The Mal-Distribution Strategy

Author(s):  
Gina Schouten

This chapter critiques the prevailing strategy for defending gender-egalitarian political interventions as legitimate exercises of political power compliant with the neutrality constraint. According to this strategy, the gendered division of labor constitutes or causes unjust distributions of goods, and gender-egalitarian interventions can be legitimate means to remedy those unjust distributions. This strategy is appealing because of its apparent promise of justifying gender-egalitarian policies without making any judgments as to the relative value of gender-egalitarian and gender-inegalitarian lifestyles. I argue that, despite its appeal, this strategy is inadequate. First, the distributional strategy is not compliant with the neutrality constraint in the way that its proponents have claimed; second, independently of liberal legitimacy, the injustice of the gendered division of labor is not best diagnosed as distributional.

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 011719682097402
Author(s):  
Asuncion Fresnoza-Flot

Studies on “mixed” couples focus mainly on women’s perspectives, which results in the neglect of the viewpoints of men. Addressing this empirical gap, this research note investigates the case of Belgian and Dutch men in (former) relationship with Filipino women, and Filipino men (currently or previously) married to Belgian/Dutch women. Ethnographic data analysis unveils the importance of the traditional division of household chores to these men. Belgian and Dutch informants maintain a gendered division of labor in their respective households, whereas Filipino informants, whose Belgian/Dutch spouses pursue gender equality, adopt various strategies to regain their masculine self.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 366-387
Author(s):  
João de Castro Maia Veiga Figueiredo

The Catholic missions of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit have had a strong bearing on the development of Angolan Christianity, especially from the 1890’s onwards. This period coincided with the introduction of photography to the colony. While it has been established that individual Spiritans collaborated with pioneer photographers, the Congregation’s influence on the content of early Angolan “photographic archives” is still largely unconsidered. This study will trace the missionaries’ influence in the work of José Augusto Cunha Moraes (1855–1933) and Elmano Cunha e Costa (1892–1955). Particular attention will be paid to the way these photographers echoed the missionaries’ worldview by portraying their missions as ‘cozy’ places and naturalizing a specific, gendered division of labor.


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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 84-102
Author(s):  
Cailin O'Connor

This chapter does two things. The first is to use the evolutionary framework developed to explain a particular feature of the gendered division of labor—that some aspects of it seem conventional, and other less so. In developing this argument, the chapter employs a novel measure intended to capture the way conventionality can vary in degrees. The second is to explain why, somewhere between our most recent common ancestor and now, gender emerged in human groups. Some social scientists have argued not just that gender facilitates division of labor, but that gender itself exists in order to divide labor. The chapter presents a how-possibly model for the emergence of gender in a society without it.


Hypatia ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Levey

I argue that a gendered division of labor is often the result of choices by women that count as fully voluntary because they are an expression of preferences and commitments that reflect women's understanding of their own good. Since liberalism has a commitment to respecting fully voluntary choices, it has a commitment to respecting these gendered choices. I suggest that justified political action may require that we fail to respect some people's considered choices.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document