Satirical Essay 'An Enlightened, Humble Proposal'

In Tracy’s satirical essay, “An Enlightened, Humble Proposal,” she begins with a monologue, presenting the matter at hand: gender inequality in the workplace. She makes notes of how far women have come since the women’s suffrage and equality movement in the twentieth century, but makes it clear that it is not enough. In doing so, the author pulls the reader in with a false sense of security in believing that this essay will speak kindly and logically on the matter of gender inequality as she presents no clear indication that it is a satirical essay. The author continues to feed the reader with tangible statistics on workplace inequality and gives a superficial voice to her intended audience—working women—in order to make it appear that the

She claims that because other feminists have exhausted other options, they have no choice but to come to the solution she has devised. Through a claim that holds some truth—as women have indeed exhausted the same options in an attempt to achieve full gender equality—the narrator twists that truth in order to benefit her own argument. As the narrator continues her argument, she brings up God, which in turns makes her argument more religious and fanatical as she takes on an abstract notion that God appeared in her dreams for her heroic cause, as though she is an absurd version of Joan of Arc. The narrator claims that God came to her and told her that in order to solve their gender imbalance, they must remove women from the equation; it is ironic that a self-proclaimed feminist would encourage the removal of women to fight gender inequality. Her solution is presented in the form of a purchase product, which is absurd as she argues that a three-step product that appeals to consumerism can solve the gender inequality issue that has been raging for centuries. By presenting her solution in the form of a “Buy-Now” product, she reinforces the stereotype that existed since the birth of department stores in the 19th century: women are consumers and materialistic. Furthermore, she adds that the product is “easy to comprehend” and without the “assistance of their capable, intelligent husbands” (Nguyen). The narrator incorporates self-effacing humor in order to strengthen her satirical argument, suggesting that women would not only benefit from this product but also be able to understand it without a man by their side. Although there are moments in the author’s essay where it parallels a Horatian satire, there are also parts where it is invective enough to be a Juvenalian satire as she recycles an victim-blaming argument from today’s sexual harassment problems, claiming that