Equality vs. difference

Equality between men and women could be argued from various perspectives including biological or physical differences between men and women, economic or productivity differences, and the way women view themselves in comparison to men. This issue exists while there have been campaigns for ratification amendments of equal rights. Feminists often face opposition from women who find it charming to represent various women interests. There have been battles over the amendments of equal rights such as in the case of Muller v. Oregon whereby a debates of whether women have to be treated equally in accordance with the law of if they should be treated or protected much more differently based on their biological or economic differences. More concerns on equality attracts debates on whether women should be totally treated equally or whether the law has to create differences by accounting for the biological differences existing between men and women.

As far as the amendments of 1920s concerning equal rights, some groups found it painful to oppose the amendments. This bitterness hardly considered the conflict of interest that came up when the amendment was being proposed. During the proposal, there was a split between groups of women who were claiming on the two sides of the debate but each groups aimed at representing the interest of women (Cott 2012). The amendments brought in ideological and controversies that existed earlier. Some advocated for alliances especially an ally of women advocates with freed slaves advocates, temperate workers, or any other group while others saw it inappropriate to create an alliance with groups having different interests. The fact that women rights and interest had been ignored for a quite a long time creates fear that an alliance with such groups could as well encourage their concern in expense of women interest.

The issue of Muller v. Oregon made the case a landmark in the justification of both sex discrimination and the use of labor laws in the wrong way with respect to gender discrimination. This case took place in a US Supreme court and marked as an historical court event in which the United States’ state of Oregon had put restrictions in the working hours for women. This was placed as a way of justifying the issue of protecting their health. Women were termed to be biologically disadvantaged than men and their health was at a risk if they were to be exposed to the same working conditions that men were exposed. The protection was categorized under special state interests in terms of protecting women and their health. Apart from the protection of the women rights and the concern on their health in the workplaces, the ruling was aimed at causing critical changes in the protective labor legislations (Johnson 1925).

The conviction was placed on Muller who was being accused of making a woman in the team of his employees work for more than ten hour in a given day. The convicted person, Muller was fined but he found it useful to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Oregon. From the Oregon Supreme Court, he again appealed to the United States Supreme Court. His conviction was affirmed after upholding the labor law constitutionality (Johnson 1925). Some changes were done in the labor law structure after the case was decided three years after the Muller v. Oregon case. Invalidations in restricting working hours for certain groups such as bakers were done.

People have varying interests as it was evident I the equal rights amendments and in the debate as to whether women should be treated in a more special way than men should or if they deserve the same treatment as men do. The constitution has some peculiar values that it places on people’s lives (pamphlet 1922). Some changes raise controversies and bring in limitations emanating from the fact that the consensus of the public is hardly taken into consideration. Mistakes happening in the law sect and specifically in some court rulings cause continued belief that amendments need to be initiated to favor all people equally. Some matters are of general knowledge and in that case, judicial cognizance involving the physical and biological differences that place women into a disadvantaged state may not entirely be considered lawful but be linked to people’s social lives. The court could however rule against any idea that women are being oppressed because they are having biological, physical, or economic burdens over men. The health of women should be an object of public interest the same way a health mother is essential to her offspring. The work done by women therefore is a subject of consideration to avoid health related issues. The hours of work by women could be restricted and be placed within police power of state (Kelley 1922). The statute of directed to such regulations should hardly be conflicting with any process of the existing amendments or future amendments. The regulation of women’s working hours rests upon the police power including the right to preserve the health of every state woman. This law or right is not subjected to the effect from other laws of the state that may grant or deny women the same rights. There is however, a general liberty to contracts that comes in as a regard to personal business and the fact that selling an individual labor is fully protected by the law. The same liberty is still a subject of restriction under the power of the state and the police power. In this case, the statute of Oregon could press a good example whereby the provision that women shall work in some establishment for more than ten hours is found to be unconstitutional. In contrary to this, the statute restricts the hours worked by women in a single day to be not more than ten hours.

The aspect of women taking a special case of protection is argued against by introduction of the Cut’s Equal Rights and Economic roles. Hill and Kelly on the other hand had an opposing position as far as the proposed bill in 1922 is concerned. The 19922 bill was an enhancement of the women treatment is a special way over men (Kelley 1922). In any argument, there should be a consideration of the role played by women in life. Cutt’s introduces the issue of ‘Grounding of Modern Feminism’. This theory brings out an understanding of the various movements by women how they transformed before and after they achieved suffrage. The 1920s amendments are today seen as having washed away the cases of suffrage and instead brought in a struggle for the modern feminism. Cutt’s finds it easier to point out that these struggles were of advantage to the modern women and the rights they are bound to exercise (Cott 2012). There is always a call for gender consciousness but the bias in this case comes in when eliminating some of the prescribed gender roles. There should be an understanding of women diversity in that some women hold it that they are equal to men by superiority complex, others find it easy to believe that women are more superior to men, and others find themselves as inferior in the eyes of men and therefore need special treatment and protection.

The issue of economic differences brings in another issue as far as equality is concerned. Economic aspects of life coincide with other aspects of life such as social factors and political aspects. The issue of enlightenment and liberalization may not be sophisticated in this case. Evangelical Protestantism had its own views on women as well in that women are morally superior to their men counterparts (Cott 2012). This is not the only case of viewing inequality or differences between men and women but other spheres of life and social practices hold the same views. There is male capitalism in the industrial sector for instance. This is also seen in political grounds were women are literary disadvantaged.

Hill and Kelley may not have stood on the side that women needed a special care than women since this would further create a bias in terms of equality. Some rulings and laws that are used to favor women due to their physical and biological differences could become a disadvantage and oppression to the male individuals at one point (Cott 2012). It is certain that women are weaker than men are in terms of their biology and physical ability. This is however not always the case since in some cases, women show superiority over men. The fact that some women are strong than men on various aspects may not call in for generalizing women protection based on differences (Cott 2012). Women on another extend find it hard to appreciate the fact that men are more vulnerable to social and economic changes. Taking women as too special to men creates a divide by placing them to better positions without subjecting them to struggles while men have to struggle for the same positions. It is therefore good to advocate on equality rather than differences. In this case, women and men would be viewed as equal in all aspects in the society politically, socially, and economically.

Bibliography

Cott, N. (2012). Subjects: Feminism, Suffrage, Consumerism, Advertising, Professionalization, Progressivism, New Era. Retrieved Feb 7, 2013, from The Grounding of Modern Feminism: http://www.kevincmurphy.com/cott.html

Johnson, G. G. (1925). Feminism and the Economic Independence of Woman, cf. Tentler, Wage-Earning Women, esp. 25, and Wandersee, Women’s Work, on motivations and psychological results of women’s wage-earning. Journal of Social Forces, 3 (May 4, ), Vol. 615 , 45-46.

Kelley, F. (1922). Shall Women Be Equal before the Law? (debate with Elsie Hill), Nation, Vol. 114. Nation , 421.

Pamphlet NLWV. (1922). 10, in folder 744, Woman’s Rights Collection, SL; Alice Hamilton, . The Blanket Amendment–A Debate, Forum, 72 (Aug. 1924), 156; Florence Kelley, The New Woman’s Party Survey, 47 (Mar. 5, 1921), 828 .