Liberal feminists believe that oppression and inequality must be justified. In other words, any inequality between genders must be explained and justified, in order for it to be accepted by the liberal feminists. According to our textbook, the liberal feminism originated from the social contract theories. Such theories state that all forms of social domination or authority must be justified, according to the textbook. Liberal feminists hold a view that every member of the society should be equal.
They also insist that the violent forms of oppression should be controlled throughout the society, for they find domestic violence and violence against women to an unjustifiable form of oppression. They also argue that the development of an individual is usually forced into a gender channel, where members of different sex groups are gradually taught and instructed to follow a certain particular gender pattern. Marxist feminism supports the idea that the biological difference cannot justify any form of oppression and inequality in human societies.
Marxist feminists do believe that biological differences are not responsible for oppression and inequality between sexes. Instead, Marxist feminists argue that it is the class structure that is responsible for the oppression and inequality between sexes. Particularly, Marxist feminists state that the capitalism is primarily responsible for the class structure in our society. They further challenge the idea that the equality is possible in the capitalistic system. Common: Both types of feminism do agree that inequality and oppression between sexes is social rather than being biological.
Both systems advocate equality for members of both sexes. Contrast: Marxist feminists argue that the equality between sexes cannot happen within the capitalistic society. They further argue that the basis of oppression and inequality is founded by the very idea of private property. Liberal feminists would disagree, for they consider the private property and affairs outside the scope of their control. They would argue that it is the social education and development that responsible for sex based inequalities. Proponent of Marxist Feminism:
The proponent would argue that a materialistic possession of vitally important to the community resources could lead to the possessive attitudes towards women. If one can decide whether the community lives or dies, then why can’t one decide whether a person lives or dies? Again, the proponent will state that any form of oppression has to have a root or foundation, and they would argue that the concept of capitalism is such foundation for further exploitation. Proponent of Liberal Feminism: The proponent would state that it is unarguable that two new babies of different sex are equal.
The proponent would state that only further social development shapes such babies into an inferior and a superior. Further on, the proponent would demand a justification for the very idea of gender inferiority. He or she would say that different educational and developmental methods lead to different levels of intelligence and thinking. He or she would say that the very idea that the biological gender difference determines the social status is unjustifiable and should be stopped by authorities. Similarly, authorities should watch for violations of the gender equality within homes, schools, public and private places.
Marxist Feminism Critic: I would like to say that ever since humans became a society, the idea of private property was born. As an individual and as a group, humans tend to claim certain objects as private and public property. Your followers argue that the idea of the private property causes inequality. I might partially agree with it. How does one oppress others, if one owns a house, a bed, a chair, or a toothbrush? Then maybe there are different levels of importance among private property. Maybe owning a storage of grain resources are more important to the society then an ownership of the same value in the hat production.
I also see a loophole in your theory. If none is allowed to own an important piece of property or interest, then what stops one from controlling it without the ownership? Communist countries, government officials, federal judges are such examples. Let’s say that there is no inequality among the federal judges, and then we would be wrong. There is inequality based on the biological gender within the judiciary system of the United States. You say that the capitalistic structure of the nation and the idea of the private property is the cause of the oppression and inequalities, but you fail to mention your solution.
Can people exist without personal control or possession of some sort of material or power like property? I think that a personal influence in such spheres is unavoidable, and that varying it from one form into another won’t continue. I don’t think so, and that is the reason behind my skepticism on the Marxist feminism. You state that if we live in a socialistic system, the oppression and inequality would disappear. I think that your point of view is wrong, for other countries had and have lived in such structure, yet the oppression and inequality against women is still there. Liberal Feminism Critic:
I know that you state that all should be equal in a sense when one’s inequality is determined by one’s physical abilities. I think so too, but I have a big problem with your theory. I do think that biological start does determine certain physiological properties of the person. I have read an article about two twin brothers. During the circumcision, one brother lost his penis, for the doctor made an error with his burning tool. The parents decided to bring the boy up as a girl, and the boy’s genitals were reconstructed into girls form. The girl grew older, yet she could not partake her social duties and take her place in the society.
Much later she found out that she was originally a boy, then she demanded that her procedure is reversed. Now he lives as a grown man with a family. An example like this is a proof that in one particular case the biological difference showed up and took over the social upbringing routines. I am not sure whether this can be applied to everyone or not, but in one particular case the biology mattered. Also you advocate the authoritarian control within the society and private homes. I believe that such control is a negative influence on equality. Many of us are very different from each other.
What one considers normal is far away from such for another. You advocate that the domestic violence should be punished more severe. I think that such action would only aggravate the domestic violence to another, more drastic level. My theory indicates that the very foundation of our society is the problem, yet you point of view takes no account of such matters. My fellow feminists and me state that the problem is not in the social upbringing of the children to follow different sociological gender patterns, but that it is instead is in the foundations of our community.
You pay no attention to such fundamental structure, yet you are trying to fight the oppression and inequality, which is the most basic properties of human relationship. PART II: The Feminist Majority Report: Corporate Women and the Mommy Track By Katherine Spiller Katherine Spiller writes that many women are denied their corporate and business progress based on the faulty myth of mother related expenses. The author also writes that women are kept in lower corporate positions due to their mother like nature.
She underlines that such actions are not explained through sex oppression and discrimination, but they are justified by the myth of the mother-employee. The author lists different aspects of corporate myth about women, and she criticizes them from a liberal point of view. First she says that many people believe that women will eventually be incorporated in the corporate America and be giving equal to men opportunities. She says that this is not true, for women have been in business for a long time now. The position of women is still in the lower end of the corporate America, and their educational advancements are powerless to their progress.
She brings up statistics that women represent about one percent of the Corporate Officers at the vice presidential level and higher. She states that it will be another half of a millennium, before women reach a fifty percent level. Similar picture is seen in Corporate Boards and other important positions. Today’s CEO women have very unorthodox to the public paths to their success. In other words they have not reached their positions in the Corporate America through conventional and commonly accepted ways.
