Matt offered a better reading of Pateman's seemingly incorrect interpretation of Rawls that I had not considered. He suggested that she was not indicating that Rawls had smuggled in gender by the mention of descendants and heads of households, as much as she was possibly critiquing him for not mentioning gender as the fact that females bear children would be a relevant fact to consider while choosing the principles of fairness.
This is true; women bear children and this fact is relevant to building a fair society. But I assume that this fact would be subsumed under how the world works, information that Rawls' participants do have. By denying the participant's knowledge of their own gender, Rawls attempts to beget decisions not swayed by personal gain. By being genderless, the participants can build a society that treats women fairly, considering all of the relevant facts, for after all, each participant might end up being female.
Rawls, perhaps, would have benefited from being a little more explicit, but I do think he adequately covers the issue.
After reading this post I was reminded by his comment on genderlessness of the gender-deconstructed world that Meredith Render speaks of in "Misogyny, Androgyny, and Sexual Harassment: Sex Discrimination in a Gender-Deconstructed World". For a link please see the most recent post on my blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://barry-sullivan.blogspot.com/2012/02/misogyny-androgyny-and-sexual.html
After reading this post I was reminded by his comment on genderlessness of the gender-deconstructed world that Meredith Render speaks of in "Misogyny, Androgyny, and Sexual Harassment: Sex Discrimination in a Gender-Deconstructed World". For a link please see the most recent post on my blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://barry-sullivan.blogspot.com/2012/02/misogyny-androgyny-and-sexual.html
I am far from convinced that the phenomenological details don't matter -- that we can give an adequate, general account of justice that includes gender justice without actually thinking pretty hard about what it is -- and what it is like -- to be a woman. Remember how dangerous "knowing how the world works" can be when we mistake empirical observations for necessary principles, as Aristotle may have done. But we'll get another shot at these matters.
ReplyDelete