 Others, particularly feminist critics, have worried that the Rawlsian approach might exclude certain people within any given society. Susan Moller Okin, Martha Nussbaum, and others have pointed out that A Theory of Justice pays little specific attention to the family as an institution for structuring society; rather, it is simply assumed that society will be composed of families, and while the rules of justice govern relations between various “heads of households,” Rawls’s attitude often seems to be that as a private institution, what goes on within the family is immune to criticism from the perspective of justice (Okin 1989; see also Okin 1994). Such a view, of course, would ignore the fact that a great many injustices can take place within families: neglect, child and spouse abuse, and inegalitarian distributions of resources and of labor, and various forms of testimonial injustice, among others. Thus, in a society in which males tend to command more power and resources than females—which, of course, describes most societies—adherence to the principles arising out of the Original Position would be insufficient to avoid certain forms of discrimination and oppression. (Here, too, Rawls modified his views somewhat in later writings, in light of such criticisms (Rawls 1993, Rawls 1999a).) More generally, feminist philosophers have frequently raised concerns about the ways in which liberal conceptions of neutrality and impartiality presuppose and reinforce traditional male-dominated, individualistic approaches to moral theory, and in doing so reinforce the social status quo (Gilligan 1982; Noddings 1984; Benhabib 1987; Young 1990). As Benhabib has pointed out, “Universalistic moral theories in the Western tradition from Hobbes to Rawls are substitutionalist, in the sense that the universalism they defend is defined surreptitiously by identifying the experiences of a specific group of subjects as the paradigmatic case of the human as such. These subjects are invariably white, male adults who are propertied or at least professional.” (Benhabib 1987, 81) As a result, the dominant social positions of such parties tend to be protected and even enhanced in the social and political theories resulting from such allegedly neutral liberal theories.