Justice, Gender, and the Family

Rating:
Summary: One of the most influential books i've read
Review: A great thought provoking and stimulating work of deconstructing the division of labor between the sexes. Includes sound arguments and should be a required text in college to expose more individuals to the harmful effects of inequality on women, children, and men.

Rating:
Summary: A Rethinking of Justice
Review: Okin is powerful because she extends considerations of justice and civic equality to women and the family in ways that classical and modern political philosphers have not. However, in doing so, she saves and extracts vital elements of these patriarchal theories and traditions to expose their radical potential.

Rating:
Summary: One of the most influential books i've read
Review: This book addresses the inequality of men and women, and there is a problem, but it fails in many respects. First, I find her uses of sources suspect because of her treatment of Homer and the Greek authors. In the Odyessy, Odysseus' desire is to return to hearth, home, and family. Only on Circe's isle did he stay willingly, and then, through bewitching. Most of the female characters are portrayed in a kind light, whatever their flaws. This is so much so that many have thought it written by a woman! However, in her version, Odysseus stayed away deliberately after the Trojan war. This is but one example. The Greeks were hardly models to follow for cherishing women (quite the opposite), but since there are other titles from which she could make her case, and she spends a considerable amount of her Greek time here, it tells me that despite her statements, she's never read most of them and certainly not the Odyessy. Since I am convinced that she's never read the book, or that if she has, she read her personal views into the text in a way that is inexcusable, I find her usage of all sources suspect.

My second problem is that her proposed solution to inequality undermines the same personal freedoms she wants. If the government steps in and dictates personal life and finances to the degree she proposes, the people are not living in a free society, but a dictatorship. For instance, should the government step in on a family's paycheck and dictate how it is divided between members of the household? Not if one believes in private property. Her proposal to bring freedom for women brings instead a tyrannical government without personal freedoms.

Equality between men and women is a laudable goal, but one must look elsewhere for the solution. The approach proposed in the book is counterproductive, and being given in the name of freedom and justice, hypocritical. Before the reader assumes that I'm just a sexist, know that I believe in the absolute equality of men and women in thought and the workplace and have stood for it on many occasions. However due to the nature of this book's propositions, I will oppose them with the same force wiith which Bush wants an immoral war with Iraq.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: This book addresses the inequality of men and women, and there is a problem, but it fails in many respects. First, I find her uses of sources suspect because of her treatment of Homer and the Greek authors. In the Odyessy, Odysseus' desire is to return to hearth, home, and family. Only on Circe's isle did he stay willingly, and then, through bewitching. Most of the female characters are portrayed in a kind light, whatever their flaws. This is so much so that many have thought it written by a woman! However, in her version, Odysseus stayed away deliberately after the Trojan war. This is but one example. The Greeks were hardly models to follow for cherishing women (quite the opposite), but since there are other titles from which she could make her case, and she spends a considerable amount of her Greek time here, it tells me that despite her statements, she's never read most of them and certainly not the Odyessy. Since I am convinced that she's never read the book, or that if she has, she read her personal views into the text in a way that is inexcusable, I find her usage of all sources suspect.

My second problem is that her proposed solution to inequality undermines the same personal freedoms she wants. If the government steps in and dictates personal life and finances to the degree she proposes, the people are not living in a free society, but a dictatorship. For instance, should the government step in on a family's paycheck and dictate how it is divided between members of the household? Not if one believes in private property. Her proposal to bring freedom for women brings instead a tyrannical government without personal freedoms.

Equality between men and women is a laudable goal, but one must look elsewhere for the solution. The approach proposed in the book is counterproductive, and being given in the name of freedom and justice, hypocritical. Before the reader assumes that I'm just a sexist, know that I believe in the absolute equality of men and women in thought and the workplace and have stood for it on many occasions. However due to the nature of this book's propositions, I will oppose them with the same force wiith which Bush wants an immoral war with Iraq.