The US Is Not A Nation Of Patriarchy

The US Is Not A Nation Of PatriarchyArguing that the US has always been a capitalist country and women are merely equal to men in that regard is a core element of the American history argumentative essay topic. The US is a nation of equal opportunity and value, that does not imply equal outcomes for all. Such an argument, based on statistics and generalism is not worthy of consideration, as it ignores or mischaracterizes the data provided in the research summarized here.From a legal perspective, the United States is not a nation where the male or female man earns more money than the other. It is a nation that is defined by a formal contract between two consenting adults for their services. It is a nation that accepts the flexibility of both parties, by setting a price at which the services must be performed. It is a nation that attempts to allocate income and resources to achieve those results with an eye towards the common good.A historical view, which can be taken by anyone, shows that there have been varying degrees of equality, as both men and women have been in possession of a place in society. In fact, many cultures and societies have always done better than their counterparts. This was true in the times of the past when more resources were allocated to production, as well as during the times of the two world wars, when work was organized by the thousands for distribution through government employment programs.In both cases, the rate of production and the price of products were aligned with the economic conditions. In some cases, the money supply also increased, which gave men an opportunity to purchase and use goods from other countries at a cheaper price.Historically, while economic considerations may have played a role in the productivity and income of a country, this was not the case with regard to the legal distribution of property. The law was structured to ensure equal opportunities, as a result of which every citizen could claim to be 'owner' of p roperty. If a person was born in a rich family, or was otherwise lucky enough to have inherited wealth, he or she could claim ownership of property. Likewise, if a man or woman did not inherit, they could obtain the same inheritance without paying a fee, as each citizen had the same rights as another.It should be obvious, from this historical view, that there has been no reason to be patronizing of one gender over the other. There was no unfair advantage given to one gender by the other.The 'equal opportunity' argument that the essay proposes would raise serious questions about the fairness of gender-based wages and benefits. Such an argument also raises the question of whether a business can be truly just when it benefits from taking from the less fortunate to give to the fortunate. Neither of these propositions, however, can be supported by history and to say that the 'equal opportunity' argument is an illusion of present-day life would be akin to saying that the line at the bowli ng alley was not drawn in favor of the other team because the best players would have ended up throwing the ball to their opponents.What the human race needs, at this time, is a reevaluation of both the theory and practice of Equal Opportunity and Justice. What the person of either sex will do well in the world, the law and the market should support.