One of the paradoxes and indeed great moral hypocricies of the recent past is how womenare at one and the same time revered for qualities such as elegance, motherhood, intuition, creativity and much more, and consistently subjected to abhorrent prejudices, injustices, and crimes. Most religions associate the act of creation itself as being feminine – so we get constant references to Mother Nature and Mother Earth – yet the experiences of so many women in the world is one of subjugation, suffering and hardship, simply because they are women.

Sheryl WuDunn makes the point powerfully in her talk for TED which summarises the main theses of her book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide:  as she says, ‘the central moral challenge of this century is gender inequity’.

 

Many of the arguments concerning gender (in)justice revolve around the question of equality. Yet, it seems plain to me that in factual terms, we are more unequal than equal – the differences between us define who we are as much as the similarities we might share. Indeed the similarities are just that, similarities, not ‘equalities’.  So how might we argue for equality, given this starting point? As we will see when we discuss utilitarianism, there might be an answer from Jeremy Bentham who said: ‘Each to count for one and none for more than one’ and which Peter Singer turns into a maxim of equal consideration of interests.

If we accept the view, how then can we engage a culture in such a way that it might become a reality for the millions of women who daily face the inequalities of being women? Reducing poverty, working to support a rights framework, and education are the solutions offered by Sheryl WuDunn. So far, such solutions have given scant results. What more might be needed? How can equal consideration of interests be practically promoted?