Scholars As Well As Public Figures Have Suggested That

Steinem is an American feminist, activist, writer and editor who has attempted to address institutional inequalities of sex, race, sexuality and class since the 1960s. Therefore, based on her personal experiences, Steinem knows what she is talking about when making such subjective claims about how women are perceived inferior compared to men, an issue that is yet present in our society today. This effective use of ethos helps the overall quality of the essay because Steinem has over 50 years of knowledge, involvement and awareness on this topic. Put more simply this is her area of expertise. On page 342, Steinem says, “The more I learned, the more I realized that belief in great strength differences between women and men was itself part of the gender mind-game.”

In the world today, women have a say in what they want to do and things that they desire to do. Back in the day, before the 1800’s, women had to be submissive to their male counterparts and do according to what was required of them. In the end, this led to the demeaning of the woman and the concept that women were inferior to men. Even though this concept and perception changed, there have been some countries and regions of the world that have not yet recognized the equality that women deserve. Such areas do not allow women to vote, attend school, have a say in the community, and the women are at the mercy of their husbands, fathers or male superiors (Hartmann, Susan M).

This article shows the many different ways in which the makeup of Family has changed in the 20th century as an Institution. It shows many ways in which Nellie McClung has fought for every definition of family to be accepted. The definition of family is a group of persons who form a household. This definition has changed greatly over time, it used to be more specifically anyone who was biologically related to you. This article goes over the main points of social change that have occurred in this primary social Institution. These changes include social customs concerning dating, divorce, family, marriage, women's rights. It also looks at people’s social life and customs that are now considered “normal”, as well as children and family. It also looks at the global impact that occurs from each of these points that have changed the way we view this primary institution and the way that we define family. The author concludes that during the 20th

Democratic societies view fathers as equals to their sons. The father limits the freedoms of his son for a short time period, then willingly releases his authority once the child reaches adulthood. The son readily accepts his newfound freedom. Though all democratic men follow their own paths, only some aristocratic men are leaders, while others readily follow. In an aristocracy, sons lack an identity that is separate from their fathers. But, the democratic government merely perceives the father as an older and wiser citizen, in comparison to his sons (559). In this form of government, “mores” unite all men and the “general notion of a superior becomes weaker and less clear” (560). The head of the aristocratic family has a much more extensive and respected power than a democratic father. Tradition and ancestry play a larger role in determining the actions and beliefs of an aristocratic society. Aristocratic sons show immense respect for their ancestors and seek to continue the path that history has laid for them. The father’s link to the family’s ancestry allows him to serve as the family’s “organ of tradition”, which causes the son to both respect and rely on his father’s guidance (560). In contrast, democratic sons allow the past to inspire, not completely guide their futures. Democratic sons are typically not reluctant to go against tradition. As a

The struggle for women to be treated equally as humans never ends. In fact, great strides have been made since the mid-19th century: the first organization to advocate for and draw the world’s attention to females’ equality – namely the International Council of Women – was formed by the U.S and several countries in Europe. And, fortunately, dedication to pursuing women’s rights is still unchanging even at present. Hillary Clinton, a well-known American politician, has devoted her career to supporting women: selected as the first chair of the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, she aimed to provide all women equality and to secure their full and equal political participation in democracy. At the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women’s Plenary Session, held in Beijing, China, in 1995, Hillary Clinton’s effective use of repetition in her speech, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights,” calls the general public’s attention to the importance of women’s equality, emphasizing women’s worldwide contribution and the violence from which women have suffered.

In the United States and the majority of other countries, a woman has never been president: men still dominate the economy. These factual sociological, economic and political conditions have a direct impact on what projects women organize and lead.

For centuries women had had to bow to men they were taught never to speak unless called upon or spoken to. That their sole purpose in life was to be a homemaker; a servant to the men in their lives fathers, brothers, sons. As time progressed women began to fight for their right to receive equal rights, education and vote. But that wasn’t enough in the year 2013 women still made eighty cents to every man’s dollar but that all changed one day. Women who were sick of being oppressed had risen up against the male chauvinism within society of the united states.The first measure was to take all men out of all positions of decision-making power immediately, and of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever. The men of society were

In 1848 women around the world came together to form what we call a women’s revolution. Women decided to step and say how much they know they deserve the same rights as men. We are all equal, no matter what our gender is. We are all born with rights that aren’t able to be taken away and those come with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the government sees someone being untreated by these rights, they are meant to do something about it. They are meant to annihilate the persons causing the unjust treatment. But instead they have not. We have this mistake of redoing past history and this is just the same. It shouldn’t be okay for a man to own a woman in any way, or affect what she does and how she does it. He, referring to the male, has made her have no voice. She’s voiceless in front of the man and not just her husband, but any male. You’ve taken away women’s rights to give them to less intelligent and more ignorant men? That does not make sense, when the woman can be just as smart, if not smarter. She has no representation. If married, which is supposed to be a glorious thing, she is in the eyes of the law non-existent and in the eyes of marriage her husband is her master instead of a husband. Him being the master justifies him to take away her rights and it is okay. She can in the eyes of her husband commit crime and its okay, she cannot own property, she cannot make as much money as the man can if any at all.

In Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s, “The Rights of Women”, she introduces the idea of how developed countries, like England, believe that both men and women receive equal treatment, yet it’s evident that this is not true. Thinking back to any point in time one can come up with a multitude of ways women’s rights differ from men’s. For instance, in many cultures women exist only as the child bearers, homemakers, and wives/servants of their husbands, nothing more. Why? Because many men rationalize their ideas about women by enlisting physical and mental explanations as to why women are less superior than men. The idea that men hold more intelligence and strength, while women assert a more passive and caring nature, accounts for much of this inequality. Khan paints a picture of this inequality proclaiming, “A women is like the left hand and a man the right hand.” Essentially, women are less valuable than men, they are only to do simple tasks and help the man with the things he cannot find the time to do. This, in turn, creates a hierarchy of sex with men always inhabiting the top rung of the hierarchy ladder.

Patriarchal domination causes the oppression of women worldwide. As time has gone on, there continuously seems to be arguments as to how men and women are different and therefore unfit to attain the same rights. The differences between the genders can be either biological or socially constructed. However, these views are important to feminists because they make all the difference in the way they articulate their arguments and fight for equality. In bell hook’s essay, “feminism: a transformational politic” she argues “the insistence on difference as the factor which becomes the occasion for separation and domination and suggest the differentiation of status between males and females globally is an indication that patriarchal domination of

As Lyndon Baines Johnson says, “The family is the corner stone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled. So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together, all the rest — schools, playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern — will never be enough” (Danes). He believed that family is the base of the society. The way that family is set up affects children in all ways. Family structure is very important and that no matter what we do,

According to Crittenden and Wright (1999) one strategy to keep patriarchy in place is by using violence against women, this is not to say that all men use violence to maintain the male domination of society (Macionis and Plummer, 1998). Nevertheless there is evidence that suggests that the top levels of society, especially at the level where laws are made that the patriarchy are in control. An example of this is in 1991 rape was still considered legal within a marriage in England and Wales, this can be seen as an acceptance and observance of patriarchal ideas (Painter, 1995). This lack of law change may be because of the majority of the top jobs in government are held by men, from this it can be argued that the fact that rape was legal in marriage up to 1991 shows the male domination of the legal and political systems that women have to live under. This is in contrast with Australian law which removed the marital exemption from cases of marital rape at the earlier time of 1981 (Larcombe and Heath 2012). It is said by feminists that male power and dominance is throughout society and that domestic violence is a direct result of the patriarchal view of women’s place in society (Aitken, 2007). There is an opposing view to what causes men to become domestically violent, that it is because of an individual’s problems rather

“Without doubt, the last century has witnessed an unprecedented expansion of women’s rights, in one of the most profound social revolutions the world has ever seen. One hundred years ago, only two countries allowed women to vote. Today, that right is virtually universal. Millions of men and women around the world today advocate to end violence against women, and a record two-thirds of countries have passed laws against it.” – Michelle Bachelet, UN Women Executive Director

It must be said that men of power create the structure of life--which is not necessarily profitable or fitting to women, nor to the human race in its entirety. Women do not live in this structure:“They lead beautiful lives--women. Lives not only divorced from, but irrevocably excommunicated from, all reality” (156).

At the fourth U.N. conference, Hillary Clinton gave a powerful speech about women’s rights. Hillary Clinton emphasizes that although women have been given more freedom and rights as the years went by, it still isn’t enough. In her speech, Clinton goes on to say that “if women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, their communities and nations do as well”. Hillary Clinton used appeals to emotions, logic, and ethics to convey to the audience that women’s rights should be normalized and embraced around the world.