by Rachael Whaley


Good afternoon, fellow feminists! I write to you on a rather blustery day in East Tennessee, and I am glad that winter weather has finally returned, although I did enjoy the few 70-degree days last week.

I am taking an Ethics course during this January mini-term, a three-week course that meets for 3 hours everyday (think summer school, except without the pool waiting for you in the afternoon). I have been pondering several concepts this week, such as what makes an act good? Or ethical, moral, etc. My assigned reading for today discussed virtue ethics, which asks what humanity ought to be rather than what we ought to do. (If this sounds a little mundane, I apologize for reviewing for my exam tomorrow while simultaneously writing this blog). The part of my reading which caught my attention was a section entitled, “Masculine and Feminine Virtues.” The following quotation is a portion of that section:

The context for women’s moral decision making is said to be one of relatedness…They are partial to their particular loved ones and think that one’s moral responsibility is first of all to these persons…Women stress the concrete experiences of this or that event and are concerned about the real harm that might befall a particular person or persons…Men are more inclined to talk in terms of fairness and justice and rights. They ask about the overall effects of some action and whether the good effects, when all considered, outweigh the bad. It is as though they think moral decisions ought to be made impersonally or from some unbiased and detached point of view.

The text also includes a table that lists contrasting virtues that fall in either masculine or feminine columns, such as men value reason while women value feeling, and women are partial while men are impartial. The logical inconsistencies not withstanding, I was appalled to find such blatant sexism in a textbook written in 2007.

I took a course during my sophomore year in Western Civilizations covering the Early Modern Period to the present, and anyone who has studied this time period knows that a large portion of the class was dedicated to colonialism. This particular course focused on British India in the 19th and 20th centuries. One particular lecture focused on the supposed justification for colonization, and the professor began to write a table on the chalkboard with opposing attributes that the British applied to themselves, the colonizers; and to the Indians, those being colonized. These attributes were lies the British told themselves in order to justify exerting power on another nation. This table looked something like this:
British--Indian
Masculine--Feminine
Rational--Irrational
Universal--Concrete
Strong--Weak

Look familiar? After reading the appalling list in the textbook I could not help but dwell on the uncanny resemblance to that colonization table. The idea that all women and all men think in certain ways is extremely problematic, but it is not the crux of the issue. The virtues associated with femininity in the first case and with the colonized Indians in the second case are commonly known as inferior virtues. In the post-Enlightenment West, impartiality, rationality, and universality are believed to be superior virtues of superior minds, and by applying these virtues to men (or to a colonial power) they are implying that they are superior beings.

I end this blog asking you to ponder one question: Is there such a thing as the female moral/ethical perspective? And if so, does it only apply to women? Is it superior or inferior? Do you think your gender has any affect on your ethical decision-making?

Rachael is a member of NNPCW's Coordinating Committee and a senior at Maryville College in Maryville, TN.

Hi Rachael,
Your posting is very interesting. As I was doing my Master's thesis I discovered this was actually a feminist debate. Part of my thesis was on feminist ethics which are often referred to as an “Ethics of Care.” I can't at the moment remember the name of the scholars I used but you can find my last chapter here.
I attempted to put feminist' ethics on a biblical basis rather than a radical feminist foundation. One of the things I found was that there is a debate between essentialist feminists and deconstruction or post-modern feminists. The first would have there be a difference the later would not. And this was true for early feminist as well. The Enlightenment feminists believed we were the same. The cultural or romantics believed differently. And I have heard some women pastors in my Presbytery say that men lead differently than woman. But I really don't agree I believe each individual leads differently. Anyway, a very good posting. You should be getting more conversation.