Feminist critiques of Rawls

Carole Pateman

Rawls seeks an original position that will confirm ‘our’ intuitions about existing institutions; ‘our’ meaning Men’s intuitions and existing institutions including patriarchy

Rawls claims that parties have descendants they’re concerned about and that they’re heads of families, taking for granted that sexual differences exist, sex happens, that children are born, and that families are formed

I.M. Young

critics Rawls’ theory of justice for assuming that impartiality is the ideal way to achieve fairness → Reflects stereotypically masculine traits.

The idea that justice should be based only on reason, ignoring emotions or relationships, is often seen as "universal" or "neutral." → False dichotomy

If we treat everyone the same, then we’re ignoring important inequalities between men and women

The family as immune from justice

By stating that parties are ‘heads of households’, Rawls assumes families are immune to justice

Jane English’s Example

“Suppose that for the sake of efficiency, natural child-bearers (women) are always appointed as child-rearers (primary caregivers).

• This arrangement might seem “good” for the ‘heads of households’

• But it’s unjust for some individuals within the family → women burdened with child-rearing duties because they can give birth.

• Violates the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle

Susan Moller Okin

Families are where the sense of justice is developed, so it needs to be internally just.

• "Rawls completely ignores women and gender."

• Concerned with protecting women

While Rawls addresses legal sex discrimination, she critiques him for failing to address real-world inequalities rooted in the history of women’s oppression.

argues that formal equality doesn’t guarantee effective equality because it ignores the historical and social realities of women’s exclusion.

• All institutions are constructed on the assumption of wives at home

Rawls’ theory would require radical social change

In a just society, “one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye colour or the length of one’s toes.”

How Rawls’ response to criticisms about the family is seen

inadequate because he continues to exclude family from justice.

Rawls assumes that if women choose to take caregiving roles, it’s their voluntary choice, which is problematic because if there are no alternatives then the choice isn’t truly free.

Rawls separates public life (laws, institutions, jobs) from private life (family, home), which allows injustices at home