Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Essay Questions (Brandeis Brief)

  1. What evidence did the state’s attorneys use in the Brandeis Brief to support the limitation of work hours for women?

The State’s attorneys used factual information about men and women to uphold the limitation of hours that women are supposed to work. Women’s physical structure and the exhibition of maternal capacities place them off guard in the battle for subsistence is self-evident (Morag-Levine 90). This is particularly evident when the weights of parenthood have arrived. Notwithstanding when they are not, by copious declaration of the therapeutic clique continuation for quite a while on their feet at work keeps an eye on harmful impacts upon the body, and, the physical prosperity of lady turns into an object of open intrigue and care so as to protect the quality and force of the race. Still, once more, history unveils the way that lady has consistently been needy upon man. Without a doubt, there are singular special cases, and there are numerous regards wherein she has a bit of leeway over men; however taking a gander at it from the perspective of the push to keep up an autonomous position throughout everyday life, a woman isn’t upon a correspondence.

  1. What did that evidence suggest about women and the role that the government should have in protecting women?

The evidence implied that women have less endurance and should, therefore, work for fewer hours compared to men. In contending that physically flimsier ladies merited security, Brandeis made more than a physiological contention; it likewise was grounded in convictions about family and sexual orientation. Brandeis contended that future moms would be hurt by exhaust in manufacturing plants, diminishing their ability for childbearing and bringing about debilitated kids. Further, families would be hurt by the loss of female administration in the home. By concentrating on the particular jobs of ladies as moms, Brandeis tried to get around the Supreme Court’s affinity for restricting administrative guideline of the opportunity to contract (Morag-Levine  67).

  1. What argument were the lawyers making and what obstacles were they trying to overcome?

The lawyers were primarily arguing on the importance of limiting work hours for women. They contended that ladies are on a very basic level flimsier than men altogether that makes for continuance: in strong quality, in anxious vitality, in the forces of industrious consideration and application. This was later trailed by a statement ascribing the female inadequacy “in quality just as in velocity and exactness of development” to the nearness of more noteworthy measures of water in the blood and muscles of ladies, concerning men. Somewhere else, the Brief implied what is depicted as a generally perceived association between extended periods of standing and pelvic issue (Morag-Levine 90. Moving from wellbeing to profound quality, the Brief unequivocally connected long work hours with expanded sexual indiscrimination and liquor abuse among ladies. They uncovered that Woman is gravely developed to stand eight or ten hours upon her feet. They didn’t plan to bring into proof the curious position and nature of the organs contained in the pelvis, yet to point out the impossible to miss the development of the knee and the shallowness of the pelvis, and the sensitive idea of the foot as a major aspect of a supporting segment.

  1. What argument did Muller’s attorneys use to reject limitations on the work hours for women?

Muller’s attorneys argued that limiting working hours for women was contrary to the fourteenth amendment by hindering her from freely contracting with her employer. He asserted that it was the law of Oregon that women, regardless of whether wedded or single, have equivalent authoritative and individual rights with men. The spouse can bargain, not just with her different property, gained from whatever source, in a similar way as her significant other can with property having a place with him, yet that she may make contracts and cause liabilities, and the equivalent might be authorized against her, equivalent to in the event that she was a feme sole (Morag-Levine 74). There is currently no residuum of common incapacity settling upon her which isn’t perceived as existing against the spouse

  1. What biases and assumptions were embedded in the arguments and evidence of these positions?

The arguments and evidence were assumed to be biased as they were based on gender stereotypes as perceived by many feminists. Brandeis and others needed comparative guidelines for men and were utilizing ensuring ladies incompletely as an entering wedge. Nevertheless, they were set up to acknowledge laws that regarded ladies as more powerless than men (Morag-Levine 73). Driven by Florence Kelley, the group united with worker’s guilds, and with men like Brandeis and Frankfurter, to frame a strong political and legitimate coalition for ladies’ hour and pay enactment. They restricted the Equal Rights Amendment, expecting that it would imperil their social legislation. This methodology, however disagreeable today, may have been nearer to the feelings of most average workers ladies than the perfectionist woman’s rights activists.
 
 
Works Cited
Morag-Levine, Noga. “Facts, Formalism, and the Brandeis Brief: The Origins of a Myth.” U. Ill. L. Rev. (2013): 59-101.