The centuries-old debate over the influence of nature versus nurture is not only an important theme in psychology, but also the historical roots of modern feminism. Mary Wollstonecraft, mother of the famous author Mary Shelly and wife of the prominent anarchist William Godwin, was also the first liberal feminist theorist to propose that women be considered equal to men. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft asserts that if a woman is not prepared by education to become the companion of man or a competent mother, she will hinder the progress of knowledge and virtue in society. Company. This article will first establish the context for Wollstonecraft's nature versus nurture argument, then use a contractual model of analysis to identify some of the pros and cons of the old and new social contracts dictating marriage and family rights . Arguing that gendered behavior was a learned experience rather than a natural phenomenon, she proposes a model of marriage as friendship that raises certain expectations of men and women in order to appease arbitrary power dynamics within the domestic and social sphere. Furthermore, these expectations manifest themselves in the form of duties that promote equality within the family and are mutually agreed upon in a reformed social contract. This article will argue, with reference to Mary Wollstonecraft, that if the state of nature constitutes the basis of inequality between the sexes, it is the fruit of a defective social contract which perpetuates distinctions between the sexes. Additionally, it will examine Wollstonecraft's newly proposed contract for its beneficial efforts to overcome blind submission, untapped potential, and arbitrary power as well as its potential shortcomings in combating sexual desire and the motherhood dilemma. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayWollstonecraft argues that gender distinction is a socially created phenomenon that can be overcome by adopting a new social contract that promotes marriage as friendship. As Wollstonecraft states, men and women “must be educated, in a large measure, by the opinions and manners of the society in which they live. »[1] Indeed, the social norm at the time Wollstonecraft was writing was for women to be elevated. be married to a man and be economically dependent on a man. And once married, they are often relegated to menial household chores. That is, girls are generally assigned the role of “caretakers” or “housewives” and men as “breadwinners” in society. The division of labor was originally considered efficient, with men better suited to hunting and warfare, and women better suited to gathering, cooking, and caring for children near the camps. Additionally, the roots of patriarchy based on physical barriers were further strengthened with the growth of industry and mining under industrial capitalism, with weaker women deemed unsuitable for heavy lifting. However, these social roles also depend on social and economic contexts. For example, few people denied women's ability to contribute to the war effort in factories during World War I and World War II, but once total war ended, women were encouraged to return to domestic roles so that men can return to their “natural” employment patterns. Therefore, even though the biological factors of "nature" can establishfoundations, “cultivated” social and historical forces often have a greater influence in determining the outcome of this inequality. The idea that women are not mentally inferior to others is rooted in Wollstonecraft's New Social Contract. men, but have an equal rational potential that has not yet been realized. Wollstonecraft argues that because "the knowledge of both sexes should be of the same nature", women should not be treated as half-beings but rather educated by the same means as men to reach their full potential.[2] As Laura Brace points out, the ancient social contract under Rousseau offered women protection in exchange for obedience.[3] However, Wollstonecraft argues against Rousseau's idea that men are born with a certain degree of perfection in mind, emphasizing early debauchery in society as well as the weakness and caprices of men inundated with flattery and service of ego often demanded of women. She notes: “If the blind lead the blind, there is no need to come from heaven to tell us the consequences. "[4] Simply put, the tendency of women to degrade themselves and act as if they need protection, while providing unconditional support and adulation to men, leaves humanity in a state that is not only childish, but also dangerous. Thus, like the divine right of kings, the “divine right of husbands” should also be questioned to promote a return to equality.[5] While gender inequality was an appropriate solution to problems when it first emerged in the Bronze Age, it is no longer relevant in our time. However, the sexual division of labor persists in modern societies due to the socialization of ideas about certain roles and jobs most appropriate for men and women. This is seen through the concentration of women in the personal services or "care" sectors, with jobs as nurses, cleaners, teachers and personal secretaries, while men are more likely to be doctors, managers, professors or senior executives. At the same time, Wollstonecraft proposes a forward-looking solution to overcoming structural inequalities through marriage as a model of friendship, which emphasizes equality, free choice, reason, mutual respect and concern for the morality of the other.[6] This new social contract promotes a certain degree of interdependence that deepens bonds through appreciation of each person's character and individuality, thereby promoting integration and social progress. Both parties will benefit from the new social contract because it promotes a sense of stability by limiting the pursuit of arbitrary power. Wollstonecraft explains that “having learned from childhood that beauty is the scepter of woman, the spirit adapts itself to the body and, wandering around its gilded cage, seeks only to adorn its prison. " [7] Women's education included training in the art of pleasing, but in order to seek the attention and admiration of men, they become "attractive mistresses" instead of "affectionate and loving wives." rational mothers.”[8] This emphasis on appearances and games not only promotes infidelity because of the fleeting nature of looks. and the habit of flirting, but also poor mothers who tend to compete with their daughters once their beauty is jaded and the feeling of insecurity takes over. The strict roles imposed by the previous social contract did not allow women to fulfill their duties as educators or serve the best interests of their families. As Ruth Abbey summarizes, when they are “denied power in abroader sense, women become tyrants in small matters.” Ways such as deception and seduction. Therefore, when women learn to value beauty over intelligence, they are unable to pass down rationality to the next generation. Husbands are also disadvantaged in this arrangement, as they are unable to find common topics with their spouse. widening the gap and increasing the likelihood of an unhappy marriage.[10] However, if men and women married by choice and companionship, there should be fewer affairs because husbands are more likely to be at home and serve as better fathers. Wollstonecraft's New Social Contract emphasizes the importance of women receiving an education that prepares them to assume their educational duties as parents and that enables them to cooperate with men in this role. By changing the definition of a good wife, a good mother and a good daughter, not only the family but also society as a whole will prosper. Although the liberal notion of equality is promoted within Wollstonecraft's New Social Contract to enable men and women to reach their full potential in public and private spheres, Wollstonecraft's New Social Contract does not account for passion between male-female relationships and the dilemma of motherhood. While Rousseau believes that love should be the foundation of marriage and family life, Wollstonecraft believes that love is too fleeting and emphasizes the importance of friendship in achieving equality and a mature relationship between people. married partners.[11] However, Wollstonecraft fails to fully address bodily intimacy and sexual desire in her marriage as a friendship solution, this is largely because the higher friendship she envisioned was in the image of a relationship “traditionally considered to exist only between men”. [12] That being said, she does not completely ignore or reject the sexual dimension of personality but simply advocates moderation to focus on fulfilling family duties. Thus, Wollstonecraft assumes priorities in the social contract between men and women by describing marriage as an arrangement that allows love to fall to a lukewarm and healthy temperature. So there are certain rights that must be given up to promote the common good, that is, strong feelings of affection. Still, some might argue that coexistence between friendship and sexual desire is difficult, especially when humans are motivated more by desire than rationality in their quest for companionship. Furthermore, society has not yet evolved to emphasize long-term levelheadedness and planning over short-term passion and stimulation. As Abbey rightly observes, had Wollstonecraft not died giving birth to Marry Shelly, her continued marriage to William Godwin might have offered deeper insights and reflections on the place of sexuality in amicable marriages. [13] However, a notable flaw still exists in Wollstonecraft's proposed new social contract of equality, namely the gap between equality and difference that motivates Carole Pateman's description of Wollstonecraft's dilemma.[14] In essence, Wollstonecraft's dilemma is the double-edged argument that women must be granted humane rights in order to then fulfill their traditionally feminine duties of motherhood. However, assuming women's biological destiny and natural vocation to motherhood risks confining them to the private sphere. This is a question not addressed by Wollstonecraft and one that reverberates throughout,” 436.