Liberalism, Neutrality, and the Gendered Division of Labor

Author(s):  
Gina Schouten

The trend toward gender equalization in domestic and paid labor allocations has stalled, and a growing number of scholars argue that, absent political intervention, further eroding of the gendered division of labor will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Certain political interventions could jumpstart the stalled gender revolution, but beyond their prospects for effectiveness, such interventions stand in need of another kind of justification. In a diverse, liberal state, reasonable citizens will disagree about what makes for a good life and a good society. Because a fundamental commitment of liberalism is to limit political intrusion into the lives of citizens and allow considerable space for those citizens to act on their own conceptions of the good, questions of legitimacy arise. Legitimacy concerns the constraints we must abide by as we seek collective political solutions to our shared social problems, given that we will disagree, reasonably, both about what constitutes a problem and about what costs we should be willing to incur to fix it. The interventions in question would subsidize gender-egalitarian lifestyles at a cost to those who prefer to maintain a traditional gendered division of labor. In a pluralistic, liberal society where many citizens reasonably resist the feminist agenda, can scarce public resources be used to finance political interventions to subsidize gender egalitarianism? This book argues that they can, and moreover, that they can even by the lights of political liberalism, a particularly demanding theory of liberal legitimacy.

Author(s):  
Gina Schouten

There are a few “easy fixes” or “work-arounds” that may appear to dispel the tension between the gender-egalitarian political agenda and a commitment to politically liberal legitimacy. First, we might argue that those who oppose gender egalitarianism are unreasonable, and thus fall outside the justificatory community that liberalism is committed to respecting. Second, we might argue that gender-norm-compliant choices are non-voluntary, and so need not be respected within liberal political institutions. Finally, we might argue that the gendered division of labor violates basic liberties, and so can be politically remediated on those grounds, even if the means of remediation are controversial. This chapter addresses each possibility and shows why they are not promising fixes. The main goals are to show that the problem is genuine and cannot be easily dispelled by some tempting quick fixes, and in so doing to clear the way for consideration of more promising solutions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026540752199647
Author(s):  
Nina Waddell ◽  
Nickola C. Overall ◽  
Valerie T. Chang ◽  
Matthew D. Hammond

COVID-19 lockdowns have required many working parents to balance domestic and paid labor while confined at home. Are women and men equally sharing the workload? Are inequities in the division of labor compromising relationships? Leveraging a pre-pandemic longitudinal study of couples with young children, we examine gender differences in the division and impact of domestic and paid labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown ( N = 157 dyads). Women did more of the parenting and housework, whereas men engaged in more paid work and personal time, during the lockdown. Couple members agreed that women’s share of parenting, housework and personal time was unfair, but this did not protect women from the detrimental relationship outcomes associated with an inequitable share of domestic labor. A greater, and more unfair, share of parenting, housework and personal time predicted residual increases in relationship problems and decreases in relationship satisfaction for women. Exploratory analyses indicated that men who were the primary caregiver or were not working fulltime also experienced negative relationship outcomes when they did more housework and parenting. These results substantiate concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may undermine advances toward gender equality by reinforcing inequitable divisions of labor, thereby damaging women’s relationship wellbeing.


Author(s):  
Gina Schouten

This chapter considers the work of liberal feminists Christie Hartley and Lori Watson. Hartley and Watson argue that political liberalism can approve gender-egalitarian interventions on the grounds that gender inequality threatens citizenship. I agree with Hartley and Watson that the liberal concept of citizenship is the key to justifying progressive gender-egalitarian political interventions. I argue, however, that their argument establishes only that a hierarchal gendered division of labor threatens citizenship. This is problematic because the gendered division of labor is not essentially hierarchal, and morally objectionable harms inhere in its non-hierarchal components. Moreover, the policy initiatives licensed by a hierarchal diagnosis of the gendered division of labor could exacerbate the harms that inhere in its non-hierarchal features. Hartley and Watson’s argument may offer a partial reconciliation of liberalism and feminism, but on its own it could further entrench the injustice of the gendered division of labor.


Author(s):  
Gina Schouten

This chapter reviews the empirical literature on the gendered division of labor, demonstrating that paid work and unpaid caregiving labor remain unequally distributed according to gender and that political interventions can be effective in inducing families to share work more equally. The main goal in this review of the empirical literature is to motivate the project. I then set out the menu of gender-egalitarian interventions that would be, if implemented, promising strategies for eroding the gendered division of labor. Finally, I explore political liberalism’s commitment to mutual respect, working to get more precise about what the gender-egalitarian interventions in question do, why they are appropriately regarded as subsidies for gender-egalitarian lifestyles, and why subsidizing gender egalitarianism seems, intuitively, to be at odds with mutual respect. The goal here is to build a rough understanding of the reciprocity considerations embedded in the ideal of mutual respect.


Author(s):  
Christie Hartley ◽  
Lori Watson

This book is a defense of political liberalism as a feminist liberalism. The first half of the book develops and defends a novel interpretation of political liberalism. It is argued that political liberals should accept a restrictive account of public reason and that political liberals’ account of public justification is superior to the leading alternative, the convergence account of public justification. In the second half of the book, it is argued that political liberalism’s core commitments restrict all reasonable conceptions of justice to those that secure genuine, substantive equality for women and other marginalized groups. Here it is demonstrated how public reason arguments can be used to support law and policy needed to address historical sites of women’s subordination to advance equality; prostitution, the gendered division of labor and marriage, in particular, are considered.


Author(s):  
Christie Hartley

In modern liberal democracies, the gendered division of labor is partially the result of men and women making different choices about work and family life, even if such choices stem from social norms about gender. The choices that women make relative to men’s disadvantage them in various ways: such choices lead them to earn less, enjoy less power and prestige in the labor market, be less able to participate in the political sphere on an equal basis, make them to some degree financially dependent on others, and leave them at a bargaining disadvantage and vulnerable in certain personal relationships. This chapter considers if and when the state should intervene to address women’s disadvantage and inequalities that are the result of gender specialization. It is argued that political liberals can and sometimes must intervene in the gendered division of labor when persons’ interests as free and equal citizens are frustrated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0094582X2110130
Author(s):  
Rachel Elfenbein

Venezuela’s state-led national-popular Bolivarian process opened up a new political field for feminism—an approach that was both institutional and popular, aiming to combine forces from above and from below and use state gender institutions to foment popular women’s organization. Yet this field was conflictual, containing contesting popular feminist projects with different implications for the gendered division of labor. Analysis of popular women’s organizing around Venezuela’s 2012 organic labor law shows that state adoption of feminism marked a gendered political opening for popularizing feminism while also presenting risks of state co-optation of popular women’s organizing. The state understood popular women’s organization and mobilization as central to the revolution, yet it generally attempted to limit their autonomy and organizing to challenge the gendered division of labor. El bolivarianismo nacional-popular liderado por el estado venezolano abrió un nuevo campo político para el feminismo: un enfoque que era tanto institucional como popular y cuyo objetivo era combinar fuerzas tanto de arriba como de abajo, así como utilizar las instituciones estatales de género para fomentar las organizaciones populares de mujeres. Sin embargo, este campo resultó conflictivo, y parte de su contenido impugnaba proyectos feministas populares con diferentes implicaciones para las divisiones de género en el trabajo. El análisis de la organización popular de las mujeres en torno a la ley orgánica del trabajo de Venezuela de 2012 muestra que la adopción estatal del feminismo marcó una apertura política de género con intenciones de popularizar el feminismo a la vez que presentaba el riesgo de que la organización popular de las mujeres fuera cooptada por el estado. El estado consideraba la organización y movilización popular de las mujeres como esenciales a la revolución. Sin embargo y hablando generalmente, se abocó a limitar su autonomía y organización cuando se trataba de desafiar las divisiones de género en el trabajo.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-183
Author(s):  
Thomas Gutmann

Abstract The article presents a ‘critique from within’ of Peter Benson’s book ‘Justice in Transactions’, while sharing its premise that a theory of contract has to be liberal one. It identifies three problems with Benson’s answer to the question of how the relation between freedom and equality in contract law should be understood. It criticizes Benson’s Hegelian metaphysics and claims that a principle of mutual recognition and respect between juridical persons does not require that contracts only allow the alienation and appropriation of different things of the quantitatively same value. It demonstrates that Rawls’s idea of a ‘division of labor’ within principles of justice is more plausible than Benson’s reformulated account, which loses sight of the premise that a liberal theory of contract must locate the normative foundations of ‘contract’ in individual rights, and, in addition, is at odds with Rawls’s project in ‘Political Liberalism’ and its concept of public justification.


2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 1119-1125
Author(s):  
David M. Rasmussen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document