In this slim volume of essays collected from the pages of the Boston Review, a cross-section of contemporary intellectual life is represented in debate over Okin's central thesis that the values of multiculturalism and feminism are at odds (at some level). The hinge of Okin's argument is that feminism is universalist in intent, arguing that all women, by virtue of their being women (or being human), are entitled to certain rights and freedoms; multiculturalism, on the other hand, is often used to support cultural difference, and is local in scope. Conflict emerges when we encounter cultures in which women are regarded as lower in social standing than men, and thus denied rights and freedoms that feminists have (traditionally) held in esteem -- the right to vote, assemble peacefully, earn income, etc. (see Martha Nussbaum's work in "Sex and Social Justice" and "Women and Human Development" for a fuller exposition of a feminist conception of rights). In Okin's estimation, multiculturalists back off from criticism, arguing instead that different cultures must be respected, and indeed cannot be judged because they do not share the same cultural foundation as we (i.e., Westerners) do. Hence, for Okin, a committed feminist, multiculturalism is often bad for women.

This is a contentious and controversial argument, but essential (I believe) in that it forces Western liberal intellectuals to confront the simple fact that certain ways of thinking and being cannot easily coexist. The papers included in this book reflect the divisiveness of Okin's argument, with some coming down squarely on her side, and others arguing that this represents only another attempt at Western intellectual imperialism. Enough diversity in opinions is presented to give readers much to think about and debate.

This book is designed around the first essay, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" The premise of the essay is that liberalism has long advocated both multiculturalism and feminism as philosophies not in conflict with one another. However, what is the obligation of a liberal democracy to cultural minorities that oppress women within their culture? Can the needs of women and minorities be met or are their respective agendas mutually exclusive to one another? Does the sovereignty of a larger state supercede that of a smaller state and to which group does the majority owe its protection- minority cultures or individuals (women)?

These are some of the questions addressed by this book. The first essay asserts that the goals of multiculturalism and feminism are not compatible and that by protecting one, the other is sacrificed. It is a provocative idea and one not addressed enough by political theorists, feminists, or policy specialists. From it, one discovers that there is an inherent tension to these two schools of liberal philosophy (although there are some very good critics of Okin's ideas). See writers like Kymlicka, Nussbaum, or Habermas (to name a few).

If the intricacies and contradictions of liberal philosophy and feminism interest you, then you should try this book. It is very short and can be read in one sitting. It's essentially a collection of essays from a number of theorists reflecting a variety of perspectives on this specific topic. Thought-provoking and worth the effort to take a gander.

This book addresses the inequality of men and women, and there is a problem, but it fails in many respects. First, I find her uses of sources suspect because of her treatment of Homer and the Greek authors. In the Odyessy, Odysseus' desire is to return to hearth, home, and family. Only on Circe's isle did he stay willingly, and then, through bewitching. Most of the female characters are portrayed in a kind light, whatever their flaws. This is so much so that many have thought it written by a woman! However, in her version, Odysseus stayed away deliberately after the Trojan war. This is but one example. The Greeks were hardly models to follow for cherishing women (quite the opposite), but since there are other titles from which she could make her case, and she spends a considerable amount of her Greek time here, it tells me that despite her statements, she's never read most of them and certainly not the Odyessy. Since I am convinced that she's never read the book, or that if she has, she read her personal views into the text in a way that is inexcusable, I find her usage of all sources suspect.

My second problem is that her proposed solution to inequality undermines the same personal freedoms she wants. If the government steps in and dictates personal life and finances to the degree she proposes, the people are not living in a free society, but a dictatorship. For instance, should the government step in on a family's paycheck and dictate how it is divided between members of the household? Not if one believes in private property. Her proposal to bring freedom for women brings instead a tyrannical government without personal freedoms.

Equality between men and women is a laudable goal, but one must look elsewhere for the solution. The approach proposed in the book is counterproductive, and being given in the name of freedom and justice, hypocritical. Before the reader assumes that I'm just a sexist, know that I believe in the absolute equality of men and women in thought and the workplace and have stood for it on many occasions. However due to the nature of this book's propositions, I will oppose them with the same force wiith which Bush wants an immoral war with Iraq.

Okin is powerful because she extends considerations of justice and civic equality to women and the family in ways that classical and modern political philosphers have not. However, in doing so, she saves and extracts vital elements of these patriarchal theories and traditions to expose their radical potential.

I read the Subjection of Women for my 17th Century Philosophy class. I found it interesting, but hard to read. Mill tends to be repetative and wordy. He is very much the early feminist until you get to page 86 or 87 when he tells you that for all women can do, they should stay home and care for the family anyway. I would suggest that others read this book, but give yourself time, because about 20 pages a night was all that I could muster. At 100 pages it's not too long, but could have been said with more clarity and organization.

Mill states here that he still believes traditional gender roles (as we now call them) are desirable, but, being John Mill, he passionatly believes in the freedom of lifestyle choice for the individual. Hard to argue with that.