The Role of Women - Dara Schoolcraft

By

 Locke establishes a unique and independent role for women within the state of nature. He makes a clear distinction between the power and responsibilities of men and women. First he shows the dynamic within the family by outlining that the mother has equal title and power when it comes to the family’s children. He quotes scripture to display that God intends the family structure to include the influence of both parents. He goes on to say that parental power is a more accurate way to describe the family than the word paternal (30-31). Women also play a role in raising the children and for this reason deserve honor and respect as well, “the obligation on the parents to bring up their children, and the obligation on children to honor their parents” (39). Both the mother and father share the role of bringing up the children and receive honor in return. 

    Locke goes on to explain that humans were made as social beings and have a natural tendency to look for support and companionship in others. The first example of this social connection was between man and women (42). He explains that, “the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto is commonly with child again, and brings forth too new birth, long before the former is out of dependency” (43). According to Locke’s account women’s power within the family unit is her body and its unique ability to carry and create new life. Men may have the power to educate and grant land to the children but those children would not exist without the woman. Locke takes a physical and biological view on the role of women in the state of nature. 

    In most ways I disagree with Locke’s argument of women’s role in the family unit because I think that women are more than their bodies and should play a more active role in things like education and not just be a wife to the master. But, I think that Locke’s ideas about women recognize true physical differences between men and women and celebrates the miracle of the female body to grow and give birth to children. I think it was bold and revolutionary for him to acknowledge women in this way and can be seen as the building blocks towards equality for women and women’s bodily autonomy. 

Comments

  1. Eva PruittJanuary 23, 2023 at 5:15 PM

    I agree with you that Locke's comments on women are, for the most part, unrealistic and diminishing. However, I would also say that even his recognition of the female body and its part in creating life was slightly problematic. When I read the passage regarding the first social connection being between man and woman, I was struck by his comparisons to animal life. He describes the "viviparous animals" as having conjunctions that last "no longer than the very act of copulation," because the male is not needed to provide food or support to the female or the young (43). For humans, though, there is a major difference. The quote you included on page 43 points out Locke's theory on why human relationships last longer: “the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto is commonly with child again, and brings forth too new birth, long before the former is out of dependency” (43). He implies that the male needs to stick around longer because he is "bound to care for those he hath begot," (44). This distinction, to me, doesn't seem to come from a place of celebration for the female's capability to carry human life. It seems to imply a "trap" (not of intent, but it certainly implies a sort of "stuckness") for the male species that requires long-term conjunctions. He even says "one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator ... hath made it necessary that society of man and wife should be more lasting," furthering the impression that women aren't even to be credited for the feat of childbirth (44). It also struck me that in his opening comments on this matter, he states that men and women should have "equal title" in matters of parenting (30). And yet, he goes on to clarify that this is only in terms of being granted equal credit for being a parent and earning respect from their offspring. In terms of political power, men are clearly superior to Locke.

    I can see how this was certainly bold for his time, and I do think some of the statements could be useful to lay groundwork for future work on women's rights. However, I think that a lot of the broader context of this writing would have to be removed in order for that to be possible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more