Conclusion

This chapter addresses a worry about the version of political liberalism that the book defends as consistent with gender egalitarianism: the worry that this political liberalism appears to give up a lot of what political liberals have taken themselves to be after. The conclusion defends my gloss on political liberalism, arguing that it preserves what political liberals should be most committed to preserving: the possibility of justificatory community as a way of expressing mutual civic respect in a profoundly, but reasonably, ideologically divided society. I conclude, finally, by confessing my own most persistent reservation about the argument I defend: that although the argument for gender egalitarian interventions that I give is consistent with the criterion or reciprocity, it might be too complicated to actually be offered in public political deliberation.

The Challenge of Liberal Legitimacy

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.

The Mal-Distribution Strategy

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.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the tension between liberalism and feminism. I begin by explaining how the ideal of gender equal sharing of caregiving and paid labor remains elusive. I then introduce the concept of liberal legitimacy, the ideal of mutual respect that it aspires to realize, and the neutrality constraint that systematizes that aspiration. One goal of the Introduction is to help readers begin to feel the pull of the guiding question: How can controversial progressive exercises of political power that aim to further a controversial progressive ideal of gender justice be made consistent with the liberal ideal of mutual respect? A second goal is to set the stage for the answer I will try to defend. I provide a brief outline of the rest of the book, define key terms, and explain my use of Rawls’s theory of political liberalism.

A Neutral Case for Autonomy Promotion

This chapter elucidates the notion of citizenship that rightly informs the neutrality constraint and the criterion of reciprocity: On the basis of citizenship interests, neutrality limits coercive political intervention; and through the criterion of reciprocity, citizenship interests also positively demand certain coercive political interventions. Political liberalism’s characterization of citizenship attributes to citizens certain fundamental interests. When those interests are jeopardized, and when they can be protected without jeopardizing stronger interests of citizenship, exercises of political power to protect those interests are demanded by the criterion of reciprocity. This can have surprising implications. A fundamental commitment of political liberalism is that, while political institutions should be ordered by liberal values, individuals should be substantially free to reject those values within their own lives. But under some circumstances, essential citizenship interests demand political interventions to promote enactments of substantive autonomy; as such, those interventions can be required by the criterion of reciprocity.

Citizenship and Gender Hierarchies in Political Liberalism

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.

The Family and the Basic Structure

This chapter begins the work of defending my own approach to justifying gender-egalitarian interventions. The first step is to defend against a line of thought according to which the interventions are categorically illegitimate due to the restriction of justice to institutions. The traditional liberal view holds that institutions and structural features of society are the primary subject matter of justice, and that principles of justice apply to individuals’ behavior only derivatively. Critics of this “basic structure” view maintain that it too narrowly construes the purview of justice, and that principles of justice can also apply directly to the behaviors of individual agents. If the basic structure view is vindicated, that would apparently condemn gender-egalitarian interventions as illegitimate on their face. I argue that some version of the restricted view is defensible, but that such a version will not categorically classify gender-egalitarian interventions as illegitimate.

The Political Case for Gender Egalitarianism

This chapter argues that a liberal society cannot remain stable over time if its institutions are structured on the basis of an assumption that one’s sex will dictate the kind of work that one does. Stability in the relevant sense includes a moral dimension, and this chapter shows that moralized stability is threatened by arguing that the institutionalized assumption that sex will dictate the kind of work that one does is an affront to the political value of autonomy. When gender norms and social institutions built upon the assumption of breadwinner/homemaker specialization constitute formidable obstacles to the enactment of gender-egalitarian lifestyles, the citizenship interest in stability will license—and in fact demand—interventions to remove those obstacles. The criterion of reciprocity thus positively calls for gender-egalitarian political interventions under these circumstances. I go on to argue that the circumstances demanding those interventions obtain in the United States today.

A Stalled Revolution and the Gender-Egalitarian Policy Agenda

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.