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.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Feminism
I have referred to my ignorance on this issue in comments on blogs and in class. The term 'feminism' has been used quite frequently (so too the passive voice apparently) and rightly so; the class is, after all, women and philosophy. I would like some clarification as to the proper use of the term. The term is deliberately misused by some, especially in the media, and accidentally by others, myself included I am sure.
Matt began the semester by asking us if we 1) recognized that women were people and 2) believed that women were systematically disadvantaged by society (or something to that effect, I cannot, alas, remeber verbatim). He suggested then, that these were the key foundations to being a feminist. I am wondering if these are sufficient. Would there need to also be a belief that this oppression and disadvantage is unwarrented and needs changing? While I think that should obviously follow, I guarentee there are people who do not.
From my understanding and what I have been told, there are many different types of feminism, so what are the conditions that are common to them all, the essence of feminism?
Matt began the semester by asking us if we 1) recognized that women were people and 2) believed that women were systematically disadvantaged by society (or something to that effect, I cannot, alas, remeber verbatim). He suggested then, that these were the key foundations to being a feminist. I am wondering if these are sufficient. Would there need to also be a belief that this oppression and disadvantage is unwarrented and needs changing? While I think that should obviously follow, I guarentee there are people who do not.
From my understanding and what I have been told, there are many different types of feminism, so what are the conditions that are common to them all, the essence of feminism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)