feminists and difference

The Jake and Amy scenario really interested me, so i looked it up, and here are some interesting links:

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0258.htm
http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/gilligan.jake-amy.html

reading what the kids said is a bit strange, i didn't think eleven year olds had such strong moral reasoning skills.

but, the point of the whole thing is that men and women think differently when it comes to morality and justice (obviously a massive generalisation). do you think this should be something we incorporate into our political structures? and if we do, how would we do it?

i don't know enough about difference feminism to know whether or not it's more right that other kinds of feminism, but regardless, i don't think it's something you could incorporate into a liberal democratic society. because in that kind society, on a fundamental level, everyone is equal. what's different is incidental. if you assert that men and women are fundamentally different, what stops others from asserting black people and white people are fundamentally different? and i don't think many of us would agree with the latter, though a surprising amount of people i know are willing to entertain the former.

on the other hand, maybe that's not what difference feminists are saying. maybe they're saying we're all fundamentally the same, but men and women have different propensities and talents. in which case, we face the danger of stereotyping and circumscribing what is desirable and conventional. which really, just seems like what we had pre-feminism.

difference feminism doesnt really seem like feminism to me, but that's only if i think about it too long. maybe if we acknowledged women are caring, but then acknowledged they had a right to exercise that tendency to nurture in a wide variety of professions? but some professions are inherently un-nurturing (lumberjacks, lawyers (joking... or am i?)). does that mean women who want to be lumberjacks and lawyers arent woman-like?

anyway, i don't think a system based on differences could be just in the sense that we understand justice in the liberal democratic context. what do y'all think (pls to tell me if you think i made no sense)?

something i don't understand about Rawls' theory

so, your natural talents and gifts, or lack of, are natural accident, and you dont deserve them.

if you don't deserve your natural gifts, why do other people deserve the work you do using those gifts?

it seems as though, by Rawls' logic, some people win rights and stakes in other people's work and profits not because it's just, but by virtue of their (accidental, and not at all related to the concept of 'justice', Rawls says) birth?

am i getting it completely wrong? does anyone else get where i'm coming from?

also, is it not just to expect fair rewards for your work? Rawls' system seems to create disincentives for the able to use their abilities. if they know that things like special affirmative action could get in their way, those who could be talented potential employees could get bumped down the list because there's a 'disadvantaged quota' to fill.

i think merit matters. but then again, i agree with Rawls that opportunities should be truly equal, not just rhetorically so. but it's problematic!