Women earned the right to vote in 1919 and thus began the uphill legal battle for women’s equality. Many presently argue that women’s equality, which represents equality for all sexes and genders, remains far from perfect in the United States. Feminist theorists urge for varying viewpoints and paths of action in dealing with the problem of equality for women. The current public system in the United States is a sexists system historically created for and suited for men, which can be overcome by creating a more sexually equated system with corresponding beliefs. As soon as the public begins to recognize this problem, actions can be taken.

Some feminist political theory suggests the public system governing employment, education, and nationwide legal policies is inherently patriarchal having been created by men. Theories of social contracts and states of nature put forth by men such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke viewed women already subordinate in nature sufficing for why women were subordinate in civil society. Hobbes theorized that the woman was equal in the state of nature, but entered into a contract with the man for protection while pregnant. Such theories most assuredly led to the woman’s valued place in the sphere of domesticity in private life. Men’s dominance throughout history in western society left women out of the public sphere. Theory by Freud and Rousseau claimed that women were unable to develop a sense of justice, which was necessary for participation in social institutions such as law. The arguments of Freud and Rousseau traced women’s lack of a sense of justice in society backed to the beginning of civilization claiming the lack “structured” society to be male dominant (Pateman). Society today has its foundations in such thought and practice of considering all things female as inferior. The United States Constitution, written by men, took into account the rights of land holding, white males. The values of the economy have been largely male values as long as trade and money have existed. Therefore, public society today is shaped largely by language and roles that are valued largely as male or masculine.

Presently, investigation into sexual equality challenges the current male dominant system. Certain feminist theory presumes that laws fighting for sex equality in these areas have been ineffective. The reason “that sex equality law has been so utterly ineffective” is because there has been a “presuppos[ition]” of sameness when the sexes are actually different (MacKinnon). Catherine MacKinnon argues that the dominance of women presents the most significant obstacle to women’s equality. She suggests that a solution lies in viewing the problem in terms of dominance of women instead of terms of sexual differences between men women. Such an approach reveals the true problem, a sexist, male-dominant society, but MacKinnon offers no possible solutions. She falls short of solving the problem by merely pointing out the dominance and offering no tangible solution i.e. changing laws or enacting new ones or holding discussion and proactive campaigning.

Christine A. Littleton, another feminist, points out male dominance as “phalocentrism”, which is a theory involving societal values. Littleton believes that our culture “justifies [male] dominance” or rather dominance of what is “culturally male” through current gender values: valued male characteristics vs. female characteristics. The public world of employment and law are separated by what is considered good and acceptable in terms of male and female. Littleton progresses through several solutions in her exploration of possible plans for greater equality. For Littleton, a “symmetrical” solution represents the traditional, average argument of feminist fight for rights and equality. The symmetrical approach forms in two ways, androgynous and assimilative approaches. Androgyny requests that laws and regulations be made supporting a universal, human middle ground between men and woman. The trouble with working towards a common ground in professional arenas is that woman and men are different biologically noting pregnancy and average physical size and strength. Feminine gender influence prevails less than masculine, but feminine and masculine should have equal weight in the public arena. However, the roles that feminine and masculine play in society are not considered entirely equal in spite of an inherent equality of both. Finding a universal androgynous norm would not put equal value on either female or male, but would negate both in the place of the neutral, human values. Also, the job of equating all professions, Littleton states, would be “staggering” and would not be worth the trouble, which is a correct assumption.

Assimilation recommends that women be assimilated into the man’s world and given equal treatment as men. Essentially all the professions and benefits going to men would go to women with adequate qualifications. By equating women to men by assimilation the value of the feminine is overlooked and lost, because it lies outside of the new group that gets created. Thus, one gets a homogenous society without diversity of gender and by ignoring the diversity of gender the system becomes flawed. Dichotomies arise when “totalizing a system”, which exclude a certain group (Young), that group being the feminine. Assimilation aims for the impartial neutrality Iris Marion Young says creates a “propensity to universalize the particular”. In this case of assimilation, the particular is the opening the “man’s world” to women but still favoring masculine values. By universalizing the particular, those that still value the feminine as potentially good in the public world are “alienated” and ostracized (Young).

Additionally, Littleton investigates asymmetrical models for equality including “special rights, accommodation, and acceptance”. The first, special rights, advocates special care and/or protection cover certain biological differences of women from men, such as breast-feeding, pregnancy, etc. Some argue, with good reason, that special treatment for special needs is not enough and is partially asymmetrical while mostly symmetrical. Basically, it is a small compromise and doesn’t value the cultural female satisfactorily enough. Accommodation, another method for sexual equality, falls short of best because the approach lacks the necessity for total revamping of the male dominant system. Accommodation is similar to assimilation, although accommodation admits the differences between masculine and feminine. Both reject the total importance of accepting both genders and sexes as different but equally important to society. Littleton duly states that, “women and men must be treated as full members of society.” The technique of “acceptance” works best to value feminine as equal to masculine. Society needs to accept feminine values and biological female as normal and fully a part of society in order to create the greatest sexual equality in the United States. By accepting that there are biological differences. The fact that many “biological males exhibit socially female [or feminine] characteristics” puts even more importance on the acceptance plan. The lines are not clear between masculine and feminine when examine the differences between the biological sexes. The somewhat blurred gender roles that have come about should be valued equally to the masculine as well.

Thinking in terms of acceptance brings the argument to abortion, which should be legalized to grant women sexual freedom equal to that of men. When abortion is legalized and supported, women and men will be able to engage in sex with equated consequences. Mary Poovey picks apart past court cases and the supportive argument for abortion by highlighting that “the female body was constituted as a maternal body”. The issue with this “gender norm” is that woman are seen as the mother without consent and applying this “gender norm” to abortion denies women equal status to men. Poovey believes that abortion should be seen as “contraception, not murder” and that any policy and law recognize that the issue is far from private because pregnancy affects the immediate family, friends, and relatives. Her solution asks for politics to be “expressions of relationships that entail difference as well as community.” Beginning to see politics in this way creates a world of tolerance where dichotomies of the world begin to blend. Assumptions that individuality is of the ultimate importance in the United States creates the idea the abortion is a private problem. The assumptions also create the view that sexual expression, sexual orientation, child rearing, and ultimately sexual equality are all private problems. When the relations and community view is applied to the public realm, both feminine and masculine genders become more equally valued. For instance, the feminine and the masculine qualities in the work place should be seen as complimenting one another. Doing this does not mean these qualities should be limited different biological sexes or individuals. Poovey correctly advocates that the “mother role that is allowed” to women. Other gender norms should be deconstructed and other roles be allowed as well such as the socially female males. When all positive genders, sexes and roles are accepted and supported, our country will be fairly equal. We should all work towards this goal.