Gender Differences and Inequality
Patriarchalism was once the founding principles of all social relationships in society as women were under the tutelage of their fathers and husbands. Men were responsible for representing women in the public sphere, within the family and they controlled women’s sexuality and labour roles. This essay will argue that gender differences and gender inequality have been socially constructed, scientifically quantified and institutionally justified throughout history. There will be an examination of how gender differences and gender inequality was socially constructed and institutionally justified by examining three different examples of how these gender differences were approved: Quito, a South American city that was once under Spanish colonial rule, Victorian Britain and Brazil during the 1960s through to the 1980s.
During the eighteenth century, Quito was paving the way for increasing discrimination towards women which proves how they were willing to treat women like second-class citizens. Gauderman argues that during the eighteenth century, Quito, a city ruled by the Spanish, followed the example of the Spanish government by implementing the Royal Pragmatic in 1778 which ensured that the father’s authority was absolute in all marital affairs, including having increasing say over who their children were going to marry later on in life. Therefore, Gauderman is right to argue that during this time women were facing increasing legal restrictions than they had ever done before and that gender legislation was changing for the worst. This shows how far certain societies were willing to go just to ensure that gender differences and gender inequality was institutionally justified in order to prevent women from having equal status in the institution of marriage as well as how wrong the practice was. The practice got much worse during this time as in 1783, legislation was approved in Quito to prevent wives from providing donations to children who had married without their father’s consent. This was extended to women’s estates as husbands gained full control over those estates when their wife died. By 1787, a father’s right to veto a marriage partner that was not suited for their child was deemed absolute by the Council of Indies, even if a child had disinherited their parents. Therefore, Quito represents an example of a society that was willing to institutionally justify women to the extent that they were second-class citizens with no power. However, Gauderman correctly highlights that on the other side of the argument, women did exercise some legal rights that were independent of their husband. This included allowing children to adopt a woman’s surname in a marriage and being able to live independently from their husband. In Quito, women were lucky to be able to possess these rights considering how far the government was willing to go to enforce gender differences and gender inequality.
However, it was not just women in Quito that were having gender differences and gender inequality enforced upon them. In Victorian Britain, Charles Bradlaugh, a member of the London Secular Society during the 1850s and 1860s, believed that the only way of achieving utilitarian values of ensuring that there was the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people was by ensuring that all men and women were enfranchised with the vote. After the 1867 Great Reform Act failed to enfranchise more people to vote except skilled workers and women, Bradlaugh fought against it. Bradlaugh serves as an example as a man who was willing to challenge the patriarchal attitudes of Victorian society and shows that it was not just women who were willing to champion the cause of equality with women. Nonetheless, alongside an activist called Annie Besant who spoke out against Victorian attitudes of confining women to the home, both of them were put on trial during June 18th 1877. They both won their case thanks to the help of medical witnesses who confirmed that women were suffering in society as a result of giving birth and then being made to work again Many laws in Victorian Britain were unfairly designed to ensure that women would not have any legal custody over their children if they pressed ahead with divorcing their husband. Annie lost custody of her daughter Mabel to her former husband, Frank, in 1875. This demonstrates how unfair Victorian Britain was towards women. Slaughter and Bokovoy are correct to suggest that Annie’s feminism hardened in later years as she began to fight for other causes that included universal suffrage and legal equality in both marriage and divorce whilst Bradlaugh focused upon his career as a Liberal MP until his death in 1891. Annie took her strong feminist views abroad with her when she moved to India in 1893 as she campaigned for the establishment of schools in India that would educate Indian girls. This later inspired the Indian National Congress to elect her as their president in 1917. Annie Besant’s greatest achievement was raising awareness of how Victorian Britain successfully socially constructed and institutionally justified gender differences and gender inequality. This demonstrates how prevalent it truly was during this time and how raising awareness of this cause deserved attention.
During the 1960s through to the 1980s, Brazilian society was willing to enforce gender differences and gender inequality not only through social construction, but through arguments that made it scientifically quantifiable. Operation Cleanup was enforced during the emergence of President Emilio Medici once he established a dictatorship after the 1964 Revolution to ensure that activists and students complied with the laws of the new regime. The Escola Superior de Guerra (ESG), a think-tank responsible for propaganda for the National Security Defence, enforced a belief that students, like women, were irrational and emotionally unstable which made them prone to lead a communist revolution. The Brazilian government at the time was willing to go that far to protect Brazil from communism that it produced scientific theories to justify their political claims. This claim was provided with more evidence when Paula Couto, a member of ESG, claimed that an emasculated communist world would enforce itself upon a weak, feminine Western world unless the Brazilian government did more to conscript men into the armed forces. Brazil was an example of a country that successfully enforced gender differences and gender inequality upon its own country through an argument that they were defending themselves from communism.
In conclusion, gender inequality and gender differences been socially constructed, scientifically quantifiable and institutionally justified throughout history. Quito successfully institutionally justified these differences by stripping women’s right to equality in marriage. Victorian Britain attempted to confine women to the home despite the best efforts of Besant and Bradlaugh to change that. Brazil scientifically justified these differences by arguing that women’s biology made them more likely to support communism. Women have been treated unfairly throughout history and the only way women have been able to change that is by campaigning for equality. Besant proved this by standing up for women’s rights.
Bibliography
Cowan, Benjamin. “Sex and the Security State: Gender, Sexuality and ‘Subversion’ at Brazil’s Escola Superior de Guerra, 1964-85.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 16(3): 459-481.
Gauderman, Kimberly. Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito: Gender, Law and Economy in Spanish America. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003.
Slaughter, Jane and Melissa K. Bokovoy. Sharing the Stage: Biography and Gender in Western Civilisation Volume Two/Edition One. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2002.
