Custom «Mary Wollstonecraft» Essay Paper

Introduction

Wollstonecraft dedicated most of her studies to demonstrating how modern law and social relations were unvirtous. This means that they emanated from and generated unnatural distinctions including those founded on sex. Nevertheless, she also identified the distinctions derived from family organization, position in society, property ownership, age, religion, the clergy, race and the military. According to Wollstonecraft, the aptitude for reason does not differ naturally between men and women. Moreover, she does not differentiate public and private associations, organizations or virtue (Falco, 35). She deemed that these unnatural distinctions came about due to civilization. She further alleged that moralists permits men to farm, as nature instructs, diverse qualities, and take up different characters changed nearly to infinity. A virtuous man may be gay or serious, have no self-control or belief of his own, and be firm until he is nearly overbearing or have a choleric or a positive constitution. However, all women attributes to yielding gentleness and kind conformity by humility and obedience (Rothschild, 27).

•  

  0

  Preparing Orders

•  

  0

  Active Writers

•  

  0%

  Positive Feedback

•  

  0

  Support Agents

 

Title of your paper

Type of service

Type of assignment

Number of pages

-

+

Academic level

Timeframes

Spacing

Currency

USD

• Total price

Continue to order

 

In the historical and the modern society, these unnatural differences between women and men hinder the development of good features in all the affected parties and hence distort the social relationships. Wollstonecraft paralleled the frequently condemned disparities based on property, rank or position in her attempt to defend her gender distinctions. According to her, women and men exhibited different temperaments. She claims that in the modern society there is a notable men's inferiority (Sapiro, 118). For Wollstonecraft, manipulative seduction and intimidation in sexuality is a regular danger resulting from encouraging the unnatural distinctions between men and women. Incorrectly categorizing particular virtues, mostly chastity, honor and corruptions of modesty as sexual virtues created these unnatural differences. She criticized the widespread teaching of principles to women and men, which frequently succeeded moral requirements through the rules to standardize women's behaviors and to maintain the honor of men (130). Wollstonecraft based her argument on the strong principle that both men and women owned the same "mental capacities" and the same souls and hence the same human rights should be consented (Rothschild, 11).

Mary acknowledged the lack of freedom for women in relation to men. In the social institutions and in the country as a whole, men had official authority over women. Women could not even possess assets if they were married and were prohibited from nearly all ranks of authority while men's rights might be dependent on their position or property. Her objection, as usual, against such reliance rested on its effect on the possible development of human beings and their way toward virtue (Sapiro, 118). According to Wollstonecraft, governance of all social relationships and institutions is by corrupt beliefs of selfishness and disparity (Falco, 36). She connects the liberation of women with the larger political dominion in two ways. First, she proposes the refusal by kings and nobles of their hereditary trappings is the hindrance for women's delight of their natural equality. She argues that the mirror of the larger dictatorship of politics emanates from the dictatorship of men, who at home bully over their wives, daughters and sisters. Wollstonecraft emphasizes that the society requires the example of leaders to embrace equality as encouragement and motivation while rejecting the bogus distinctions (56).

Wollstonecraft concurred that in the description of a skilled woman, gentleness is the main trait in comparison to the trait usually promoted in women. This was the submissive manner of dependence rather than the gentleness of behaviors, patience and tolerance, which are qualities that speak about grandeur. This bogus education makes women to become absurd beings, so weak that they hold on to their natural defender while continuing to become more and more reliant on men (Sapiro, 123). She portrayed weakness and dependence as part of a corrupt and complicated social system and not just as a complete trait of an individual, in this case implying sexual conquest (124).

According to Wollstonecraft, there should be establishment of individual's conduct on the same standards, which has the same purpose. Moreover, the good features must be the same in quality if not by degree or virtue if women are by nature inferior to men. Wollstonecraft affirms the significance of women to society as a whole and emphasizes the importance of their involvement to the public and private realm. This is in contrast to Rousseau's opinion that the laws of nature dictate women as inactive, weak, and hence submissive to men. She deemed women had the ability to be as "strong and active" within the public as men an idea that ran against common thinking at the time, she advised women to take accountability for themselves (Rothschild, 28).

Sapiro admits that women are in serious danger, not of diminishing but of unnatural distinctions driving them by considering sexuality and virtue. The unnatural distinctions create a war between men and women putting women significantly more at risk than men. A woman's chastity is her reputation and a symbol of her value. A woman's exclusion from reputable society based on her unchastity condemns her forever to trade on her body (133). Wollstonecraft portrayed the life cycle of women as an education for reliance creating unnatural distinctions between women and men strengthening and maintaining through partial rules and traditions.  This was more significant where girls were to be more submissive to their parents more than their brothers were (153).

Wollstonecraft points out that there is a natural inequality between women and men. This is by acceptance of unity between the body and the mind and the centrality of strength as an aspect of good value. She declared that the only genuine basis, on which the power of the sex entails, is that bodily strength appears to provide man a natural power over woman. Actually, physical strength differences, as usually understood, did not fall down into natural inequality of mind for Wollstonecraft. This is because she understood a diverse kind of strength accustomed the mind (Sapiro, 120).

Conclusion

Wollstonecraft has been in the forefront in the struggle for the rights of women. In her writings, she clearly points out that women have the aptitude and capability to handle diverse positions in the society and to carry out even complex roles. She argues that the society has developed unnatural distinctions between women and men that discriminate against women by regarding them as weak and inadequate. The society should understand that these distinctions are not genuine and they just discriminate against women. The society should eradicate the traditions held about women in order to create a harmonious environment where both sexes exercise their will and achievements.