Carole Pateman`s 1988 book, The Sexual Contract, argues that extending under the myth of the idealized contract described by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is a more fundamental contract on the relationship between men and women. Contract theory presents itself as an adversary of patriarchy and patriarchal law. (Locke`s social contract, for example, is put by him in opposition to the work of Robert Filmer, who argued for patriarchal power.) But the «pact of origin» (2), which precedes the social contract on an equal footing, is the agreement of men to dominate and control women. This «pact of origin» is concluded by brothers, literally or metaphorically, who, after the fall of the Father`s reign, agree to share their domination over women who were previously under the exclusive control of a man, the Father. The transition from «classical patriarchy» (24) to modern patriarchy is therefore a change that has power over women. However, the question of whether women are dominated by men is not a fundamental change. Men`s power relations with each other change, but the relationship between women and the power of men does not change. Modern patriarchy is characterized by a contractual relationship between men, and part of this treaty involves power over women. This fact that one form of patriarchy was not completely reversed, but was replaced by another form in which male power was distributed among more men instead of being held by a man, is illustrated by Freud`s story about the birth of civilization. After this story, a gang of brothers, run by a father who kept exclusive sexual access to the women of the tribe, kill the father, and then form a contract between them to be equal and share the women.
This is the story, whether we understand Freud`s history as historically correct or not, of modern patriarchy and its deep dependence on the treaty as the means by which men control and dominate women. 32. animals that are unable to enter into binding agreements between themselves to avoid causing or suffering harm have no right to justice; Similarly, for peoples who either could not or did not want to enter into binding agreements, so as not to do harm or suffer damage. Hello, great article! Is it possible to doubt the idea that we have really fundamental beliefs, or would this idea be inconsistent? According to Locke, the state of nature is not a condition of the individual, as is the case with Hobbes. On the contrary, it is populated by mothers and fathers with their children or families – what he calls the «marital society» (para. 78). These societies are based on voluntary agreements to care for children together, and they are moral, but not political. Political society is born when men who represent their families gather in the state of nature and who each abandon the executive to punish those who go beyond natural law and leave that power to the public power to a government. After doing so, they are subject to the will of the majority. In other words, by making a pact to get out of the state of nature and shape society, they make «a politically under-government body» (para. 97) and submit to the will of that body. One joins such a body, either from its beginnings or after being founded by others, only with explicit consent.
After creating a political society and a government by their approval, people receive three things they lacked in the state of nature: laws, judges to decide laws and the executive power to enforce those laws.