Since the 1970 s, women in liberal Western Societies have experienced greater freedoms.

Transcription

1 Abstract: Since the 1970 s, women in liberal Western Societies have experienced greater freedoms. However, it can be argued that while these women have gained some freedoms, they have not yet won the battle for equal status. Instead, women continue to battle a patriarchal society in order to gain the respect and equal treatment that they feel is deserved. Most liberal feminists believe that this struggle continues because of a discrepancy in the social compact. As a result of this discrepancy, some liberal feminists advocate for the total removal of this social compact, whereas others demand a partial review of the compact. This paper will review the argument of Carole Pateman in her work, The Sexual Contract, and then will attempt to critically examine classic liberalism. Classic liberalism will be examined as a way to identify a power system that motivates the biased nature of the social contract. These concepts will inform the differences between the ideal social contract and the currently existing power driven social contract. Thirdly, this paper will look at the influence of the power driven social compact on gender education and shall identify major necessary changes in gender education before the ideal social contract can be recognized. A Liberal Education: Discourse on the Rights of Women in Liberal Societies and How this Impacts Gender Education. By Kenya Flash and Vivienne Felix Western societies consider themselves bastions of freedom, especially in regard to the rights of women. Yet, if one looks closely, the realization dawns that the freedom granted to women in these societies is actually limited and somewhat stilted in manner. Most women in these societies still find themselves fighting for a foothold in respect to how much power they hold within society and how much they are expected to achieve. They are

2 2 hampered by glass ceilings in regards to the professions they may take, the wages they may earn, the status they hold in their own liberal societies (as in the societies expectations of them, and the roles they should play) and the ability to choose their own destinies. One of the puzzling things at work here is that these issues still survive in extremely powerful Western nations which have in general adopted a liberal tradition. Through the liberal tradition, the idea that all persons are created equal and should have equal opportunity to gain access to things that will improve their livelihoods has flourished 1. As a result, one must wonder, how is it that women are unable to gain equal standing with their male counterparts as regards employment, economic and political power within these societies? Can it be that the liberal tradition within these societies is a convenient fiction established to keep women beneath the glass ceiling? This paper will explore attitudes towards women through a theoretical liberal framework and then determine how these attitudes have influenced gender education in these societies. The Sexual Contract In her work, The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman explores the continued barriers to women in liberal societies, both in action and attitude. Many of the issues that women face within these societies have been long standing and have evolved over time and become so firmly embedded in liberal societies that it would almost take a full deconstruction of those societies to understand how to address the biases against women. Pateman examines the difficulties facing women by investigating the theoretical underpinnings of liberal societies, specifically through deconstructing contract theory. What is contract theory? Contract through Pateman s work could be seen as a mutual decision reached and upheld by two different parties (individuals) from equal power 1 Philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau pressed this idea as a contrast to the popular belief in divine right.

3 status. 2 Social contract theory is the way in which modern liberal governments legitimize their authority while enabling an understanding of how each person attains and maintains rights within those societies. According to Pateman, the shared version of social contract theory only tells one half of the story as relates to rights, access and status. The untold version of the story includes one of subordination and complete domination of one sex by the other. 3 To help the reader maintain focus on the relationships built in liberal societies, Pateman centers her discourse in contractual terms. The sexual contract is presented as a contract of domination and subordination. What is domination and subordination? While Pateman does not define these things 4, she explains that within the sexual contract, women are made subjected to men. Through this subjection, women then lose their political right to join in the social contract; while still having the capacity to enter into the marriage contract. The social contract works in coordination with the sexual contract to form the original contract. The original contract is the avenue by which the theoretical conception of rights was developed in societies. To understand how the original contract works one must first recognize that the social contract does not and cannot work independently. For Pateman, it works only as well as it does because the individual who is constituted by the social contract is a male individual who utilizes this contract to ensure his sex right and sexual access to women while being able to still maintain his own personal rights in respect to other men. 5 2 If one considers her references to wives needing to have the same intellectual powers as their male counterparts or wage slaves having the same ability to both be able to enter into a contract, then it makes sense that she considers both parties to maintain equal status. 3 Pateman, Carole, The Sexual Contract, page 1 4 For the purposes of this paper, domination can be seen as utilization of political power by one group over another in an attempt to maintain status within society; while subjection can be seen as cooperation with a larger, stronger force in an effort to avoid some form of loss. 5 Ibid 1-2 3

4 4 The original contract has been central to understanding exactly how liberal government originated and exactly why that form of government is owed the allegiance of its citizens. It elucidates the rights of each person, how those rights are recognized/protected, and are then reinforced through the willing refusal of maintaining absolute right over one s own person to gain more secured rights through civil unity. However, it must once again be stated that the person situated in the original contract is most decidedly male and the only one who can have his rights appreciated. To thoroughly investigate Pateman s argument, the full story of the social contract needs to be told. As told, the social contract is one in which man finds himself in the state of nature which depending on the philosopher ranges from hostile and extremely dangerous 6 or following certain rules but with an independence that is not governed by any other man except maybe the father in the family. 7 Eventually, man finds that this state is too unpredictable and/or unprofitable and so joins with other men into a union that will not only respect their rights but will protect them 8. However, as man enters the civil state, he does so with woman at his side already subordinated through an earlier contract, the sexual contract- in which man gains access to her body and also maintains a hold over her political status. 9 Within this arena, she is not an individual who has property in and of herself as men do, but rather becomes property herself, the property of her husband or of her father. Here is the central theme within the original contract: man does have equal rights with his male neighbor, but woman who is also a member of civil society is relegated to the private spherea sphere which while it may be considered equal in importance to the political sphere is also 6 For Hobbes, it was a place where each vice and evil found its room for expression and no man reigned supreme over the other. 7 In contrast, Rousseau or Locke believed in a more fluid form of interaction. 8 These ideas are the culmination of ideas of other theorists expressed separately within her chapter on patriarchial confusions. 9 Ibid 113.

5 mutually exclusive with the political sphere which is what the original contract regulates. 10 A more thorough application of these principles is made especially as one examines the way in which she looks at the history and transition from patriarchal state to civil society, in addition to her comparisons between one type of contract to another. The Sexual Contract and liberalism One point by Pateman is that the sexual contract is only one form of exclusionary contract 11, that the marriage contract 12, the employment contract, the civil slave contract 13 and more are still operational. 14 This idea inspired a few questions: 1. how could a liberal society which should have cancelled out these contractual issues, rather have them so deeply entrenched- Pateman addresses this, stating that it was purposefully done 15 ; 2. could the exclusionary nature of the social contract have arisen from the very definitions included in liberalism- or is liberalism simply a mechanism through which a different, more subtle power structure operates- as argued by Pateman recent literature 16 ; and 3. is liberalism obsolete and in need of total eradication? Could the contradictory nature of liberalism (as noted by the exclusionary aspects of its basic mechanism-the social contract) actually be the result of another power structure reinterpreting and reformulating its biases under the guise of liberalism? If so, then that 10 According to Pateman, the private and public spheres do not mix and women have the power to rule within the private sphere with the permission of their husbands, however, her voice within the public sphere or civil society is subsumed within that of her husbands as he is her protector and as his labor is what ensures her life. Her labor as a housewife is discounted. 11 A contract that has one party that dominates and subjects another while attempting to suppress the political rights of the subjugated party. 12 which is also confused with the sexual contract 13 Much like a employment contract, except the worker is contracted for life 14 On page 117, she refers to the fact that wives, wage slaves, servants and workers are all under contract and are all thus servants. Throughout the chapter, such comparisons are made to highlight that liberalism fosters an environment of exploitation. 15 On page 118 as well as other places throughout the text, she states that contract is based upon subordination as well as freedom. 16 In her chapter on Patriarchial Confusions, she addresses this most thoroughly through looking at origins and the relationship between contract and patriarchy. 5

6 6 power structure would have be characterized by those biases and translated into power paradigms; while still being able to recognize the freedom, equality and property of the individual, maintain the pivotal role of the individual within the social contract and liberalism, define the differences between civil and natural persons and maintain the appearance of the ideal social contract. As previously mentioned, Pateman views this power structure as being grounded in patriarchy. Pateman believes that patriarchy works rather intimately with liberalism, utilizing the social contract in an oral history that proclaims that man has finally secured his rights to woman and over woman 17. For her, the initial subordination of women led to further belief that the subordination of other groups was appropriate. Indeed, she states that once a man mastered his wife or made her his upper servant, then it was easier to subordinate and master other servants. However, this story does not accurately describe power dynamics in our society. If the scenario functioned as described, then the transition through time would emphasize that women regardless of their background ought to be subordinate to men in all cases, with their womanhood overshadowing all aspects of their background; however, the argument could be made that minority women are treated more like members of their races than ascribed to their gender 18. Pateman addresses the existing social contract as a contract which denies the political power to any other but men. This explanation is somewhat limited. A more total version of the actual social contract would also address the plight of all who are posited as having no access to the political world in any manner. It would be more conservative and traditional than the liberal social contract, and would be used to explore undefined relationships within 17 This victory over woman came through the sexual contract. 18 Sojourner Truth, Ain t I A Woman speech indicates that she was not treated as a woman because of her race

7 the social contract relationship. One of these is the relationship between the civilized and the natural man within the state of nature. For Pateman, the civilized man is simply a man who is not uncivilized or still in the state of nature, whereas the uncivilized man is one who is not recognized as a member of civil society. Later in this paper, the relationship between the civilized versus the uncivilized man shall be explored as a having a more complex interdependence on each other. Exploring Liberalism- Shared Ideas from Pateman Many of the more noted classic liberalists 19 embraced the idea of a social contract which they then used to different purposes, through which each adequately explained the purpose/need for government 20. To understand the social contract, certain themes must be further defined. Pateman addresses some of these them, but only obliquely. Central to these conceptions of the social contract was man, rights, the state of nature, choice and civilization. Man may be seen as the individual (for Pateman, the male individual). The other terms are much more involved and layered than the first defined theme. Rights may be defined as autochthonous privileges attained through birth and then maturation. Key to understanding rights is the definition of three terms and its relationship to them. Freedom, equality and property (Pateman also includes fraternity, or a male brotherhood, which is necessary for the sexual contract) are all central to the understanding of rights and liberalism. Equality, in this context, does not apply to equality in all aspects as that is impossible, but equality through the eyes of the law. Freedom, in this context, is negative freedom, and it is guaranteed and/or reinforced by the social contract. In reading Locke s Second Treatise one comes to understand what is meant by this freedom. Locke begins by stating that man, while in a state of nature, realized that he needed to join together with other men for the 19 Again, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. 20 Orton, William. The Liberal Tradition, page 104 7

8 8 protection of certain rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In joining with other men, man lost some of his basic rights, i.e. to do as he chose, whenever he chose, but he gained much more in this civil society. While man gave up his basic rights, Locke would continue, there are some rights man cannot give up, and these are the rights that constitute our freedoms. For example, it is our right to express ourselves as we so choose, the government cannot take those rights away from us to the extent which we cause no harm to other men s ability to do so. Property, in this context, is the idea that man is entitled to protect the property which he worked for and to reap the benefits of it. Locke states that we ought to protect that which we own, including ourselves, and ownership comes from the work which we have done on something not claimed by someone else 21. From this point on, Ms. Pateman differs in her assessment of the social contract. Her assessment of the state of nature warranted a line that stated that the state of nature ends where civil society begins and civil society ends where the state of nature begins, she then looks at the development of civil society from the familial bent and not from the traditional bent of civil society developing right away. The Sexual Contract and Pateman s Origin of Civil Society As one reads the sexual contract, it becomes obvious that for Pateman 22, there was another type of society prior to civil society. The actual make-up of this society reflected a matriarchal organization or a society that was extremely disconnected from each other- with each person going their own way. Men in an attempt to command power, then raped or used force to coerce women into needing their protection and this led to women accepting the 21 Pateman also states that the idea of property in and of one s self sets up the stage for voluntary slavery and thus allows contract theory to be one which highlights and emphasizes the ability for one to be a slave. She does maintain that Rousseau rejects this idea of selling oneself, with the exception of women and highlights other ways in which property in oneself is problematic. 22 Through her continued study of traditional and non-traditional theorists, she developed these leanings.

9 sexual contract under the guise of protection. Within this society, the other men also subjected themselves to their father s rule or paternalism. Eventually, the men found themselves under tyrannical rule with their sex-right over the women, dominated and in an effort to regain their rights, they overthrew their father s power and established new rule based upon the relationships between men (fraternity). These relationships would then be codified by a rule of law that they all bound themselves to, or a contract. As a result of this, the individual was posited as male and only his rights were respected. Women were still trapped in the natural state of marriage or the sexual contract, even though through their marriages they were pulled them along into civil society. Their status as members of civil society was grounded in the idea that they were a part of their husband s property. Consequently, the social contract- and indeed liberalism- is not able to be applied to women in any aspect, because any mention of the individual or individual ownership of one s person was always meant to include only men, and woman was as relevant to that debate as furniture. What Pateman does not address in this argument is the idea that the men who were also subjected to their father s were subjected in a natural state and that subjection was considered legitimate because they chose to remain in that natural state. Their individuality from their father was only recognized once they chose to overthrow the father. Indeed, the argument can be made that they consented to make their father king over them and thus they evidenced individuality, but the argument could also run that woman consented to have her husband as lord over her. Further the argument can be made that women consented under duress, but it is also taken for granted that the sons did not, which may not be the case. Thus individuality- from the point of view of those who retain rights- is earned and to remain under the power of another is to remain in the natural state. How else could the state 9

10 10 of nature and the origin of society be perceived within the liberalism? Other Perceptions of the Origins of Liberal Society Liberalism s state of nature warrants an even more thorough discussion than afforded by Pateman as it is also more difficult to understand. Many theorists had their own idea of the state of nature and why man would choose to leave it. Even the three more referenced theorists, Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke differ in their views of the relationship between man and nature. For Hobbes, man needs to leave the state of nature because in this state man follows his nature of evil, where his absolute freedom of choice allows him to do as he feels, and causes his existence to degenerate into chaos 23. In contrast, Rousseau contends that man evolves through circumstance and reason from the state of nature- man realizes that developing more formalized types of government rather than familial groups will enhance his freedoms. And finally for Locke, man is inherently good and the state of nature is inherently good, but man needs to protect his property and enhance his lifestyle through communing with his brethren and leaving the state of nature. From the perspective of a person living within a liberal society, the state of nature can be viewed as a less formalized type of government (or as government with no structure) 24. If one investigates this conceptualization further and identifies the state of nature as existing on a continuum with a range that spans no government at all (which is and has been impossible) and super-formalized government (which is also impossible), it is also possible to understand that there may be several different states of nature, one part of which 23 Orton, William. The Liberal Tradition, page The state of nature is the term used by most nations to describe how their relationship with each other. This does not mean that there is no formalized way of interacting with each other; rather it signifies the fact that there is no formal enforcement mechanism for any of the laws made between nations.

11 could be civilized society 25. Indeed, further exploration of the concept also highlights the fact that a separation can be made between the liberal theoretical state of nature and a perceived one. The state of nature discussed in this study will pertain to the theoretical state of nature as advocated by liberalists Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes; whereas, the state of nature shall be applied to the perceived state of nature that a conqueror may perceive in a land which has been conquered. In the case of the former, there is an absolute state of nature where no existing government has a simultaneous formalized structure of government, whereas in the case of the latter the state of nature is localized and quite possibly does not exist, but is perceived as such by a stronger and ultimately more centralized government with more resources. For instance, once could say that to the Romans what is now Western Europe was in a state of nature or barbarity 26. The way that the state of nature and the state of nature are viewed also varies with the exception of the inferior status of both when compared to civilized society. Eventually, both the conceptions of the state of nature and its characteristics should lead to further study. It is important to note that regardless of the type of natural state in which man finds himself, he does eventually transition into a civilized being by removing himself from the state of nature ( state of nature ). What is a civilized being? This is also a question not fully addressed by any of the theorists listed here. Instead the theorists indirectly identify the civilized man through the distinction arising from his former status in the state of nature. Yet, if one identifies the state of nature as existing on a continuum of which civilization is 25 This idea has never to my knowledge been explored; the idea that civil society as we know it may actually be an exaggerated form of the state of nature, as even within civil society man at times finds that not all his activities are regulated. 26 Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness, Page 22. Civilization continued to define itself as a negation of savagery - indeed, to invent savagery in order to define itself. This indicates that savagery/barbarity/ state of nature is created to support ideals of civilization. 11

12 12 only one part, then the civilized man can be seen as a politically evolved being. This person has traded some of his natural rights (defined above) for the protection of society which he did not have while in the state of nature and has thus moved from one spectrum to another. The man in nature shares the same rights and more than the liberal civilized man or so the story is told 27. However since the man in nature lives outside of society (which recognizes man s basic rights), these rights have less meaning than they do within liberal society and may be taken away by someone stronger. His choices then are reduced to dying, living with reduced rights or theoretically joining the civil society. It is only within and because of civil society that rights are of any importance, without civil society rights do not need to be honored as such. The development of civil society is very important when trying to understand the state of nature and the social contract, as this development affects the dynamics between them. Does civil society develop instantaneously and simultaneously in each area it develops? The popular liberal theorists do not actually address this issue, leading many to believe that it actually does. Yet if it did so, would that not mean that all states of nature follow the same trek and all societies would have to be similar or have followed similar evolutions. The basic freedom of the state of nature would make it impossible for civil society to develop instantaneously and simultaneously everywhere. Rather, civil society would have had to develop over a period of time and in small groups everywhere, within a self-imposed microcosm surrounded on all sides by the state of nature. In time with increased power, civil society would begin to see itself as superior to the state of nature. But what relationship was to characterize the civil society/ state of nature relationship? This is 27 Such as complete authority over his own person regardless of what interactions he may have with other persons; whereas the civilized man has authority over his own person, so long as it does not conflict with authority of someone else s person within that society.

13 also not directly addressed by the liberal theorists. Should those in society by subject to those in a state of nature, or vice-versa? Should they live in mutual peace and harmony? This aspect is another not fully addressed. As many of these questions remain unanswered within liberalism, different power paradigms have come to characterize those undefined relationships. These paradigms reflect the bonds of obligation between self-acknowledged civilized persons and natural persons. To link some of these ideas back to Pateman s arguments above, if one chose to stay in the state of nature or state of nature then that person s ability to join civil society would indeed be null and void. Indeed, as there could be different spectrums of the state of nature then woman has the obligation placed upon her to overthrow the rule of all men and join civil society, unfortunately, the dichotomy of the power within civil society and those who are posited as natural persons are not clear and does not allow for such movement without strength to either overpower civil society or gain their accession to be entered into society as full individuals. Obligation to Respect the Rights of Natural Persons It is widely acknowledged that only those rights within civil society are honored, however those rights which exist outside civil society mean very little 28 ; because although these rights are acknowledged, they are not protected. As there is a rights differential between those in civil society and those outside of it, who determines what and whose rights are respected when both spheres meet? The answer that follows most logically from this argument is the group whose rights matter. Yet, even this answer does not address what rights would be left to those outside civil society, how those rights would weigh in comparison to those in civil society, and who would have more power in the resultant 28 Or those of natural men 13

14 14 situation 29. To answer these questions, the civilized 30 in liberal societies turned to an age old power of segregate and dominate which they formulate through power paradigms. To many this idea is the traditional divide and conquer; however, the term divide has a more violent and transient connotation than intended to use here. With the term segregate, there is not only a physical division (which may actually be the actual reason for the classification), but also an almost impenetrable wall of emotional separation, both of which disallows full acknowledgement of the rights of the natural person. The same reasoning may also be applied to the term conquer. With that term, one gets the idea of a take-over which precedes a period of transition characterized by the assimilation of lands and personages into a new regime; whereas the term dominate implies prolonged occupation, power management, and impersonal determination of the destinies of the local personnel (uncivilized) by the elites (civilized). There may be some assimilation of the uncivilized by the elites, however only to the extent that the elite set for their assimilation; full assimilation/personhood by the uncivilized is almost impossible to achieve. Within liberalism, the idea of segregate and dominate works through the elites selecting certain characteristics they find appropriate by which they can determine who to classify as civilized and who would classify as not. These characteristics would of course favor the elites and maintain the status of the elite, regardless of the impact (and more possibly to the detriment) of the uncivilized. The power structure is so firmly imbedded in 29 Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness, Page 36. Author quotes Flint on the unfortunate situation in which Americans found themselves- with a race that ended up being enemies of the social contract because of environmental reasons. This highlights the idea that minorities and (as Pateman looks at the plight of women in a similar light) women were seen as outside of the social contracts and as such viewed as enemies of such. 30 Or those who consider that themselves to be

15 the liberal psyche 31 that anyone who challenges this system runs into being seen as antitradition and subversive. And if this person is one of those persons identified as uncivilized, they endure internal disturbances wavering between feelings of non-civilized unworthiness and belief in liberal entitlement to rights. The foundation for segregation is established almost instantaneously in classical liberalism, as one notes the delineation between the civil man and un-civil (natural) man, the free versus the bondsman, the equal versus the unequal; and the propertied versus the unpropertied. From there, the distinctions that develop all depend on the way that elite decides to define these groups and which shall retain power. It is important to note that many theorists believed that slavery, and submission to other men was the choice of the non-civil man, and indicative of that man s ignorance. Thus the choice of man to remain subject to another man as a slave or simply in a status inferior to other men indicated that that man was within a state of nature and undeserving of the equal recognition of rights that civil men are granted. The choice to remain in a state of nature was one that entitled the natural man to whatever treatment he retained at the hands of civil men. The definitions engineered by civil men and imbedded within liberalism demarcated civil men from natural men were so subtle (and at times blatant) that certain natural persons would never reach this status, while others through much struggle and strife would. These definitions have been grounded in ideas on religion, sex, nationality, (sexual orientation) and race; and are still with us to this day. Thus when others from the non-civil classification come into contact with members in the civil world in a power based relationship where the non-civil person has a measure of power, they become a novelty and symbolic, regardless of the fact that these spheres may have interacted closely prior to this dynamic. It is for this 31 Mentality that accepts the equality of persons as a truism 15

16 16 reason that it is a novelty or even deemed a high prestige when a woman or a minority is found in a high-powered position. Is there hope for liberal societies? However, if classical liberalism is motivated by and promotes a different power structure (namely patriarchy), then is it not to be invalidated and should we not disregard it? The answer to this question is a definite no 32. Though Pateman does not exhibit belief that contractarianism has redeeming qualities, her contemporary, Charles Wade Mills expresses his idea through The Racial Contract that although liberalism operates under the motivation of white supremacy, this is no reason to disregard the social contract; rather it would be better to strive as a society to move towards the ideal social contract. Though classical liberalism as it has developed in liberal societies is skewed by a power-dimensional paradigm, it provides the possibility to develop an almost utopian society if this power paradigm is identified and addressed. By looking at the progressive shifts in Western nations, one has to admit that perhaps as a result of its unique nature, the possibility exists to address the issues that women have had within society; liberalism seems to be attempting to equalize what some would call its faulty kinks and ensure that equality truly is for all. However, the central issue that is plaguing this process is that it is an incomplete theory 33. Liberal societies need to acknowledge that social contract theory is incomplete and does not adequately incorporate those who were originally at odds with the society in the formation of those societies namely women, minorities, foreigners, non-christians, etc. Once this acknowledgement is made, the process of finding the ideal complete social compact needs to be addressed and then applied 33 In her article, Christine Pisan and Thomas Hobbes, Karen Green states, What it shows is not that social contract theory is completely defective, but that it is incomplete. She uses this argument as explanation as to why the social contract seems biased against women.

17 to the efforts towards the society in an attempt to eliminate some of the effects that the incompleteness of the current contract has created. Gender education in Liberal Societies One aspect in which civic responsibility is maintained and passed from generation to generation is through the process of education. One of the major roles of educators is to ensure that they are creating citizens who can function within and perhaps even improve upon the society from which they hail. When that society has certain biases at its base regarding who qualifies as an individual who has equal access as a citizen, then the way that the children within that society are educated will reflect some of those same biases. In her paper, Girls in education: citizenship, agency, and emotions, Tuula Gordon asserts that even though girls on average perform better in classrooms than boys do, this is not reflected in the pay of women or in the positions that they themselves may retain. One reason for this may be for the reasons asserted within her paper, young women are not taught to react as citizens within the classroom, but rather the ability to participate and become engaged within the classroom is curtailed at a greater rate than boys. She continues in identifying this curtailment of voice and positioning in a gendered space as reason for why women tend to accept different positions in life rather than challenge these issues as it is not the ladylike thing to do. Authors such as Ann Miles (1994) posit that the division of labor that girls have placed upon them is discredited as not being worth as much because they are situated in the private sphere in contrast with the labor that boys engage in being more geared to the public sphere 34. While authors such as Erica Burman(2005) posit that the feminization of education benefits girls educationally, but requires more of them and holds them in a certain space, so that any progress they make within the capitalist system is only at 34 Miles tends to view the division of labor in a more ethnographic sense, and less so in western societies, but the same principle still applies. 17

18 18 the level they are allowed by the heads of these capitalist systems, mainly men. In reading these studies, one realizes that the continued denial of the personhood of women will affect the way that girls as young women are treated within the classroom. Emphasis on being quiet and holding a girl s place within the classroom can be seen as an attempt by the status quo to maintain the domination of women and to limit their role within the society at large to keep them from entering the civil society and demanding the rights that they are entitled to. Towards greater rights At the moment, the incomplete nature of this contract ensures that the discrimination that has been taking place continues. While many would say that the discrimination that used to take place is no longer relevant and has changed in nature, it is more likely that the discrimination is more subtle and still in existence as was evidenced in ensuring that future women are not comfortable in their use of voice. In addition, true rights discourse needs to include perspectives of minorities within the societies. Both Burman and Gordon call for studying the impact that race and class have on the performance of girls in schools; indeed one aspect not addressed here on The Sexual Contract was the fact that Pateman does not truly address the rights of minority women within her text with the exception of the vague interpretation of the position of slave women. Further study on the effects of incomplete liberalism on feminine agenda needs to be examined with more emphasis on race and class paradigms incorporated.

19 Bibliography 1. Burman, Erica, Childhood, neo-liberalism and the feminization of education, Gender and Education 17 (4), Gordon, T.(2006), Girls in education: citizenship, agency and emotions, Gender and Education 18(1), Green, Karen. (1994) Christine Pisan and Thomas Hobbes. Philosophical Quarterly, 44(177), Miles, A. (1994) Helping out at home: gender socialization, moral development and devil stories in Cuenca, Ecuador, Ethos, 22(2), Mills, Charles Wade(1999). The Racial Contract, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Montgomery, Heather (2005), Gendered childhoods: a cross disciplinary overview. Gender and Education 17 (5), Orton, William. The Liberal Tradition, page Pateman, C. (1988) The Sexual Contract, Stanford: Stanford University Press 8. Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness, Page Truth, S. (1851) Ain t I A Woman, Retrieved November 4, 2007 from Modern History Sourcebook Website: 19