本文探討霍布斯與洛克兩個近代契約論思想家之理論關聯，特別著重兩人對女性角色的相關論述。本文試圖回應當前兩個學界論述主軸：一方面，霍布斯與洛克研究學者傾向聚焦在宗教寬容脈絡與洛克早期的霍布斯主義，另一方面，自Carole Pateman 以來，近年接續以性別角度重新詮釋兩個思想家的女性主義批判。相對於這兩種閱讀這篇文章論證：霍布斯關於家庭與自然平等的論述核心在於指出「自然權威的不穩定」，自然的權力如父親權力無法形成穩定與持久的政治統治；而洛克則進一步主張父親權力與政治權力本質、範圍與目的均不相同。綜而言之，就家父長主義而言，本文期望論證：霍布斯與洛克政治思想的共同主軸都是對家父長論述的疑慮與批判。

This essay explores the theoretical relationship between Hobbes’s and Locke’s political thoughts, in particular their accounts of women. It aims to respond to the current debates: first of all, the debate on the relationship between their political thought which mainly focuses on Locke’s Hobbism in his early accounts of religious toleration and second, Carole Pateman’s feminist critique of Hobbes’s and Locke’s political thoughts. To do so, I argue that Hobbes and Locke both aim to refute patriarchal accounts of political power by first revealing the instability of natural authority (Hobbes) and by clarifying the different natures of these two distinct powers (Locke). In sum, this essay intends to point to the theoretical concern shared by the two thinkers, namely a critique of patriarchalism.