Okin characterizes Rawls's account of the family that constituted his response to his feminist critics as "still either puzzling or unsatisfactory." What is her argument as to why Rawls's claims are puzzling or unsatisfactory?

Susan Moller Okin's critique of John Rawls's account of the family is based on several key points.

Firstly, Okin argues that Rawls's theory of justice as fairness does not adequately address the gender inequalities that are inherent in the traditional family structure. Rawls's original position assumes that the parties involved are free and equal, but Okin points out that this is not the case in many families where women often have less power and fewer resources than men.

Secondly, Okin criticizes Rawls's idea of the family as a basic institution of society. She argues that this view is outdated and does not reflect the diverse forms of family that exist in contemporary society.

Thirdly, Okin takes issue with Rawls's claim that the principles of justice do not apply to the internal workings of the family. She argues that this exemption allows for the perpetuation of gender inequalities within the family, which in turn affects the larger social and political structures.

In summary, Okin finds Rawls's account of the family puzzling and unsatisfactory because it fails to address the gender inequalities that exist within the family and because it does not reflect the diversity of family structures in contemporary society.