I wonder if one aspect of a "feminist critique" of economics ought not to be a   
tremendous reluctance to indulge in "pure theory".  
  
  
Pat Gunning asks:  
"Eric, when the economist says that, other things equal   
and given the definitions of the terms, a rise in   
demand will lead to a rise in price, I wonder which   
value is being introduced or disguised."  
  
  
Real world example: the demand for nurses has increased tremendously in my   
province over the last several years. At the same time, the typical nurse is   
working fewer hours at less than full-time wages. Nursing graduates are   
leaving the province because (despite the documented scarcity) they can't find   
full-time jobs at what they consider a competitive wage. Why aren't full-time   
jobs being created?  
  
Any economist can understand it: New grads are a minority in the   
profession. The nursing union has been able to exploit the scarcity by   
demanding part-time (lower waged) jobs that the majority of its members prefer   
because, by combining part-time jobs, they can attain a flexibility in hours   
worked that full-time jobs don't allow. That is, they choose to take part of   
their wage in increased leisure. There is nothing here inconsistent with   
either rationality or economic theory.  
  
I think, though, that gender might be relevant. When asked why they prefer   
lower waged part-time jobs, nurses typically cite the difficulty of accessing   
affordable daycare for shift work, working shifts while being a single mom,   
and, generally, their difficulty meeting what they consider an inflexible   
demand for household labour.  
  
This seems to me gendered, and (while it's clearly a policy matter) it turns   
out that perfectly rational women sometimes make different decisions than   
equally rational men. (That is, neither the objective nor the constraints on   
the utility function are gender-blind). If we ignore the gendered division of   
labour (both in the market and in the household) economists simply reinforce   
the view held by other social scientists of the (ir)relevance of our theory.  
  
Evelyn L. Forget