Title: Should women be given special rights in modern societies because they have historically

been the victims of injustice?

Candidate number: T01436
Word count: 2428

The following essay will examine the feminists claim that due to historical injustices, women should
be granted reparatory rights that would compensate for the damage. The argument will be based on a
number of important distinctions. It should be first mentioned that the paper will look at rights within
a state, and not the universal human rights that concern all of the humanity. Therefore, examples of
this type of statutory legislation would be equal pay or non-discrimination policies, but also
affirmative action and the introduction of quotas to promote greater representation. Both sides of the
argument will be examined, concluding that these measures should be encouraged, but only as a
short-term solution that would help a transition to a fairer society (Wolff, 1996, p. 209). An important
distinction is to be made between sex and gender (Wolff, 1996, p. 204) and how it affects our
perception of justice and tailoring rights for womens needs. Sex is said to be biological, while gender
is socially constructed (ibid). This essay will also argue that there are two main types of injustices
females come across: biological and institutional. An example of biological unfairness would be the
fact that only their bodies can bear children, this in turn reflects as a disadvantage when applying for
jobs because many employers may not want to lose company money on maternity leave or looking
for a substitute. Therefore, it will be argued that the nature of the female body means that women will
always be in a way disadvantaged, and therefore should be compensated for this injustice. Finally, the
dichotomy between equality and difference will be discussed (Bryson, 2003, pp. 148-152;
Mansbridge and Okin, 2012, pp. 338-342; Sarvasy, 1992, pp. 329-330). This will lead to the
conclusion that despite original claims for equality, men and women require distinctive rights.

Therefore, as mentioned in the introduction, the essay will be constructed around two main types of
gender specific rights and regulations: affirmative action and laws and regulations for the protection
of women. First, some arguments against these measures will be given, while examining possible
counterarguments that would claim that these actions are needed. Feminism is therefore concerned
with advancing social, economical, and political rights of women (Stamford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2009). Additionally, Caroline Pateman writes that the dichotomy between the private
and the public . . . is, ultimately, what the feminist movement is about' (Pateman, 1989, p. 118).
Despite views held by some postfeminists that women have already made it, the claim is false, and

there is continuous need for the promotion of special rights (Okin, 1989, p. 4). The solutions for the
issue of injustice proposed in this essay deal with modern examples. However, it should be specified
that historically women have been discriminated in the academic area, and especially this can be seen
in the false gender neutrality (Okin, 1989, p. 10) adopted by various writers. Words such as
mankind effectively related only to the male sex, thereby excluding women. Therefore, despite this
not being a special right given to women, many academics started using both just female nouns and
pronouns or let a computer program to distribute randomly between different genders.

As it was previously said, this essay will argue that women should be given special rights because
they had historically been victims of injustice. Before looking at the arguments in support of
reparation such as affirmative action, the possible arguments against will be looked at first. The main
statements made by the people who oppose such an interventionist approach would be the fact that
merit should be more important than someones sex (Phillips, 1995, p. 61; Wolff, 1996, p. 207).
Therefore, it can be said that when deciding who should receive a particular job or university place,
then that persons qualifications are far more important. This calls for a sex blind approach
(Kymlicka, 2002, p. 379), which treats everybody as equals and does not lead to reverse
discrimination (Phillips, 1995, p. 63) by denying a chance to the other group. However, a possible
counterargument to that would be the fact that what we define as merit and the characteristics
attributed to it are constructed by male ideals and standards (Bryson, 2003, p. 148). Job requirements
were designed by men and for men (Kymlicka, 2002, p. 380). Therefore, a woman might struggle to
meet those requirements for a job. Moreover, if a woman was not given an equal opportunity to go to
university because of male oppression or discrimination, then her job prospects would be worse than
a mans. Based on this, it can be argued that not only because of historical injustice, but ongoing
discrimination towards women there is a need for special rights to protect and promote the interests
of females in the modern society.

The claim of merit over sex is linked to the next point that is argued by opponents of affirmative
action. They say that if someones qualification would be overlooked because of a positive

discrimination policy or the simple need to fill a quota, then people that are not best suited for the job
will get it. Therefore, more capable men could be discounted over less adequate females (Andre,
Velasquez and Mazur, 1992; Wolff, 1996, p. 208). This in turn is argued to reduce the efficacy and
productivity of the employees. On the other hand, some feminists would argue that exactly that is the
reason women should be given special rights and preferences especially at the early stages such as
education, which will allow them to show their capacities better. Despite some people claiming that
this type of policy will then directly discriminate against men who have to support the consequences,
it can be argued that this is a price to pay in order to achieve long-term effects. Young does not deny
that affirmative action is discriminatory against males, however, she argues that discrimination
against the privileged is just, and not only allowed, but also morally required (Young, 1990, p. 192,
197). This illustrates the idea that although some men do no directly do anything to oppress women,
they do profit from the outcomes of the advantages they get when applying for jobs or university
places. This adds weight to the argument that in order to repair historical injustices of women, there is
a need for special rights that would advance this groups interests and encourage their involvement in
higher education or more demanding jobs.

The second argument that some would invoke against affirmative action would be that even if it is to
be promoted, it should only be directed at the specific victims in the past that suffered from the
injustice (Andre, Velasquez and Mazur, 1992). Therefore, if the purpose of such policies is to repair
the discrimination that happened in the past or the disadvantages that are encountered in the present,
then it should concern only the women that were directly discriminated against. However, a
contrasting view would be the fact that despite women gaining the universal suffrage, their current
situation has only worsened because now they have to perform more roles than they did in the past,
such as caregivers, underpaid workers, and unpaid domestic workers (Pateman, 1988, pp. 250-253).
This is also known as the triple shift, which suggests that women did not become more liberated,
but on the contrary, they have a heavier burden to carry. Therefore, this argument additionally
reinforces the fact that there should be special rights tailored for womens needs, backed by a nonpatriarchal state.

The final point to be made against preferential treatment is that it only creates a stigma on the people
that benefit from it and undermines their achievement since people would only think that they
amounted to that level of success because of their sex (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 5). This can in turn make
women feel inferior and create a doubt in their abilities. This argument is linked with the arguments
made above about merit, and unfairness towards men. Most importantly, it can be argued that if a
woman is preferred over a man for a job application, then how would we know if it was based on her
impeccable skills or just on the fact that she belongs to a selected group that is pitied because of
historical injustice. And if that would be the case, then surely based on the meritocracy principle, but
also in the interest of more productive outcomes, the male should get the job. However, this argument
is flawed on many aspects. Most importantly it should be said that if women are not encouraged or
helped to get into higher positions and better-paid jobs, then they may never end the injustice and
oppression, which will only lead to a vicious cycle. Therefore, as it will be argued further in this
essay, the society should give women special rights because of historic injustices but also ongoing
intimidation.

Now, the arguments for specific entitlements for females will be examined. This type of distributive
justice is necessary because in the past women have been refused their just share of opportunities.
Therefore, to compensate for the fact that they grew up by not having the equal chance for resources
to compete fairly with males, preferential treatment is necessary. As it was mentioned in the
introduction, this essay is constructed on the belief that men and women are different, and therefore
equality is not something that is wanted most of the time because it can bring more damage than
benefits. One main point for specific rights is the need to create role models for the younger
generation of girls (Phillips, 1995, p. 63; Wolff, 1996, p. 209) that will be inspired by women with
great achievements but also maybe encourage them to pursue a career in a job that was previously
seen as male dominated. This will compensate for the historical injustice of instances when women
were seen as incompetent or incapable to perform male professions. Moreover, linking back to the
point made above, it will allow females to show their capacities better if they are encouraged and
given the chance to do so. Subsequently, if more women gain professions is higher education, then

this will further dismiss the stereotypes created around them. These stereotypes need to be eliminated
since they are the main cause for sexism.

Based on the distinction between sameness and difference (Mansbridge and Okin, 2012, pp. 338342), the essay will now examine which type of rights women need to compensate for biological
injustices and disadvantages that they encounter. Therefore, the fact that only the female body is
designed to give birth to children emphasizes special needs and special rights (Wolff, 1996, p. 204).
However, it is important to consider how much of what one considers as characteristic to women is in
fact because of biological traits. As we mentioned above, gender is a social constructed concept.
Therefore, when someone argues that since women are more carrying then they are the ones that need
to take time off work to look after relatives, we could rethink that claim. It can be said that women
are raised in a social environment that makes them believe that they have to be more nurturing and
carrying, therefore oppressing and limiting their liberty. This reinforces the view that society has
historically been trying to create and reinforce certain expectations for women that would be unjust
towards them. Some possible solutions to restore this unfair treatment will be examined.

Now, a number of examples of special rights for women will be examined that will take into
consideration both biological disadvantages but also ways to repair social and institutional
discrimination. As mentioned above, unless women decide not to have children, then when they do
decide to do that, they must make some sacrifices, especially time and career. Almeder suggests that
an example of special right that could compensate for that would be maternity leave paid by the
employer and an assurance that the woman can return to work after a certain period of time without
any loss in the wage of position (Almeder, 1994, p. 302). Another example to reinforce the need to
special rights is divorce laws that are gender-neutral however only act in the detriment of women
(Bryson, 2003, p. 148). They often ignore the unfairness in the job market, and if a woman does have
children, she will most probably be granted the custody, which means that more time off work will be
needed. All of this will create another vicious cycle of injustice.

Therefore, it can be argued that special rights such as affirmative action are needed because they are a
little more than an extension of opportunity since some had a worse start in the first place (Wolff,
1996, p. 208). Additionally, some could argue that it is not necessarily the fault of chauvinistic men,
but of the whole society that favour men. Action is needed to address the roots of these issues, and
only special rights can help that. A counterargument is provided by some radical and Marxists
feminists that claim that unless we have at least a representative state in terms of proportion of
women, then all the legislation will continue to reflect oppressive views of men. Moreover, it is
debatable how much we can rely on the state, which is only seen as an extension of patriarchal
domination.

Overall, based on arguments outlined above, it can be seen that there is neither an easy explanation
for inequality in our societies, nor an easy solution. However, this essay demonstrated that despite the
flaws of creating special rights for women that would repair historical injustices, they are still one of
the best options that we have in order to achieve long-term effects when affirmative action or positive
discrimination will no longer be required. Therefore, the main arguments that led to this conclusion
and for specific rights were the fact that they would encourage more women to advance careers in
areas that were previously seen as only for males. This in turn will create more role models and
perpetuate more confidence of younger females. Secondly, the essay founded its main point on the
premise that men and women are biologically different, and called for sex specific rights that would
consider special needs that women might have. Therefore, despite some counterarguments to that
such as merit being more important than sex, negative outcomes for productivity because of
employment of less competent people and possible stigmatization which could undermine someones
capacity, this essay still holds that women should be given special rights in modern societies because
they have historically been the victims of injustice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almeder, R. 1994. Liberal Feminism and Academic Feminism. Public Affairs Quarterly, 8(4), pp.
299-315.
Andre, C., Velasquez, M. and Mazur, T. 1992. Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy.
Issues in Ethics, 5(2). Santa Clara University. Available at:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html [Las accessed 1 April 2014].
Bryson, V. 2003. Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kymlicka, W. 2002. Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mansbridge, J. and Okin, S. M. 2012. Feminism. In: E. Goodin, P. Pettit and T. Pogge, ed. A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 232-259.
Okin, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.
Pateman, C. 1988. The Patriarchal Welfare State. In: A. Gutman, ed. 1988. Democracy and the
Welfare State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. pp. 231-260.
Phillips, A. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sarvasy, W. 1992. Beyond the Difference versus Equality Policy Debate: Postsuffrage Feminism,
Citizenship, and the Quest for a Feminist Welfare. Signs, 17(2), pp. 329-362.
Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. Feminist Political Philosophy. Available at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/ [Last accessed: 31 March 2014].
Wolff, J. 1996. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.