Question

According to Karen Offen, most nineteenth-century feminists argued that "women, as the peace-loving sex, had specific qualities and talents from which the entire society could benefit . . . " (333). In other words, feminists advocated for greater civil and civic autonomy for women based on women's essential differences from men rather than their essential sameness. In what ways does this limit the chances of their cause succeeding yet at the same time aid feminists in pushing for greater control over their own lives? Put another way, are claims based on traditional notions of womanhood ultimately self-defeating or pragmatic calculations given the cultural realities of the 19th century?

Answer 1

The problem with the notion of womenhood of 19th century is that it exerts on the difference between man and woman in a way that it promote tension between the two sex. It fails to acknowledge the similarities that they both from a perspective from being a human. This self identity notion creates a sense that men are cruel oppressors from whom the womenhood needs a freedom, it fails to acknowledge those cultural factors that has promoted and sustained the superiority of men in the society. Thus, instead of stressing on a change at root level and practising these changes in their homes which is the basic unit of society and socialization, they view their male counterparts as oppressors but would raise their sons as men and daughters as women, instead of male and female, and above all a good human being. When there is mutual respect and a stern no to oppression and dominance womanhood would gain equality in the society and this would gain a pragmatic meaning to womanhood.