and widely debated among scholars. While there is no singular definition for equality, equality deals with the distribution of some “thing” in a specific domain. For this paper, equality will be narrowed down to the domains of economic and political. It is essential to note that distinct types of equality can become conditions for equality in a different domain. In this case, economic equality will be analyzed as a condition for political equality. How is it exactly that economic equality can undermine political equality? By answering this question, this paper will prove that economic equality is a necessary pre-condition for political equality. I will do this by analyzing the political writings of

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than

Gender Inequality is when men and women are separated by the belief that one gender is superior to the other in forms that deny full participation or restrictions to one’s ability to live an equal life. Ever since the dawn of time there has been one gender superior to the other and to this day there are still gender differences in the political, economical and physical life of a male versus a female. Charlotte Perkins Gilman is one theorist that I chose to help explain this trend of males having power over women. Gilman was an evolutionist theorist; her point of view helps me explain how gender inequality came about and how women are viewed during the late

Contemporary theorists’ debate over ways to increase equality, whilst not taking away freedoms and reducing the efficiency of society

second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the Difference Principle)” (Rawls, 63). This meant that there needed to be fair and equal opportunity for all to obtain the best jobs in the public and private sector of society. It also meant that education needed to be accessible for all people. He also made clear that the lower class of society or the ones with the least advantages should be compensated or concessions should be made for them in the quest for fairness. In other words economic inequalities were ok if they benefited society and especially the ones with the least advantages. Rawls concentrated on the