The Sexual Contract
The Social Contract, written by Carole Pateman, an intriguing tale about the guiding principles used to justify why women have no part in the original contract with civil society, and why women were only described in the “state of nature”. However evidence showed that women were incorporated into a sphere that “is and is not in civil society.”
The original contract is a sexual agreement between two heterosexual individuals. The subordination of women was developed from the original contract. In this case, both parties did not come to an agreement. Was this a contract misunderstanding? So women were involved in the fornication activity; however, they did not have the capacity to take part in the sexual contract. My point is the sexual contract had been written in error perhaps because only one consenting party signed off on the arrangement. Another way of thinking was theorist original contract was based on political myth. Considering, most theorist never expressed reasons for multiple contracts agreed upon without a participating co-signer. Contract signing whether written or spoken is an agreement between two concerning parties. The inconsistency in the sexual contract agreement was clear. Women were not considered individuals yet only individuals presumably signed the sexual contracts. In the past, contract theorist created distinct contracts. From the sexual contract the writer referenced two spheres. One sphere related to women subjection. The private sphere described women’s subordination. Women were chained to domestic work. Women were home with no voice because they were unable to vote. They were ignored. This was the “state of nature. “ They were only valued for procreation. And the men considered them irrelevant. In accordance to Hobbes, “the classic theorist claimed that women naturally lack the attributes and capacities of ‘individuals’. Sexual difference is the difference between freedom and subjection (Pg 6). This meant, women were not considered citizens. Women were considered property. Consequently women were absent from society.
Different than the private sphere was the public sphere. Civil society materialized from the public sphere. Men with property had the liberty to vote. They not only owned property but they owned human beings. Some capitalist were able to market prostitution. Some women engaged in sexual activity for profit. Women worked as an employee in a capitalist market owned by aristocratic men. Thus men were forced to construct an employment contract. According to G.D.H. Cole, critics focused on exploitation (inequality) and therefore overlook subordination, or the extent to which institutions …resembled that of master slave contract (Pg9). In other words, men brought into existence women who they claimed did not appear relevant to society to sign contracts. So how does an employment contract get validated by women who are not considered a citizen?
To conclude the sexual contract showed men and women separate yet inseparable. The dichotomy man vs women one could not exist without other. The slave contract was replaced with the employment contract and marriage contract. All three contracts initiated by men who expanded the notions that men gave an account for women participation into a sphere that “is and is not in civil society”, again women were peppered through the sexual contract, and the marriage contract and the employment contract although the implication was women had no role in these three contracts. Men established new contracts in the place of the original contract but in the process brought about women entangled in every part of their life.
