Essays / IS THIS A GOOD PHILOSOPHY PAPER FROM DIFFERERENT PERSPECTIVES? [3]

How Would Kant, Mill, Socrates, And More View The Topic Of Abortion?

"Life today is lived on slippery slopes. Which ones seize our attention and crystallize our fears? What moral outrages or absurdities, lurking at the bottom, stir our energies? How steep is the incline? Where can we throw up a railing, dig a trench, clear a landing, keep our footing?" (Steinfels, 1). Questions similar to these cause moral debates in areas such as abortion. Throughout the history of mankind, there were many questions that were answered ethically. Approaching the year 2007, a major ethical question involved whether mothers should be able to have abortions, in their residing state and/or country. In Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Mill explains how the utilitarian candidate follows the principle that actions are right in proportion to how they promote happiness. A prominent philosopher known as Kant, believes that the categorical imperative demands that we work for the universal good without any regard for our own happiness. According to Socrates, the rules and laws of the state should be obeyed no matter what the circumstances are. Will there ever be a universal law dealing with abortion, that every person will agree with and abide by, or will more philosophers and idealists bring about more ideas concerning this issue, making it harder to come to create a concluding idea.

The Supreme Court made a decision of 5-4 to ban partial-birth abortion on April 18th, 2007. Some of the justices were happy with the end result; however, the others were distraught. Justice Kennedy said, "the act expresses respect for the dignity of human life" (Greenhouse, 1). According to Justice Kennedy, he believes that this act shows value for human life; on the other hand, when a child is born and placed in a foster home, the child will probably never have parents or live a normal life, which is taking away respect from a person's life. Justice Ginsburg had a different approach to the ban on partial-abortion. "Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and 'gravely mistaken.' She said that requiring 'piecemeal' litigation 'jeopardizes women's health and places doctors in an untenable position'" (Greenhouse, 1). Justice Ginsburg fully disagrees with the idea of banning parts of abortions. She is fighting for more rights of women and feels that this case is lowering women's rights. Justice Ginsburg showed more concern about the future. "In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg said the majority had provided only 'flimsy and transparent justifications' for upholding the law, which she noted 'saves not a single fetus from destruction' by banning a single method of abortion.'One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the court's 'moral concerns,' she said" (NY Times.com). Justice Ginsburg is expressing her fear that some people, and the other Justices might pursue on banning more abortion rights. She believes that banning a specific way to have an abortion still allows people to have abortions; therefore, will pro-life believers chase more bans or will they realize that the bans do not change anything, and make a decision to amend the law in favor of the rights of women.

When people are given the choice to do something, they are happy. Dealing with abortions, when people want to choose whether they want to go through the procedure or not, most people would be happy.

"It is ironic that the Republican party wants government
out of everyone's life when it comes to education, health
care, our environment (pollution causes health problems and more), retirement, but they want to dictate every aspect of a person's most personal decisions. They should stick with what they say and stay out of people's personal live too" (NY Times, 1).

This comment posted by Michael shows his ideas about how the government shouldn't be involved in people's personal lives. When the government is involved in people's lives, it threatens the GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle). According to Mill, since the government is setting a regulation for the public, which includes diminishing the rights of women, all people will be unhappy, especially women and rights activists. If a woman wanted to obtain an abortion and wasn't allowed, and the child was left at an adoption home, would that be better for the child's welfare? If Socrates were to look at this ban on the abortion method, he would agree with it. Socrates wouldn't have a problem with the ban, because he believes that laws are the key importance in every society. However, Socrates' beliefs about the laws can be questioned greatly, because there are many societies in the world who take advantage of making laws and create unjust rules for the people.

In Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he writes that people should do their duty and be good, no matter what they receive in return. Kant says, why should one be good unless they attain happiness in this life or else the promise of such in the after-life? As we have already seen, the categorical imperative commands us to be good irrespective of any pay-off. According to the categorical imperative, Kant shows that people have to do an action based on the morality of it, not the incentive. In the case of abortion, Kant would agree that women can not undergo this procedure because it is immoral and murder. Kant believes murder is wrong. A person has to ask themselves whether a fetus is a rational being. Then, the person has to ask whether they are using abortion as a means (a tool for achieving a goal)? If yes, can the person they are using rationally accept the usage of them. If yes, then it is morally permissible; however, if no, then it is immoral. Afterwards, the question arises whether the fetus is a rational being? However, a 3 year old is not rational, like a 3 month old fetus in a woman's stomach. To be rational, a fetus needs to have a nervous system to react; however, it does not, and this brings up the question of whether fetus's are rational because of the soul? Does the soul make a fetus rational? Yes, finally Kant agrees that abortions are wrong because fetus's have a soul; therefore, it is immoral to kill.

"I tell my children weekly, "Everyday we make decisions, and these decisions have consequences. Make sure you can live with the consequences." But, partial birth abortion is just....horrible, undescribable just murder" (NY Times, 1).

This quote posted by Marilyn shows the Kantian perspective dealing with partial birth abortion being immoral and "just murder". However, would it be also murder if a mother can't get an abortion and she has no money to feed the child or the necessities to give him/her shelter and clothes?

When I was reading the newspaper last week in school, I could not believe the Supreme Court's decision and then I realized that Supreme Court Justice Alito was nominated by Bush. My American History professor told my class a few weeks before that it's in the president's best interest to have a Judge that represents your ideals in the Supreme Court. Later last week, I was having a discussion with my classmates, and immediately, one of the girls jumped in and claimed that there was nothing wrong with the decision, and that she wouldn't get an abortion. The point of this issue is not the death of the fetus, per say. Are we to allow the government to pass laws that involves your body? Who is the government to decide what you can or cannot do to yourself? Not that I would be in this situation, but if the government comes in the way between medical decisions that affect my well-being, then what else can the government get itself involved in? Is the government going to set restrictions on the daily food choices that I make, in order to prevent any future "obesity epidemics"? If the government really cared about giving the fetus a chance at life, then instead of funding for insurances to cover abortions, why wouldn't the government fund Birth control methods?

If the woman can't afford to buy birth control pills, patches, or protection, but their insurance covers abortions, then the woman is going to go with the abortion, if it's their decision not to have the baby. If the government ran a program for low-cost/free birth control, then not only would abortion be unnecessary, but there wouldn't be a life involved to end in the first place. What if the woman was raped? Does the woman have to stop everything for the son/daughter of a rapist, which was an undesired circumstance? This topic's too touchy to discuss, seeing as how there are many reasons woman have for abortions. Let all medical decisions be made by those directly involved. Let all personal decisions be made only by those directly involved. In addition, many of the Justices' decisions were based on the belief that abortions are immoral, as it involves the ending of a potential life. Should we allow the Supreme Court to pass on laws that reflect upon their own personal opinions on what is or isn't moral? I never heard any of the justices saying that they wanted to ban abortions, because it can potentially harm the woman receiving it: or that they wanted to ban abortions because they decided on an alternative method that's safer and cheaper than abortions.

There are many different types of people in the world who share many separate
ideas and beliefs. It is hard for every person to attain happiness because nobody shares
the same ideas. The Utilitarians believed that if a certain action should occur, it should benefit most of the people and create happiness within them; however, with so many ideas for happiness it causes a lot of conflict. According to Kant, partial-abortion is not moral because fetus's have a soul. Also, Socrates would agree that partial-abortion is not the right thing to do because it is not following the law of the land. The ethical debate between being able to have a partial-abortion startled many people and families throughout the United States. Will there ever be a set idea that all the American people will agree on? Or is the GHP unattainable?

Works Cited Page
Bentham and Mill, The Classical Utilitarians. (Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 2003).
Greenhouse, Linda, IN REVERSAL OF COURSE, JUSTICES, 5-4, BACK BAN ON ABORTION METHOD. NY Times.com. April 19th, 2007.
Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.
Plato, Apology (Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co, 2002), All pages.
Wheaton, Sarah, Blogtalk: The Supreme Court and Abortion. NY Times.com. April 18th, 2007.

Research Papers / Gendering Children Based on Toys Essay Help- Is it good?? [4]

Gendering Children Based on Toys

What kind of toy should I get for my child is the question of every parent? Should the toy be masculine representing a superhero, or should it be feminine, representing a Barbie "as a model of ideal teenhood (Messner, 775)?" Children are gendered from the second that they are born. The sex of a baby is automatically compared to a color, which is pink or blue. Parents or the primary agents are the people that gender children, and the easiest way to do it is through toys. For my project I picked this topic due to my brother who is seven years old. I used two research methods to prove my hypothesis, which is gendering is based primary by toys that later results in generalization of specific groups. The first method was giving out fifty surveys to a diverse amount of people. The second method was collecting data from five different sources that describe human behavior and how it is tied to a sociological research of gendering children due to toys, resulting in generalization of specific groups later in life.

At first I had a really hard time finding a question that I would elaborate on, but then after the project was assigned, I took my seven year old brother to Toy R Us with his friend Kenny. Even though he is a boy always played with unisex toys. For example, he likes to play with a Barbie because he can drive it around in his cars that are automatically controlled. When we went to Toys R US he wanted a new Barbie because it broke. Therefore, I bought him the Barbie and his friend Kenny started laughing at him, shouting that it's for girls. Afterwards, Dylan told him how he plays with the Barbie and Kenny became extremely interested in the Barbie as well. I purchased the doll for my brother and his friend and we went home. Later that day, I received a phone call from Kenny's mother, indicating that I am promoting homosexuality in her "boy". It struck me how a simple toy like a Barbie can make parents so worried and gender their kids based on what they play with.

When conducting my research, I made seven different questions, with sub questions. The name of my survey was "Gender Stereotyping." After the heading, I made two questions to make people more interested in my survey. The questions included "have you ever looked at a boy under the age of 10 and wanted to buy him a doll?" and "have you ever looked at a girl under the age of 10 and wanted to buy her an army tank?" Afterwards, I asked simple questions like the people's gender, ethnicity, and age. Then, I asked people if they remembered what kind of toy they played with, and what it was. My three last questions inquired whether the people have noticed a distinction in the way girls and boys are treated, does it create stereotyping later in life and would they do anything about it.

The neighborhood where I conducted my surveys was at Marine Park, located in Kings County. The Census Bureau for this specific area states that the estimated population for 2006 is 2,508,820. There are 52.9 percent female and 47.1 percent males in this area. The white population is 50.6 percent, black population is 38.3 percent, Asian population 8.9 percent, 1.5 percent of the people have two or more races, and the 0.7 percent is other. The median household income for 2004 was $32,339.

I gave out my survey in three different parts of Marine Park. At first I conducted it in the playgrounds where I saw mostly mothers with their kids, so I moved onto the basketball courts to get a view of the male population and then I took surveys from the older citizens that sat on the benches. When I gave out the surveys, several people either refused or became frustrated by filling them out.

After conducting my fifty surveys, I reviewed them and I found the outcome to be almost what I had expected. Sixteen surveys out of twenty-seven surveys given to males, proved they do see a distinction how society treats boys and girls. From the twenty- seven surveys that were given to females, fourteen stated that they see a distinction between boys and girls. However, more than half of the surveys conducted stated that children are treated differently because boys are looked upon as masculine, and if treated as girls, they would result to be homosexuals or not masculine. On the other hand, the surveys stated that if girls are treated more masculine it can result in homosexuality. Nevertheless, people said that girls and boys should be treated the same but should still be prescribed feminine and masculine characteristics due to their gender. When asked if people would do something to stop this generalization, the majority said no while some said that they would give unisex toys.

"In addition, young children make gender typed classification of objects like toys, clothing, and household items at an even earlier age than they make gender-typed attributions of personal and social characteristics (Gender-Role Stereotypes 185)." As said in the study, "Children Gender-Role Stereotypes," the most knowledge of gender comes to children until the age of four. Based on the same study, black children are less generalized than white children.

Therefore, the primary agents in stereotyping gender are the parents. This argument can also be proven in an article by Susan D. Witt, PhD, where she states that "activities, opportunities, encouragements, discouragements, overt behavior, covert suggestions, and various forms of guidance, children experience the process of gender role socialization (Widd 1)." If a person gives a child a doll to play with at a young age and demonstrates how to braid and dress a doll, then either gender would be more accustomed to this manner. This ideology can be interpreted based on Mead's Theory. According to the Mead's Theory, infants often imitate adults and children between the ages of four and five that distinguish between "me" and "I". These distinctions allow the child to interpret as it is shown to "me", "I" have to follow it. Over time, a child becomes accustomed to this way and between the age of eight to nine understands its values, morality, and a distinction from right and wrong.

"A further reinforcement of acceptable and appropriate behavior is shown to children through the media, in particular, television (Widd 1)", however; if the major generalization process is until the age of nine, do the second agents, as media, make a big impression on children? I would say it does, but the parents are the people that encourage or discourage specific behaviors. In article, "Barbie Girls versus Sea Monsters," a group of children that are four or five years old play soccer. The soccer matches are organized so the boys would play on one team, and the girls would play on the other.

The boys name their team "Sea Monsters (Messner 767)" and the Girls name themselves "Barbie Girls (Messner 768)." Also the children had to pick out their team colors. The boys picked their colors to be "green and blue (Messner 767)" and the girls picked their colors to be "green and white (Messner 768)." Not only the names, but the colors reveal the different social groups just like in gender likes. For example, when the girls were coming out, the boys were screaming "No Barbie (Messner 768)" and their "faces begin to show signs of distaste (Messner 768)." On the other hand, the girls were protesting against the boy's team. When the parents saw this, they said "They are so different (Messner 768)." After the boys protested, by yelling "No Barbie," "they begin to dash, in two and threes, invading the girls' space, and yelling menacingly (Messner 769)."

By protesting and invading each others boundaries the children are "performing gender." The girls are shown to be more feminine and boys more masculine in the way they control their situation, picking out team colors, and forming their team's name. The name Barbie doll for the girl's team is seen as sweet and feminine. Overall, the doll itself represents "a model of ideal teenhood (Messner 775)." Barbies today can be found by different age and ethnicity. In general, the doll represents perfection which each mother dreams in her daughter.

As a Barbie is a feminine doll, the Sea monster is a masculine doll that destroys and rules. Parents try to put these kinds of characteristics into the gender of their boys. In situations between both genders, parents have picked and enforced different kinds of norms, morals and needs into their kids that shape their gender and creates a barrier in between.

The barriers that are enforced in early stages of life puts boys on a higher perspective than girls. There are more expectations from boys such as education and employment. In the early stages of life, boys are given nice cars to represent the luxury they need to achieve later in their lives. Another example is figuring out a puzzle that represents leadership and intellectual competence in boys (Gender-Role Stereotypes 197). Yet, girls are embraced with dolls and fake kitchenware that represent good housekeeping and beauty.

Later in life, gender differences reflects on how one gender performs socially, and economically, and also physically. "One the whole, men and women sit, stand, gesture, walk, and throw differently (Martin 494)." According to Turner, social life depends upon the successful presenting, monitoring and interpreting of bodies (Martin 495). "Gendered bodies create particular contexts for social relations as the signal, manage, and negotiate information about power and status (Martine 495)." Therefore, power and status should not be reflected on one's gender. Unisex toys just like colors should be taught to children, and boys and girls should be treated on the same spectrum.

The theories that we learned could be related to this topic include the social learning theory and cognitive-developmental theory. Social learning theory "emphasizes the rewards and punishments that children receive sex appropriate and sex inappropriate behaviors (Bem 599)." It concentrates on "development of psychological femaleness and maleness the very same principles of learning that are already known to account for the development of multitude of other behaviors (Bem 600)."

Cognitive-development theory concentrates "on the child as the primary agent of his or her own sex typing follows naturally and inevitably from universal principles of cognitive development (Bem 601)." An example of this theory is "once the boy has stably identified himself as male, he then values positively those objectives and acts consistent with his gender identity (Bem 601)." Overall, it talks about how children are taught how to reflect themselves to their surrounding environment.

Overall, my research project had proved to me that generalization occurs from the second we are born to the second of our last breath. We are distinguished by our requirements that our norms and morals put on us. However, our first pattern in learning and distinguishing gender are the toys that are bought to for us. We are taught to play in a specific way and with specific things to reflect on who we are. As my surveys have shown, we are aware of this distinction, but going out of this cycle will mean going out of what our society believes in.

Bibliography

Albert; Alexa A; Porter Judith R. Sociological Forum, Vol. 3, No.2. (Spring, 1988), pp. 184-210.
Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. Signs, No.4 (Summer, 1983), pp. 598-616.
Martin, Karin A. American Sociological Review, Vol.63, No. 4. ( Aug., 1998), pp. 494-511.
Messner, Michael A. Gender and Society, Vol.14, No. 6. (Dec., 2000), pp. 765-784.
U.S. Census Bureau. Kings County, New York.
Witt, Susan. Parental Influence on Children's Socialization to Gender Roles (Summer, 1997).

Essays / Philosophy Essay on Hume's view [2]

I need great help in writing an essay. The topic is on:

Hume believes that moral knowledge is based on feelings, not reason. Explain at least one problem this causes for Hume's view.

I was researching for days and I figured out what his feelings thing is, but I dont know what the problem is. Can you help?

Writing Feedback / The alchemy of Race and Rights compared to Durkheim, Weber and Marx [2]

I finished writing this essay on the alchemy of race and rights compared to the works of Durkheim, Weber and Marx. Can you please correct anything for me that you feel is wrong?

The Alchemy of Race and Rights

Patricia Williams's text, The Alchemy of Race and Rights, discusses and analyzes "critical race theory" in retrospect to "self-hood" and victimization in people of color, class and gender. The authors ability to link numerous issues together is all owed to her "word-bondage" that she uses to show not only different perspectives of the same issues, but also to construct and be able to mold out issues that convey the same meanings in fields of social and legal analysis. As the work of Patricia Williams's proceeds, it allows the readers to assume that Patricia Williams's insights on Civil Rights and Human rights discourse still remain a black whole with too many answers left to answer. The sociological concepts that are involved in The Alchemy of Race and Rights can be critiqued and compared to the works of Durkheim, Weber, and Marx.

So what is the "critical race theory" and how does it intertwine with "self-hood" and victimization in people of color, class and gender? As it is portrayed in The Alchemy of Race, "critical race theory" is a theory that focuses on a nature of race within relations to power, in other words power that arises from money. Power is a very important concept in this theory because it is what pushes change to occur in legal and social fields. However, "critical race theory" is not only a theory that looks upon race, but also intertwines class, race and sex all within one category. As Patricia Williams examines this theory, she questions economic and civil liberties within the U.S. government because they are stating that "equal protection guarantees equality of opportunity "blindly" for the benefit of those market actors who have exercised rational choices in wealth-maximizing ways; and that those who make irrational choices in wealth-maximizing choices have chosen, and therefore deserve to be poor" (Williams, 28). Therefore, Patricia Williams raises questions, if black people are making irrational choices by being born black with historical roots tied up to slavery, and were there ever any equality of opportunity that were the same for blacks, as there are for white people? As she re-calls it, her great-grandmother was a young black girl that was bought by a white male. She became pregnant at the age of thirteen. Later on, the children that she had were taken away by her white master. Most of the time the great-grandmother spent was in isolation and raped by her white master. As her children grew up, they did not know their mother, but instead were thankful to their father or master for their survival (Williams, 18).

Patricia Williams ties the story to her grandmother to the present day and the exploitation that persists to happen to people of color. She examines the issue of black female babysitters/maid that only receives $150 for a full time job, while a Hispanic woman earns $200 for performing the same job. The catch is, one is black and the other one is white (Williams, 20). Too that, Patricia Williams, compares homeless people with the same ongoing exploitation. In other words, she compares them to slaves or even black people as a whole, because they are "those who cannot express themselves in the language of power and assertion and staked claims- all those who are never less deserving of the dignity of social valuation, yet those who are so often denied survival itself" (Williams, 21). She explains that no matter how hard these people try, just as herself, they are denied the opportunity to be themselves. Therefore, in result they are the ones that stand in "self-hood" or in other words they are the separated bunch that is viewed as outcasts in the past, present, and future generations.

False stereotypes of people of color, gender and sex are all tied with description or representation that is used in commerce as well as civil action cases. Patricia Williams gives an example of "Coke". When "Coke" is advertised it is portrayed as being a drink that is only drank by "perky, sexy self (but in) reality (its) a can of corn syrup" (Williams, 40). Just as the stereotypes of "Coke" are misleading, so are stereotypes of race, gender, and sex. "The greater harm is that it is hypnotic and culturally addictive" (Williams, 41). An example of "Coke" is a "floating signifier" just as race and sex. These aspects of commerce and aspects of life contain vague associations with ones characteristics that can be also be tied to "word-bondage" or an interpretation of these issues in different attributes of their meanings.

To explain more clearly what is "word-bondage and how it is used in everyday social and legal life, Patricia Williams re-calls a story about Peter Gabel and her. Before she tells the story, she notes that they are both professors and rather colleagues in their work. They perform work that is alike however, he is a white male and she is a black female. They both moved to New York City and were planning to rent an apartment. "He said he didn't need to sign a lease because it imposed too much formality. The handshake and the good vibe were for him indicators of trust more binding than a form of contract" (Williams, 146). At the beginning, the author called Peter crazy, that he would never get his apartment, because there was never a contract. However, Williams was wrong, he was given "keys in hand, to welcome him in" (Williams, 146). But as she states due to her past experience, "Manhattan lessors would not have trusted a black person enough to let me in the door in the first place, (without) paperwork, references and credit check" (Williams, 147).

Therefore, a contract for the author was a sense of power and trustworthiness, but the same contract for Peter, ended in just a simple handshake. As a result, a word such as "contract" can be discussed and identified and preformed with different actions and especially with different interpretations in the legal and social fields. The "word-bondage" of "contract" can be inferred in several ways just as race, sex, and class, therefore, there is no such thing as a concrete interpretation of these things. As a result of this example and an example of "Coke," identification of race, color, and sex are not sufficiently concrete definitions to decide what should become law, and how it would profit these groups of people, because there are no associations with facts, stereotypes and racial identification are all opinions.

As for Civil rights and Human rights discourse, Patricia Williams states that they are set up by "perspective of traditionally conceived constitutional standards" (Williams, 106) and for that reason, they are interpreted by "private law" (Williams, 106). As Patricia Williams stated earlier in her text "private law" is made by white males that do not equalize humanity, but instead provide inequality by taking away "public rights" such as welfare from low income people. Too that "Civil rights act, to say nothing of affirmative action" (Williams, 106), and until the Civil rights discourse notes anything about the affirmative action, than there would be no equalization with white population for the African American community or of people of any color, sex and class that are different from what is considered to be the norms. Patricia Williams notes that their needs to be a point when laws would become color-blind and not an "antidote for race bias in real life," (Williams, 48) and if that happens than the Civil rights and Human rights are going to become the real rights to life, liberty, and freedom of thought and expression.

Emile Durkheim was a sociologist that tired to prove "that the society is fundamentally a moral system" (Sutton, 32). He tried to prove his argument through analysis of three periods, such as pre-industrial, industrial, and modern by tying them up in respects to "social solidarity," collective conscience," and law. One of areas of concentration was based on the fact that he believed that industrialization does not destroy people or society, it only profits it by creating a division of labor that "separates society into diverse groups with different moral perspectives" (Sutton, 33). Patricia Williams would disagree with Durkheim, because having a division of labor separates people within specific groups. It might create individualism and interdependence, but in a negative way. Usually individualism and interdependence is tied up with power that creates inequality. In this attribute, Patricia Williams would question, Durkheim's reasoning on who is qualified for what job and how and where would he put boundaries in the work ethics of people? How would Duerkheim know who is more qualified for what? Did the people who are rated higher receive individualized attention in seminars and were taught how to perform each task with a tutor to perfection (Williams, 99)? Therefore, there is no such thing as an equal separation of groups within different moral perspectives in the labor market.

One of the components of Duerkheim's theory that Patricia Williams would agree with would be "restitutive law". This type of law is made to control complex society or modern societies. It "does not seek to punish but, rather, to restore a broken social relationship" (Sutton, 38). Basically it restores the balance of the relationship with oneself to the normal state before a law was violated. Patricia Williams would agree with "restitutive law," because the major point of Alchemy of Race and Rights is for people to get rid of opinions about specific kinds of people, but mostly people of color and define law by color-blind, liberal ideals, not within a stereotypical concrete platform. If these actions would be performed than a balance can be restored according to her.

Patricia Williams would agree with Karl Marx about the concept of legal change. The concept that she would agree would be that "Law does not deal with whole people but with idealized "subjects" who have property rights but lack substantive rights" (Sutton, 93). She would agree with this concept because "property might have a gender and that gender might be a matter of words" (Williams, 13). When Patricia is stating that, she means that most of the property is found in the hands of males. The males are the "subjects," in Karl Marxist concept of legal change. However, it is not mentioned nowhere in the law who are these men and how one got their property? Or does it simply say that the law is the white males and the "subjects" are black males with lack of "substantive rights"? To that Patricia Williams would agree.

The concept in Marxian theory that Patricia Williams would disagree would consist in "Historical Materialism". Part of historical materialism analysis is that "social change can be understood only by an examination of concrete human activity in particular social contexts" (Sutton, 93). The Alchemy of Race and Rights is a diary of Patricia Williams that focuses on a platform, which is slavery. Slavery is the foundation of this book, because it is perceived that the roots of inequality are all impacts of the past. If one would examine concrete human activity and especially in a field of social context, it would pretty much all be stereotypical evidence coming from commerce.

Unlike Marxian of historical materialism, Weber's theory of methodological orientation states that natural and social sciences are two different things and that one should "take into account how actors in different societies and different historical periods see and understand the world" (Sutton, 129) than only one could interpret the law. With this concept Patricia Williams would definitely agree with. However, the way Weber analyses his outlooks on Social order, Patricia Williams would disagree. She would disagree with Weber's idea of that "all societies must have some form of domination; authority is legitimate domination" (Sutton, 129). She would disagree with it because this is what the founding fathers believed in and their beliefs created inequality that follows us all the way to know and will separate the dominating class and minorities in the future, and Patricia Williams is trying to impose that point in her diary, Alchemy of Race and Rights.

Alchemy of Race and Rights is a diary of Patricia Williams that discusses and analyses "critical race theory" in retrospect to "self-hood" and victimization in people of color, class and gender, and explains how it all connects to the "word-bondage" that illustrates floating-signifiers in race and sex.