Responding to the invitation of Roger and Roy, I think the phrase  
merits all kinds of attention, and what draws my eye is neither the  
"founding" aspect nor the "gender" aspect which was, as we all know,  
ubiquitous.

What interest me is that a "father", like a "mother", implies a  
"family". "Families" have members and non-members. Who gets to be part  
of the family of political economists? Whose contributions will we  
consider those of insiders? Is Adam Smith the point in our history at  
which the economic insights of "ordinary people" start to count for  
less than those of the adepts?

Just to push the metaphor a bit-- check out the language of 19th  
century socialism, particularly that of the utopian socialists. The  
"family" is fundamental to all the imagery, sometimes in really  
intriguing (not to say bizarre) ways.

How is it that a discipline founded on the rhetoric of families  
manages to marginalize families in most of its analysis and for most  
of its history, pretending instead that we are all more or less  
rational adult creatures who can make independent decisions?

I think "lighten up", as James suggests, is exactly what we need to  
do. If we lighten up and play with the language we instinctively and  
naively use, we can learn a lot about our history. Bravo to Roger for  
inviting reflection from his students.

I leave to the side the intriguing heterosexist element in all this.

Cheers,

evelyn