Roy's exercise to produce a 'gendered account of rationality' is gendered   
only because Roy has artificially set it up that way. If I refuse to   
connect rationality with masculinity or femininity because I think that   
they have nothing to do with each other, then Roy's demonstration fails.  
  
Can anyone show me a recent paper in an A list journal in economics (or any   
respectable journal, come to that) which identifies rationality with   
masculinity? I think not. Modern mainstream economics is populated by   
abstract 'agents' (sex unspecified) whose behaviour is assumed to conform   
to formal requirements of consistency, etc. Not much scope for gender   
there. Hence the idea of feminist economics seems odd to most practising   
economists. Perhaps the real feminist complaint is not that mainstream   
economics is gendered, but that it isn't.  
  
Historically, there have been all sorts of examples of 'gendered'   
assumptions about behaviour in economics. I suspect they (like much else)   
got eliminated as formalism took over. Did Becker stir it up because when   
you discuss the economics of the family it gets difficult to stick to the   
idea of abstract, sexless agents, or at least to keep a straight face while   
doing so?  
  
Tony Brewer