The author has advocated women empowerment since she believes that deteriorating marriages and equality movements were the results of gender inequalities in accessing opportunities, prestige and resources. She has argued that women lacked to possess the same rights as men. In support of such arguments, she has used as evidence: lack of access to financial loans, women disenfranchisement, property privileges and unjustifiable penalties. Furthermore, she finds courts biased against women rights as she highlights cosmetic changes in response to the movements of feminism. To endorse her point further, she has quoted statements, resolutions, and bills passed by Congress to address these issues but still, by then, remained unresolved.
Contrary to above, another author considers movements and endorsements towards oppression, inequality, suppression as myths, fabrication and exaggeration. The author, contrary to Faith Seidenberg, labels men as being the ones oppressed since they are “exploited by monopolists” and reminds feminists about the support of male citizens in the liberation struggle of women. She argues further that, although women might be deprived of voting rights as men, yet she considers it legitimate as, in her opinion, usually men are the ones working in fields and eking out for their family. She believes that upper-class women enjoy almost same privileges as men and sees women rights movements as a struggle to save elite women’s capitalist interests.
Mary’s argument is more convincing in comparison to the one by Reed. The studies by globally recognized organizations, such as United Nations, reveal that women, until the mid-twentieth century, of all social classes and financial statuses have been deprived of: their fundamental rights of votes despite working as much as men as properties that they owned before marriage. Women might have succeeded in attaining almost the same privileges as men later, but, it was not the case until the third quarter of the twentieth century.