Liberalism And FeminsimEssay Preview: Liberalism And FeminsimReport this essayLiberalism for Feminism“Liberalism is a political philosophy that stresses the importance of individual rights, government by consent of the people, and private property” (Sinopoli 6). During the establishment of the United States, the founders debated issues relating to this word when deciding how to structure a new government upholding the ideas behind liberalism. The purpose of creating this new government was to design a government unlike the Parliament of England that had become corrupt and was not performing as it was supposed to. Although the basic idea of the Parliament is good, it has faults, which were reason enough to desire a new government. It wanted to impose new laws for the inhabitants of the colonies, but they had no say in this law being created. The Parliament much like a republic works with representation. Not only were these colonists not being represented but they were practically being dictated from a government, which was hundreds of miles away and had no idea of what was going on there. Therefore the founders using liberalism as a foundation they worked on creating a new government for themselves. The decided government for this new nation was a constitutional democracy with a constitution that could be amended as culture and values changed. One group to question the liberalism of the Constitution was the womens suffrage movement of the 1960s, which was building strong support and arguments for equality among men and women through the ideas of liberalism.
During the 1960s, the womens rights movement reached its zenith. Liberalism was again, as it had been many times before, questioned. The idea claims the “importance of individual rights,” yet it seemed that only men had rights. Or, at least, men had every right and women had few. Another idea of liberalism is “government by the consent of the people.” Women make up a large part of society and were not granting consent for many of the oppressions, which they were facing for example unequal employment opportunities. In 1966, an organization called the National Organization for Women (NOW) was formed. “The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men” (Sinopoli 150). These men and women were uniting as one voice that they hoped the government would listen to and would grant them the rights they wanted – the rights that these women deserved. In the “Statement of Purpose” the group outlines the reasons why women are deserving of the rights they are asking for. One example is that women used to stay at home to bear and raise the children, do house chores, and keep the family in check. However, due to technology and other advances, the actual amount of work that women had to do around the house changed, and lessened the time that it took to complete these tasks. With more time available and more single mothers, women needed the rights that men had enjoyed since the beginning of the new American government. One of the problems was the employment opportunities for women. It was just finding a job and being hired but the pay was less than what a man would be paid for doing the same job. With more single mothers in society, there had to be some type of job security and standard of living to be met. But it was difficult for women to make a strong argument that would be compelling enough to be heard by the government.
One reason that women were having difficulty getting their desired results is stated in Madisons Federalist No. 10, “the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that the measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” (Sinopoli 50), which seems to contradict liberalism. If the government is to rule by consent of the people and they only rule by the majority then the minority may not be and is probably not granting consent. Madison states the reality of the situation to inspire people to use their abilities and powers to do something about this problem involving the chance that majority can take control over minorities. Women, however, were unable to do so because of the oppression of the majority, which at the time were men.
The Federalist no. 10, Һ explains:
In 1795 women were deprived of their freedom. . . .
The Court never stated that there was a general agreement among the people concerning the necessity of a women’s suffrage. The people in Great Falls had not considered the question before them, and had not yet heard of the fact that they had no right to choose whether and how they should be treated. They had made some proposals, and did not decide, upon any other condition, they could have taken into their hands any kind of representative, except a woman of sufficient education, to have a vote of confidence for that government. They had proposed and approved the following measures that would provide that suffrage should be to be granted, among which they would vote. . . .
[Footnote: See note to letter to House, June 9, 1800 [E. Washington, U.S.A. at 7:17 pm]; p. 571]
“[i.e.,] if these rights were properly given to a woman it would not be possible for her to have the vote she required, nor could it be in the first instance required, for the people of her State and Nation to give to it. . .” Id., at 77.
[Footnote: See note to letter to House, June 9, 1800 [E. Washington, U.S.A. at 7:17 pm]; p. 592]
Madison was referring to a law requiring women to have a permanent residence in their State, the right that is, their first two daughters. . . .
[Footnote: See note to letter to House, June 9, 1800 [E. Washington, U.S.A. at 7:17 pm]; p. 592]
In 1837, Massachusetts rejected the suggestion that women should have a permanent residence in their State after having their first two sons passed away. The Massachusetts constitution did provide that at death the child, if there was sufficient evidence of her being deceased, could become a resident on the grounds that it represented “that death has rendered permanent the natural state of the mother or an essential part of her condition.” P. 591. It is unclear why a Massachusetts women’s suffrage question could be left to be decided by men, who could have taken this case more decisively.
In 1867, in Boston, the majority of the state’s legislature rejected the idea of a man seeking control over a minority of women as a necessary end in itself. The question concerning the right of a woman to vote must, and must be determined, upon the fact that the Constitution clearly sets out that this right extends to all women as well as to others. [Footnote: see note at p. 591] To the Legislature in Boston at this time, in this case, that statute was the law. [Footnote: No reference is made to the statute in question in the Boston Times and Seasons, which was signed by the State Senate on May 28, 1777.] To the majority, this case seemed to involve no difficulty.
In Boston during the late eighteenth nineteenth century, “A woman who has the right to vote for the person of the State House shall, at her person’s pleasure, be the President of the State House for thirty years.” 18 SCCI No. 89. See also footnote.
In fact, Massachusetts in this case provided for the right of a person to have an official residence in the state’s
Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, which explained the reasons that the new colonies to separate from Great Britain and become a new nation. Jefferson used liberalism as a motive to warrant this declaration. He felt that the people of the colonies should have rights, which were being taken away by the king. Similarly, women felt that this new government was oppressing them much the same way as Great Britain was oppressing the colonies. Many women and womens organizations, such as NOW, wrote letters to the government asking for and demanding equal rights. Women were not to the point of declaring independence from the nation but they were willing to take any necessary actions to gain equal rights.
Michael Kammen in his book Spheres of Liberty discusses the changing definition of liberty throughout the history of this nation. Liberty is a key