Equality vs difference

Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course Title:
Date
Equality vs. Difference
Joan Scott provides a comprehensive analysis of the feminine perspective in the society and different theories that try to explain issues in gender equality. Her analysis challenges the existing theoretical arguments on the binary of equality versus difference. Joan’s position and opinions can be reflected through the following examples. She argues that the “existing feminine theories were created with the perspective of conforming to the existing gender inequality” (Scott 38). They advocate for a revisit of the past and reflection of the gender roles, especially on the position of women in the society. In this regard, the theories are biased and should be changed. She advocates for a theory that critically scrutinizes gender equality and difference, patriarchy institution, organization, and ideology. Joan seeks a theory that breaks the traditional philosophies of gender, which have empowered masculinity over feminism and also one that will review the traditional gender-based thinking. She recommends poststructuralist theory based on its characteristics that match the quality of a theory women need to rectify the equality versus difference issue.
Joan argues that the issue of equality versus difference should not be ignored in school. Women should be given priority that is relatively equal to that of men rather than being treated based on their needs, characteristics, and interests. In employment, political influence, cultural feminism, and feminist separation should not be used as a determinant of the number of women to be recruited in different government posts.

Instead, an equal opportunity should be given to women that clearly identify them as different.
She presents that “the current perspective towards equality and difference is that of opposition and rejection” (Scott 39). People are trying to disprove the existence of a difference between the two binaries, which further instigates inequality in employment and education. However, this should be realized and the respective attitude changed. The society should focus and establish possible ways the two binaries should coexist without necessarily using them to exploit women.
Joan argues that language should be restructured such that it does not portray the traditional interpretations on gender equality /difference within a society. In this regard, it should be based on the ability to convey messages that do not have specific cultural interpretations. The language should be transparent or free from the existence of attachment to ideas, emotions or things that represent a culture. Traditionally, the society associated terms such as employee, worker, and manager to the male gender. This attachment has been carried over generations through language. If a change needs to be achieved regarding equality and difference, then such terms should be detached from their cultural perspective.
The current representation of gender concepts is faced with the problem of negation and opposition. In this regard, Joan argues that “the terms and ideologies that are used to refer to gender as differentiated through sexual orientation should be re-assessed and changed” (Scott 42). She also presents that the terms are based on cultural perception towards patriarchal discourse and masculinity. Therefore, their interpretation of gender is different from that observable through sexual orientation. However, the same terms are still used to describe the position and organization of men and women in the society.
In conclusion, Joan presents an argument that seeks to identify and clarify gender equality versus the difference in the society. Men and women are different in the sense that they behave differently and have varied perceptions towards specific needs such as employment. However, this does not mean that they should be discriminated. Instead, they should be given an equal opportunity in the society.

Works Cited
Scott, Joan W. “Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the Uses of post-structuralist theory for feminism.” Feminist Studies 14.1 (1988): 33.