Criticism of Becker's theory does not necessarilly imply that it is  
"ideology or normative banter or worse".  And nobody on this list suggested  
or implied that a master-craftsman like Gary Becker is guilty of sexism.  
Formalistic vacuity (Robin Neill) is, of course, another matter ("Shall I  
compare thee to a positive sign of the cross derivative of our utilities?").  
  
What is perhaps the most important aspect of the Beckerian project is the  
claim that the most important part of the different treatment of females in  
our economy and society is the result of rational decisions and that social  
norms and discriminatory perceptions do not matter.  The two, of course, may  
interact (In-market-discrimination may lead to a "rational" decision to  
invest less in productive traits suggesting ex post   
pre-market-discrimination or differences in "preferences").  If social norms  
do not matter it is the objective characteristics of sex (e.g., fertility)  
that bring about different outcomes. Considerations of gender, i.e., the  
social construction of sex, according to this view, are irrelevant.  But  
perceptions of traits as "feminine" or "masculine" *are* important and this  
affects the acquisition of productivity-related traits during socialization  
and the assessment of individual productivity in the workplace (see e.g.  
Goldin & Rouse (2000),  "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind"  
Auditions on Female Musicians", American Economic Review, 90 (4): 715-41).  
  
So "rational" decisions in the presence of fertility may be part of the  
story but certainly not the most important part of it.  
  
Nicholas J. Theocarakis