A second body of feminist thought emphasized the devaluation of and low material rewards accorded to activities and traits that traditionally have been deemed appropriate for women. The sexism here is in failing to see how much traditionally female activities or dispositions contribute to the economy, society, or polity. . . . In fact, however, the second position is not inconsistent with a commitment to opening all valued activities to both men and women on an equal basis. It is possible to believe that we should acknowledge the value of traditionally female activities and reward them accordingly without believing that women should continue to do a disproportionate share of these activities. Carol Gilligan points out that Freud, Jung, Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg, despite their differences, all viewed individuation as synonymous with maturation but viewed connection to others as developmentally regressive.
Neoclassical economists assume that interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible.
But whether or not they believe that tastes vary across individuals, economists typically see tastes as exogenous to their models. Further, tastes are not expected to change as individuals interact with others in markets or as they experience the consequences of market interaction. This research makes it clear that men do not use the power they derive from earnings entirely altruistically . . . The notion that one can prove or disprove a great social truth by standing at a blackboard is a peculiarly masculine delusion. He criticized competition based on individual pursuit of self-interest specifically on the grounds that it was disadvantageous to women.