Written by:  Zachary Aaron Keatts

     There is an overwhelming attitude pervading today that says men have oppressed women.  This is an interesting attitude, but it surely cannot be true in all cases, and it certainly cannot apply to all men.  Do those who flaunt this ideology realize that men were also oppressed and stolen from by men as well?  In order to touch upon this perplexing problem from all sides politics, history, and business practices must be reviewed.
     Throughout history there has been a clear separation of men and women.  Today this separation has been viewed by many as a clear attempt by men to oppress women into subjection.  To verify this account a few things must be considered.  Before the rise of modern technology there was a clear order in the way things worked.  There were no machines to do hard labor jobs, there weren't many hugely populated cities, and among other things there weren't quick methods of travel.  Because of these limitations there was a different way of life.  For the most part men worked in manual labor as farmers, laborers, blacksmiths, artisans, and many other difficult trades.  These jobs require hard physical labor.  It is important that the man had to do these jobs because physiologically he is more equipped to handle the rigors of manual labor.  If anyone has ever study human anatomy and physiology they have quickly come to the conclusion that the bodies of men and women are not exactly equal.  Men are more muscular and powerful, where women have grace and beauty.  These physical limitations on the bodies of women have disqualified them, in earlier history, from doing hard manual labor jobs.  Should one still want to argue the point that women can match men all they need to do is look at the differences in athletic performance and they should be convinced. 
     Why should someone view this first limitation, or difference, between men and women as subjugation and oppression for women?  Women had an important in caring for the homes, taking care of the children, and offering vital emotional support for their mate.  In all reality women at this point in time were better positioned to make academic achievements than men.  They certainly had more time to learn to read and work on simple projects. 
     With a seeming advantage over men regarding time, in some aspects, how come the leading minds of previous history were overwhelmingly men?  It could be the fact that mostly men went to school, while women stayed home and learned how to cook and keep house.  Still many other men took apprenticeship's and never even saw schools.  Once such man was Benjamin Franklin.  It is recorded in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin that he only had two years of formal education.  Franklin, however, was one of the leading men of his time in politics, invention, and literature.  Another example is the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, who made discoveries in math pertaining to physics, statistical mechanics, cryptology, super string theory, and many other areas of math.  He had no University schooling and only went through the normal schooling process offered in India in the late 1800's.  So revolutionary were his ideas that even today mathematicians are still trying to figure out some of his propositions.  With amazing recorded men like this, how come there have not been women as well who, having no formal education, have grown intellectually despite what others around them said?  Ramanujan was refused by two prominent mathematicians before he was recognized by Hardy.  With these examples it is clear that even under conditions of oppression and subjugative circumstances is it possible to overcome.  Both these men came from poor families and were recognized, not because of their original "station" in life, but rather their minds and the ideas they offered to society.  How come more women than men did not strive to do the same, even though they were allowed more time having a recognized place caring for the home.

Next Page