ABSTRACT
Can Rawls’s theory of justice secure justice for women? On the face of it, one might think the answer is clearly yes: the theory of justice is meant to secure justice for everyone, and any theory that would leave out half the population wouldn’t seem to be a theory of justice for all. Many injustices rooted in the gender structure of society were justified by appealing to the common good. In addition, these injustices were overlooked because this same gender structure works to limit women’s access to and influence within intellectual and political pursuits. Yet to properly account for how a just society can still meet the needs of the common good, surely the common good should be good for all members of that society, rather than relying on subordinating some to allow for the flourishing of others. The problems of gender justice and the common good are particularly acute for Rawlsians. By Rawls’s own measures of justice that rely on the acceptability of principles of justice to people understood as free and equal, a sexist society or any society that seeks the common good through the exploitation or subordination of some groups to others would not pass Rawls’s hypothetical acceptability test. Nevertheless, Rawls’s own discussion of gender justice was limited and has been the subject of extensive feminist critique. This chapter surveys Rawls’s discussions of gender justice and the critical responses to his work.
