Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:52 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|