Passage 1: "As Mark Piper observes, gendered socialization processes disadvantage women when it comes to opportunities for self-expression, since young girls and women are often be taught to be submissive to men and to focus on domestic life over other pursuits. Piper, 2014, p. 256) It seems plausible to anticipate, for instance, a degree of condemnation towards mothers who choose to abandon their families in pursuit of interests which deviate from those that define a woman or mother's normative social role." (Lee, 3-4)
This resonates with me because I think women are still often expected to prioritize being a good partner, mother, or even daughter over their own goals and interest. From a young age, women are taught and expected to prioritize the comfort, feelings, and needs of others before their own. There can be a lot of judgement when a woman chooses herself or decides that she wants a life outside of traditional roles expected of her. I especially connected with the example of women being condemned for pursuing interest outside of their family because women are often made to feel guilty for wanting something for themselves outside of being a wife and a mother. It makes me think about how these expectations can influence the choices women are making before they even realize they're being influenced by them.
Passage 2: "Although we might say that all preferences are in some sense formed within the limitations of possibility, “not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression.” (Walsh, 2015, p. 829) An unjust world might effectively “socialize us to prefer conditions or options that are bad for us,” (Terlazzo, 2016, p. 206) and the threat of this latter possibility might be a blind spot for proceduralist theories. These insights are of primary concern for substantive theorists." (Lee, 5-6)
I found this passage interesting because it challenges the idea that every preference a person has must be a result of oppression or social conditioning. I think it is important to recognize that people can want different things even when we perceive those choices as the most empowering or ideal option. I think this passage also raises the question of how we can tell the difference between a preference that someone genuinely chose and one that they learned to prefer because of the limitations or expectations placed on them.
Passage 3: "On a damage model, the problem lies with the individual since they incur damage to their autonomous capacities. On Johnston's view, however, the problem is not so much about the individual damage the agent incurs, but the fact that some people are by default ascribed a violable or expendable status by a ‘super ordinated’ identity. For example, the fact that privileged (or ‘super-ordinated’) groups such as men and cis-gender straight people can be the harassers of subordinated, ‘harassable’ groups like women and trans persons mean that women and trans subjects “have a social status that constrains their autonomy.” (Johnston, 2017, p. 323) In short, it is the fact that oppressors and those they oppress are unequal in their social standing (Lee, 2022, p. 7) which we ought to target as the problem that places certain subordinated groups' autonomy at risk." (Lee, 7)
This passage resonated with me because it shifts the focus from blaming individuals for the harm they experience to looking at larger societal structures that allow harm to happen. Inequality can affect someone's autonomy even when no one is directly telling them what to do. If a person has to constantly think about how they will be treated because of their social identity, that can limit their choices. I think this is an important way of understanding autonomy because having choices does not necessarily mean those choices are equally available to see for everyone.