1 After Virtue (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 1981), 104. All references are to the 1981 edition unless otherwise noted.

2 See Women, the Family and Freedom: The Debate in Documents, Volume I and II, Bell, Susan Groag and Offen, Karen M. eds. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1983).Google Scholar

3 Eudemian Ethics, II, 1219a, trans. Woods, Michael (New York: Oxford University Press 1982)Google Scholar

4 Politics, I, 1260a, translated by Barker, Ernest (New York: Oxford University Press 1946)Google Scholar

5 After Virtue, 175

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 145

8 Entile, or On Education, translated by Bloom, Allan (New York: Basic Books 1979), 364Google Scholar

9 Vindication of the Rights of Women (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1982), 203 and 81

10 Ibid., 252

11 Ibid., 144

12 Ibid., 103

13 Ibid., 161

14 Ibid., 158

15 Ibid., 91

16 Ibid., 117

17 Ibid., 113

18 Ibid., 108-9

19 Ibid., 139

20 One finds this question posed repeatedly by 19th and 20th century commentators on ‘the woman question.’ Norwegian novelist Camilla Collett, for example, pondered the significance of marriage for middle class women: ‘Ȇ at this point they enter into the hopeless night of obscurity and insignificance. A noticeable fading characterizes this transition. Nothing is known any longer of these beings, who were once referred to as pretty so-and-sos; one scarcely notices them any longer when they show their faded selves in public. They are no longer individuals; they are Norwegian housewives’ (Bell and Offen, Volume 1, 319). Originally from Amtmadens dötre (Christiania, 1954-55).

21 After Virtue, 211

22 Ibid., 223

23 Ibid., 226

24 Ibid., 223

25 Ibid.

26 For a similar analysis see Ehrenreich, Barbara and English, DeirdreFor Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts’Advice to Women (New York: Anchor Books 1979), especially chapters 1-3.Google Scholar

27 After Virtue, 175

28 Ibid., 211 and 226

29 Ruddick, Sara ‘Maternal Thinking’ in Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions, Thorne, Barrie and Yalom, Marilyn eds. (London: Longmans 1982), 76-94Google Scholar

30 Murdoch, IrisThe Sovereignty of Good (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1970), 31-40 and 91Google Scholar

31 Rich, Adrienne ‘Conditions for Work: The Common World of Women,’ in Working It Out, Ruddick, Sara and Daniels, Pamela eds. (New York: Pantheon 1979), xviGoogle Scholar

32 To the Lighthouse (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1955), 51

33 Ibid., 62

34 Ibid., 159

35 Ibid., 126

36 Ibid., 276-7

37 After Virtue, 146

38 A Room of One’s Own (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1929), 76-7

39 See Okin, Susan MollerWomen in Western Political Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1979), chapter 4.Google Scholar

40 After Virtue, 143 and 188Google Scholar

41 After Virtue, 1984 edition, 275

42 Ibid.

43 After Virtue, 203-9

44 Ibid., 204

45 To the Lighthouse, 13

46 After Virtue, 204. See 1984 edition, p. 275, where Maclntyre makes it clear he is proposing this as a denning condition of any genuine virtue.

47 See Epstein, Barbara ‘Family Politics and the New Left,’ Socialist Review 63-64 (May-August 1982), 141-61.Google Scholar

48 See Gilligan, CarolIn a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1982).Google Scholar Gilligan finds a distinguishable feminine ethical sensibility that is adapted to traditional women’s roles. See also Virginia Woolf’s Three Guineas (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1938). Woolf worried about the moral effects of women’s entrance into the professions, as organized and practiced by men: ‘Ȇ the professions have an undeniable effect upon the professors. They make the people who practice them possessive, jealous of any infringement of their rights and highly combative if anyone dares dispute them. Are we not right then in thinking that if we enter the same profession we shall acquire the same qualities?’ (66)

49 After Virtue, 244