Interesting musings, Danielle. Whenever I see this issue of care pop up, I'm reminded of Carol Gilligan's theories on gender socialization. Here's an excerpt from an overview of her work:
A second major critique of Kohlberg's work was put forth by Carol Gilligan, in her popular book, "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development" (1982). She suggested that Kohlberg's theories were biased against women, as only males were used in his studies. By listening to women's experiences, Gilligan offered that a morality of care can serve in the place of the morality of justice and rights espoused by Kohlberg. In her view, the morality of caring and responsibility is premised in nonviolence, while the morality of justice and rights is based on equality. Another way to look at these differences is to view these two moralities as providing two distinct injunctions - the injunction not to treat others unfairly (justice) and the injunction not to turn away from someone in need (care). She presents these moralities as distinct, although potentially connected.
In her initial work, Gilligan emphasized the gender differences thought to be associated with these two orientations. The morality of care emphasizes interconnectedness and presumably emerges to a greater degree in girls owing to their early connection in identity formation with their mothers. The morality of justice, on the other hand, is said to emerge within the context of coordinating the interactions of autonomous individuals. A moral orientation based on justice was proposed as more prevalent among boys because their attachment relations with the mother, and subsequent masculine identity formation entailed that boys separate from that relationship and individuate from the mother. For boys, this separation also heightens their awareness of the difference in power relations between themselves and the adult, and hence engenders an intense set of concerns over inequalities. Girls, however, because of their continued attachment to their mothers, are not as keenly aware of such inequalities, and are, hence, less concerned with fairness as an issue. Further research has suggested, however, that moral reasoning does not follow the distinct gender lines which Gilligan originally reported. The preponderance of evidence is that both males and females reason based on justice and care. While this gender debate is unsettled, Gilligan's work has contributed to an increased awareness that care is an integral component of moral reasoning.
From: http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html
This "Morality of Care" has much to do with the Dalaï Lama's "Ethics of Interdependence," discussed in this very thread. I tend to agree with Carol Gilligan that girls (adult GGs, eventually) are the primary, but not exclusive, recipients of such a moral education. Hence, perhaps, their greater ability, as our relatives and SOs, to cope with crossdressing, especially once the suffering behind it comes to light.
Again, thanks for making me work my brain around this issue, Danielle. You're a very stimulating person, you know that, girl?
Love,
CJ
