Correia 1

Madison Correia

Dr. Koker

HON 272

Natural and Political Inequality

Social inequality has been a constant struggle throughout history. Whether it be between

races or genders, certain groups or classes of mankind seem to push down others in order to feel

superior. When such a mindset is consistently cultivated throughout one’s life, it becomes hard to

see the world any differently. Just as De Gouges and Wollstonecraft discuss in their pieces on

gender equality, when society labels a certain group, such as women, inferior, it becomes

comfortable to believe it. Such a culture is perpetuated by evidence that lacks context, for natural

inequality should not equal or warrant political inequality. In this essay, I will compare both De

Gouges’ and Wollstonecraft’s pieces in order to support the statement that natural inequality and

political inequality should have no correlation yet are often compared and combined by men in

order to justify their oppression of women.

Both Wollstonecraft and De Gouges address the fact that “in the government of the

physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the

male. This is the law of nature; and it does not appear to be… abrogated in favour of woman. A

degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied—and it is a noble prerogative”

(Wollstonecraft, p. 363). Thus, neither author is trying to contradict the reality of natural

inequality. Women are indeed naturally weaker than men, but the usage of this fact alone to

justify treating women “as a kind of subordinate being… and not as a part of the human species”

within society is a gross injustice (Wollstonecraft, p. 363). Essentially, both authors are trying to

stress that, although women are naturally different, one cannot use one aspect of nature to
 Correia 2

invalidate the worth of a whole creature. De Gouges encourages readers to look deeper into the

relation of sexes in nature, saying “everywhere you will find them mingled, everywhere they

cooperate in harmony with this immortal masterpiece. Only man has fashioned himself a

principle out of this exception” (p. 356). Therefore, one can find ample evidence of equal

partnership between sexes in nature despite all differences.

Politically perpetuated gender inequality manifests itself as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being consistently told from a young age of your weak and subordinate nature leads to “the

minds of women [being] enfeebled by false refinement” (Wollstonecraft, p. 363). Wollstonecraft

proposes that the cause of this barren blooming is the false system of education fed by male-

written works on femininity, and that “the understanding of the sex has been so bubbled by this

specious homage, that the civilized women of the present century, with a few exceptions, are

only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their abilities

and virtues exact respect” (Wollstonecraft, p. 363). Women are, in turn, blamed for fulfilling this

stereotype when this concept of how a woman should be has been forced on them by the

patriarchy all their lives. The argument that justified political inequality for so long was the idea

that women are truly less intelligent and capable, but the context of such a circumstance is the

fact that women are purposely restricted from learning and leading.