Acknowledgments
Thisprojecthasdevelopedoverthecourseofmanyyears,andIhaveaccumulatedmanydebtsalongtheway.Itwasbornasmydoctoraldissertationat theUniversityofWisconsin-Madison,anditistothepeopleIlearnedfrom therethatIhavemosttothankforwhateverisgoodaboutthisbook.The philosophicalcommunityatWisconsinwasanembarrassmentofricheswhile Iwasthere.Forhelpfulinstructionandconversationsonthisproject,Iwould likeespeciallytothankClaudiaCard,HarryBrighouse,DanHausman,Robert Streiffer,PaulKelleher,RussShafer-Landau,PaulaGottlieb,JeffBehrends,Eric Stencil,DanSchneider,StewartEskew,ShannaSlank,HayleyClatterbuck, JoshuaDiPaolo,TaraDiPaolo,BrynnWelch,DanielleWylie,MichaelRoche, CaseyHelgeson,JohnBasl,MatthewKopec,DavidO’ Brien,BenSchwan, PattyWinspur,andLoriGrant.Iwillalwaysbeproudandgratefultohave beenaBadgerphilosopher.
AfterleavingWisconsin,Ihadtheprivilegeofspendingthreeyearslearning fromandthinkingwithsomewonderfulcolleaguesatIllinoisStateUniversity. Iamgratefultothosecolleagues,andespeciallytoDavidSansonforbeingso supportiveandinvestedaseniorcolleagueandforhelpfulconversations aboutthisprojectinparticular.
Mostrecently,Ihavebeenfortunatetoreceivethoughtfulandveryhelpful feedbackontheentiremanuscriptfrommycolleaguesChristineKorsgaard andTommieShelby,andonsignificantpartsofitfromBernhardNickel,Tim Scanlon,andLucasStanczyk.
Duringmy finalyearworkingonthemanuscript,Iwasthrilledtotakepart inthreeworkshopsduringwhichmanywonderfulphilosophersgavegenerouslyoftheirtimetoreadtheentiremanuscriptanddiscussitwithme.Iam gratefultotheparticipantsatthemanuscriptworkshopatLouvainUniversity, especiallyEszterKollar,VincentAubert,DanielleZwarthoed,FrancoisBoucher, andAxelGosseries.Thankstothosewhoparticipatedintheworkshopat theUniversityofWisconsin-Madison,especiallyHarryBrighouse,David O’Brien,AdamPham,EmilyFletcher,RobertStreiffer,MarcosPicchio,Emma Prendergast,LindseySchwartz,GraceGecewizc,LizFansler,andBeritThorson. DavidO’BrienandAdamPhamprovidedwrittenfeedbackontheentire draft,raisingchallengesthatIhadn’tconsideredandthatpromptedserious
revisionsatcrucialpointsintheargument.Grapplingwiththechallenges DavidandAdamposedmademyworkduringthe finalmonthsmoredifficult butalsofarmorerewarding,andtheirfeedbackcertainlyimprovedthe final product.Finally,thankstoparticipantsofthemanuscriptworkshopat theJeanBeerBlumenfeldCenterforEthicsatGeorgiaStateUniversity,and especiallytoAndrewAltman,ChristieHartley,LoriWatson,AmyBaehr,Seana Shiffrin,ClareChambers,WilliamEdmundson,AndrewI.Cohen,Eddy Nahmias,SuzieLove,andKatieKirkland.Thegenerosityofallthereadersat theseworkshopshasmadethebookfarbetterthanitotherwisewouldhave been,andIthankthemfortheirtime,theircriticism,andtheirinsights.
Ihavepresentedideasthatdevelopedintothisbookatmanyconferences andworkshopsoverthepastdecade.Mydebtstoparticipantsatthoseevents aretoomanytoname,butcertainpeoplestandouteitherbecausethey werecommentatorsorbecausetheyprovidedwrittenfeedbackafterthe event.ThankstoJulianaBidadanure,DebraSatz,RobReich,ArtemisSeaford, CynthiaStark,AndrewWilliams,DavidEstlund,PeterVallentyne,andPeter Vanderschraaf.
ThankstotwoanonymousreviewersforOxfordUniversityPressforreferee reportsthatwerebothchallengingandencouraging.ThankstoDominicByatt forhisinterestinmybookandforallhiseditorialworktomakeitbetter.
ChristieHartleyandLoriWatsonhavebeenwonderfulfriendsandmentors tome.Readingtheirworkasagraduatestudent,Ifounditsocompellingand importantthatnaturally,Ialsofoundinitplentythatneededcorrecting. Disagreeingwiththeminprinthasturnedouttobeamongmyverybest careermoves,becauseitpromptedthemtoinvitemeintotheirphilosophical orbit,whichisawonderfulplacetobe:intellectuallystimulating,humane, andfun.Apartfromtheirgeneralsupportandencouragement,Iamgrateful forthetimetheyhavespentovertheyearsreadingdraftsandproviding comments,andfortheirgenuineinterestinhelpingmetomakemywork better.
ThankstoDavidConcepción,my firstphilosophyteacher,who,whenIwas afreshmanatBallStateUniversity, firstputitintomyheadthatImightone daybeaphilosophyteachermyself.Ican’trememberwhetherheeverraised thepossibilityexplicitly,butheshowedmewhatanempoweringandsupportiveplaceaphilosophyclassroomcanbe,whichmademewanttolivein thatplaceandhelptocreateitforothers.
MydebttoHarryBrighouseextendsfarbeyondtheprofoundinfluencehe hadonmythinkingduringgradschool.Itextendsfarbeyondthekindness andgenerosityheshowedmeasanadvisortoastudenttoomuchinneedof reassurance.ItevenextendsbeyondthecountlesshourshehasspentsupportingmesinceIleftWisconsin:readingmyworkandtalkingwithmeabout it,providingadvice(andyes,stillreassurance),invitingmetoconferences,
Skypingwithmystudents,andhelpingmetobecomeamoreeffective teacher.Mostly,I’mgratefultoHarryforbeingafriendwhoknowsmeboth asaphilosopherandasaperson,andwhothinksalwaysabouthowtodohis jobinlightofthefactthathisstudentsareboth.FromHarryIamlearning howtosetprioritieswithintegrity;howtobeamorehumaneteacher, researcher,andcolleague;andhowto findphilosophicallyrichterrainin issuesthatIcareaboutasanon-philosopher,too.
Ihavehadtheimmenseprivilegeofteachingandlearningfrommany brilliantstudentsattheUniversityofWisconsin,IllinoisState,andHarvard. Talkingwiththemaboutissuesofgenderjusticehaspromptednewinsights, andithasenabledmetoworktowardclearerarticulationsofcentralproblems andofmyownattemptedsolutions.Ihadthegoodfortunetohiretwosuch brilliantstudents,PritenShahandOlenkaJain,tohelpwithindexingand editing,andtoreadmyworkandtheworkIwasengagingwithanddiscussit withme.ThankstoPritenandOlenkaforalltheircarefulanddiligentwork, and,mostimportantlyofall,fordoingphilosophywithmeandmakingmy workbetterasaresult.
My firstandgreatestdoseofunearnedgoodfortunewasthefamilyIgrewup in.I’msureallsixofuswouldcharacterizeourfamilyculturedifferently,but inmymind,twooftheclearestandmostexplicitconvictionswerethese: Therearenofreelunches;youmustworkhard.And:Youshould findwhat makesyouhappy;youshoulddowhatyoulove.Thesemessagesaren’t inconsistentwithoneanother,butitnonethelessstrikesmeasremarkable thatIwasabletolearnabitofthewisdomofhardshipwithouteverhavingto experienceit,andthatIsimultaneouslyhadthegreatprivilegeofbelieving thatIcould choose whattoworkhardat.Myparents’ encouragementtowork harddoingwhatIlovehasbeenthetouchstoneofmylife.I’mnotsurethey anticipatedthatitwouldleadmeintoajobthatseemsnotreallyto be ajob, buttheyhaveneverfalteredintheirsupport,orintheirconvictionthatIwas worthyofit.Iworkhardata “job” thatbringsmegreatjoyeveryday,andfor thatIhavemyvery firstteacherstothank.
Frankscreamedhistinywayintomylifesixmonthsbeforemydeadlinefor thisbook,reallyjustbeggingmetoblameallitsdeficienciesonhim.Butthe truthisthathemaywellhavemadeitbetterbybeingsuchabetteruseofthe timeIwouldotherwisehavespentobsessingoverit.Whateverhiseffecton thequalityofthisbook,Iam certain thatit’sFrankIhavetothankformaking those finaldaysofwritingittheverysweetestofmylife.
Ofallmyrichopportunitiestotraveltodiscussmyworkwithwonderful colleagues,andofallmygoodfortuneinhavingwonderfulcolleaguesinmy homeinstitutionstolearnfrom,myverybesttripsarealwaysmyjourneys home.Forthat,IhaveJefftothank.Mymostexciting,challenging,and rewardingphilosophicalconversationshavealwaysbeentheonesthat
happenonourwalkshomefromwork,orinourkitchenwhilewemake dinner.Thoseconversationsandhisbrilliantfeedbackfromtirelesslyreading myworkarereasonenoughtodedicatethisbooktohim. My reasonisless abouthistalentsandgenerosityasaphilosopher,thoughthoseareconsiderable. My reasonismoreabouthisgoodnessasapersonandapartner.Thanks formakingthispossible,Jeff,andthanksformakingitfun.
Someoftheargumentsinthisbookdrawonmaterialfrompreviously publishedpapers.Thisisindicatedinfootnotesatthebeginningofthe relevantchapters.Iamgratefultoanonymousreviewersfortheirfeedback onthosepapers,andtothepublishersforallowingmetodrawonthemhere.
Introduction
Inadiverseliberaldemocraticsociety,citizenswillreasonablydisagreeabout whatjusticedemands.Inanunjustsocietythataspirestobecomejust,they willbeunequallyburdenedbythepoliticalreformsnecessaryforthatpursuit. Thisdisagreementandunequalburdeningseemtomattermorally.Theyseem tobearonthestepssuchasocietymaypermissiblytaketobringaboutchange. Thisbookconsidersthemoralconstraintsonpoliticalinterventiontobring aboutchange,giventhatcitizensreasonablydisagreeaboutwhatconstitutes change forthebetter,andgiventhattheywillbeunequallyburdenedbythe politicalstepswetaketopursueit.
Iworkoutanddefendaviewaboutthoseconstraintsthatisdrawnfrom thefundamentalcommitmentsofatheoryknownaspoliticalliberalism. Iexaminethoseconstraintsbyapplyingthemtoaparticularaspectofthe unjuststatusquo:thegendereddivisionoflabor.Thisisabook,then,about politicalliberalism,aboutthegendereddivisionoflabor,and,mostly,abouta questionthatliesattheirintersection:Maywetakepoliticalactiontoeradicatethegendereddivisionoflaborwithoutviolatingtheconstraintson intrusivepoliticalactionthataliberaldemocraticsocietyoughttorespect? Plentyofreasonablecitizensthinkthegendereddivisionoflaborisperfectly just,andplentymorewillbeburdenedbypoliticalinterventionstoerodeit. Moreover,manyofthoseburdenedarenotamongthosewhomcriticsofthe gendereddivisionoflaborregardasbeneficiariesoftheputativeinjustice underthestatusquo.Becausesome victims oftheallegedinjusticewillbear disproportionatecostsasweworkpoliticallytowardremedyingit,thosecosts cannotbedismissedasmereremovalofunjustprivilege.Maywenonetheless pursuethatcontroversialsocialendbyexercisingoursharedpowerasdemocraticcitizensthroughpoliticalintervention?Iarguethatwemay,andthat withinthataffirmativeanswertherearelessonstobelearnedaboutthe gendereddivisionoflaborandaboutthetheorythatIusetoassessit.
Thisintroductorychapterprovidesorientation fortheinitiatedand uninitiatedalike thatwillsetthestageforwhatistocome.Thisisawork
ofappliedpoliticalphilosophy,inwhichIhopetoengagewithandcontribute toconversationsamongthreeconstituencies:thoseinterestedinthetheory (andintheapplicationofittogenderinequalitymostlyoronlyinsofarasthat applicationshedslightonthetheory);thoseinterestedintheapplication(and inthetheorymostlyoronlyinsofarasithelpstoanswerquestionsormotivate reformintheareaofapplication);andthosewho,likeme,areinterestedin somecombinationofthetheory,theapplication,thelessonsabouteachthat wecangleanbyengagingphilosophicallywiththeother,andthepractical politicalquestionswecananswerwellonlybyengagingphilosophically withboth.
0.1TheGenderedDivisionofLabor
Thegendereddivisionoflabormayat firstseemanold-fashionedtargetof philosophicaltheorizing.Full-timehomemakinghasneverbeenanoptionfor manyblackwomenorforpoorwomen,whohavelongworkedoutsidethe home,toooftenunderverypoorconditionsanddesperatelywishingtheyhad moretimetospendwiththeirchildren.1 Evenamongthewhiteandmiddleclasswomenwhohavehadtheoptiontoenacta “traditional” gendered divisionoflabor,full-timehomemakinghasbecomefarfromthenorm.This isdueinparttochangingcircumstances.Manywomenhavenewlyentered thepaidlaborforceasdecliningrealwagesleaveevenfewerfamiliesableto surviveonasingleincome.Andasthepercentageofchildrenlivingwitha singlemotherhasincreasedinrecentdecades,stillmorewomenhavegoneto workoutofeconomicnecessity.Inmanyothercases,womenhavegone toworkbecausetheyhavewantedto.Needanddesirearenot,ofcourse, mutuallyexclusive.
Butevenasmanywomenhavelongworkedforpayandmanymorehave joinedtheminrecentdecades,equalsharingbetweenwomenandmenof unpaidcaregivingworkremainsalongwayoff,bothwhenwelookattrends withinhouseholdsandwhenwelookatcaregivingperformedbywomenand menmorebroadly.Whilemenare,onaverage,doingmoreunpaidcaregiving thantheyusedtodo,theystillspecializeheavilyinpaidlabor,andtheir modestlyincreasedshareofcaregivingisfaroutpacedbywomen’sincreased involvementinpaidwork.Womenaredoingthevastmajorityofunpaid domesticwork and asubstantialshareofbreadwinningaswell.Meanwhile, we’llsee,caregivingresponsibilitieshavegrownmoretime-andlaborintensive,withincreasinglyhighstandardsforadequateparentalcareof
1 SeeDavis1983;hooks2014;Collins2008.
childrenandagrowingnumberofadultscaringforyoungchildrenandaging parentsaswell.
Women’slion’sshareofcaregivingisnotequallydistributedacrossgroups ofwomen,noraretheresourcesandsupportnecessarytomakeitmanageable. Class,race,andimmigrationstatusservetodisproportionalityburdensome womensothatothersmaymoreeasilynavigatetheircaregivingresponsibilities.Wealthyandmiddle-classwomen mostoften,whitewomen areoften abletooutsourcetheircaregivingresponsibilitiestopoorwomenandwomen ofcolor.Women’sdisproportionateshareofcaregivinggeneratesnotonly inequalitiesbetweenwomenandmen,then,butinequalitiestoobetween differentlysituatedwomen.
Itistemptingtothinkthatthisallcomesdowntoaproblemwithmen:Men areintransigent,andtheyhavebeenabletoenforcetheirpreferencetodoless thanhalfofthecaregivinganddomesticworkbecausetheyretainalarger shareofbargainingpowerinmostheterosexualdomesticpartnerships. Althoughthisstoryhassometruthinit,wewillseethat,asanexplanation ofthegendereddivisionoflabor’spersistence,itisfartoosimple.Manymen nowcomingofageinliberaldemocraciessupporttheirpartners’ workaspirationsandwant,forthemselves,alargerroleincaregiving.Butsocialinstitutionsarestilldesignedaroundthebreadwinner/homemakerideal;theyhave notevolvedtoaccommodatetherealityofdual-earnerhouseholds.Jobsare stillstructuredasifworkershave “someoneelseathome” totakecareof domesticandcaregivingworkthatdemandingjobsleavelittletimefor. Employerswant andfeelentitledto employeeswhocanofferakindof devotiontopaidlaborthatisinconsistentwithconcurrentlyhavingserious caregivingresponsibilities.Thisexpectationthatemployeeswillheavilyprioritizethedemandsofpaidlaborpervadesnotonlyelitecareersbutmost decentfull-timejobs.Jobssostructureddonotsuitthosewhodo not havethat someoneelseathomeandwhocannotaffordtooutsourcetheimportant workthatthatsomeoneelsemighthavedone.Stilllessdotheysuitthosewho also are thatsomeoneelseathome.
Asthingsstand,ourinstitutionalarrangementsstilllargelyholdfamiliesto devisetheirownsolutionsforbalancinggrowingcaregivingdemandsand growingdemandsoffull-timepaidlabor.Noadequatepublicsupportmechanismhasarisentofacilitatesharedsolutionstothecommonproblemof jugglingworkandfamilyinaneraofdualbreadwinning.IntheUnitedStates, part-timeworkisn’tamanageableoptionformostfamilies,single- or twoparent,becausehealthcareandotheressentialsocialgoodsremaineffectively tiedtofull-timeemployment.Meanwhile,caregivingiswoefullyundersupported,whetherbywayofsubsidiesforsubstitutecareorbywayofpaidleave. Aprivatemarkethasarisenforoutsourcingdomesticandcaregivinglabor, butabsentsubsidyandthoughtfulregulation,thisisanadequatesolution
onlyforthefewandrendersvulnerablethemanywhoperformcaregiving for(toolittle)pay.
Inshort,domesticcooperationisstillnegotiatedwithinastructureofsocial institutionsbuiltforspecializers.Thenewnormalinfamilies’ strategiesfor managingthatnegotiationisasortofpartialcompliancewiththoseinstitutions.Inthisnewnormalofspecialization-lite,menspecializeinpaidlabor; theirhavingajobistakenforgrantedandprioritized.Womenactasearnercaregiverswhosepaidworkissubordinatedwhenthedemandsofwork encroachuponcaregivingresponsibilitiesor,ifthefamilycannotaffordto subordinate either paidjob,whomusttakeonthebulkofthecaregivingwork ontopofdemandingworkoutsidethehome.Ineithercase,thefactthat women,onaverage,continuetoperformthebulkofcaregivingworkmakesit difficultforthemtocompete oreventocope onequalfootinginpaid labor.Inmyriadways,womenaredisadvantagedinlabormarketcompetitionsrelativetomen.
Butworkplaceobstaclesaren’ttheonlynoteworthyconsequencesof specialization-lite.Themostvulnerablewomenarethosewhoseconnection topaidlaboristenuous,orwhoareoutsidetheformallabormarketaltogether. Tenuousconnectiontolabormarketsleavesmanywomen financiallydependentuponpartners,whichinturnleavesthosewomensusceptibletoabuse. Meanwhile,theirgreatercommitmenttocaregivingcanrenderthemunwillingtoexitabusiverelationships,becausetheyareunwillingtosubject dependentstothe financialvulnerabilityanddisruptionthatexitingwould entail.Whilethegendereddivisionoflaborishardlya new targetofpolitical theorizing,then,itstimelinesshasnotexpired.Onthecontrary,wewillsee thatthemodern-daygendereddivisionoflaborisdeeplyentrenchedandthat politicalremediesareneededifwearetobringaboutfurthersignificant erosionofit.
Neitheristhegendereddivisionoflabora parochial topicofphilosophical interest.Icountmyselfamongthefeministswhoregardthe “traditional” familyanditsgendereddivisionoflaborasalinchpinofgenderinjustice. Forme,thisdoesn’tmeanthatthedomesticgendereddivisionoflaboristhe worstormostobjectionableaspectofgenderinjustice,ortheaspectmost urgentlyinneedofremediation.Rather,itmeansthatthegendereddivision oflaborplaysacrucialroleinsustainingmuchelsethatisunjustaboutgender. Themodelofbreadwinner/homemakerspecializationwithinheterosexual marriagesisthenormalizedpictureofapropercooperativedomesticarrangement,despitethefactthatplentyofpeoplehave long livedoutalternative arrangements.Reformingsocialinstitutionsandsocialnormssothattheyno longertakethatpictureforgrantedisataskweshouldundertakenotonlyfor womenandmeninheterosexualpartnershipswhowantbetteroptionsfor sharingincaregivingandincome-earning.Wewillseethatmuchofwhat
sustainsthegendereddivisionoflaborisaninstitutionalizedassumptionthat, onitsface,isnotgendered:theassumptionthatonepartnerwillspecializein paidlaborandonepartnerwillsupportthefamily’slabormarketparticipation byspecializinginunpaidcaregivingandotherdomesticwork.Gendernorms certainlyinfluencefamilies’ negotiationofthespecializationassumption, andinturn,theircompliancewithitbothexplainsandhelpstosustainits institutionalentrenchment.Butthebreadwinner/homemakerspecialization assumptionitselfconstrainssame- and opposite-sexcouples.2
Moreover,thenormalizedpictureofdomesticcooperationthattheinterventionsIconsiderinthisbookaimtooverturnimposescoststhatextendfar beyondthefamilieswhowanttodeviatefromitonlybyavoiding(gendered) workspecialization.Iftheinstitutionalizedpresumptionofbreadwinner/ homemakerspecializationisoutofsyncwiththemanytwo-adultfamilies whosemembersdonotwanttospecialize,itisstillmoreill-suitedtothe familiesthatdeviatefromthebreadwinner/homemakernormmorecompletelystill.Inmanysingle-parentfamiliesandinfamilieswithparentsin themilitary,parentsinprisonorwithfelonyconvictions,illorinjuredparents,orparentswithdisabilities,specializationoftenisnotanoption.Inthese cases,theinstitutionalizedassumptionthatworkershave “someoneelseat home” canbedevastating.Women(ormen)whodoalloftheirfamily’s caregiving and breadwinningareataprofounddisadvantageinlabormarkets thatpresumeworkerstobesupportedbycaregiver-specialistpartners.The breadwinner/homemakerspecializationassumptionisoutofsync,too,with thefamiliesinwhichdomesticandwage-earningcooperationoccurswithin extendedkinorfriendshipnetworks.Inshort:Socialinstitutionslikelabor marketsarecostlyanddifficulttonavigatebythosewhoselivesdonotcomply withthenormsthatorderthem,andplentyoflivesareoutofstepwiththe normofbreadwinner/homemakerspecialization.
Thegendereddivisionoflaboralsoplaysaroleinsustainingothersocial injusticesthatcanimposeharmsacrossthepopulation.Theseharmscan befalleventhosewho prefer tospecializeinaccordancewiththenorm.As alreadyalludedto,womenwhospecializeincaregivingandhavepartners whospecializeinbreadwinningareoftennon-reciprocallyreliantonthose partnersfortheirmaterialsecurity.Asaresult,theyhavelessbargainingpower withindomesticpartnershipsandaremoremateriallyvulnerableshould thosepartnershipsbedissolved.Thegendereddivisionoflaboralsoenables andperpetuatesthecodingofcertainkindsofworkasfeminine,andthe consequentundervaluingofthosekindsofwork.Intheseways,itplausibly playsacrucialroleinsustainingtheprevalenceoffemalepoverty:Inhelping
2 Eveninsame-sexcouples,specializationcanbegendered.SeeGoldberg2013.
tosustainthedevaluationoftraditionallyfemalework,thegendereddivision oflaboralsosustainstheeconomicprecarityoflow-incomeprofessional caregiverswhoseworkisdevaluedinpartbecauseitisassociatedwithfemininity,3 anditdoessowhetherornotthosecaregiversthemselvesparticipateat homeinagendereddivisionoflabor.Moreover,thegendereddivisionoflabor imposeshighcostsonthemanymenwhowanttobutareunabletoperform astheirfamily’sbreadwinningspecialist,andwho becauseofnormsassociatingmenwithbreadwinning experiencethatinabilityasafailuretodo rightbytheirfamilies.Iregardthegendereddivisionoflaborasalinchpinof genderinjustice,then,becauseitsharmsextendbeyondthosewhogrudginglyandpartiallycomplywiththepresumptionofspecialization.Italso harmsmanywhodonotor could notthemselvesparticipateingendered workspecialization.
Thisbookisnotaworkofempiricalscholarship,andIwillnotmakethese causalconnectionsprecise.Butwewillencounterplentyofdatathatrender themplausible.Thepointfornowistonotethat,althoughthisisabook aboutpolicythatundertakestoinfluencethechoicesofthoseinvolvedin gendered(orwould-begendered,ifnotforthepolicy)cooperativedomestic relationships,theaimofthepolicyisbynomeansexclusivelyorevenprimarilytobenefitthoseindividualsinparticular;indeed,thepoliciesIendorse willimposesubstantialcostsonmanysuchindividuals.Individually-rational genderedchoicesmadeincooperativedomesticunitssustainharmsthat extendfarbeyondthoseunits.Policythatundertakestochangethosechoices, bychangingthecircumstancesthatmakethemindividuallyrational,hasthe potentialtoeasethoseharms.Insofarasthisisabookaboutthegendered divisionoflabor,itisabookaboutthesocialmechanismsthatmakegendered specializationnormative,whichimposeevenonthosewhodonotpractice genderedlaborspecialization.
0.2LiberalLegitimacy
Althoughdeeplyentrenched,thestatusquoofspecialization-liteisnotinevitable.Certainsocialpoliciescouldusherinanewnormalofequalsharing withincooperativedomesticpartnerships.Ibelievethaterodingthegendered divisionoflaborisessentialforbringingaboutamoregenderjustsociety.But inaliberal,democraticsociety,thisisnottheendofthestory,becauseplenty ofreasonablepeopledisagreewithme.Somedisagreewiththejudgmentthat
3 Nodoubtracismalsoplaysarole,throughtheassociationofprofessionaldomesticservices andcaregivingwiththeimmigrantwomenandwomenofcolorwhodisproportionally fillthose rolls.SeeDavis1983,94–5.
amoregenderequalsocietywouldbeamore just society.Theymaydenythat theconsequencesIjustcanvassedare harms,orgrantthattheyareharmsbut denythatthoseharmsconstitute injustices.Othersmayagreewithmyvision ofamoregenderjustsociety,butdislikethepolicyagendaIwillendorseto bringitabout.Theymayjudgethatthosepoliciescarrytoohighacost,either intermsoftheiractualpricetagorintermsoftransitioncoststheyimposeas wedeviatefromastatusquotowhichmanyhavegrownaccustomed.
Beforeconsideringthenormativeimportanceofthisdisagreement,it’s worthgettingasenseofhowprofounditwillbe.Noticethatoutdatedjob structuresandthelackofcaregiversupportarenot all thatobstructtheway forwardforgenderequality.We’llseethatincreasinglyegalitarianattitudesin theabstractobscurethefactthatwearestillsurprisinglytraditionalwherethe rubberhitstheroad,particularlywhenitcomestothecareofchildrenandthe questionofwhoshouldstep back fromwork,eveniffewerofusthinkthat anyoneneedstep out ofwork.The choices individualsmakeabouthow toarrangetheirdomesticlivesandthe norms thatinfluencethosechoices andthataresustainedbythem playacrucialroleinsustaininggender inequality.Totacklebothnormsandinstitutionaldesign,interventions mustoffersupportforcaregiving andworktoinfluencethechoicesindividuals makeabouthowtousethatsupport.
TobegintoseewhatImean,considerarecentstudyusingDanishadministrativedatafrom1980to2013.WewillreturntothisstudyinChapter1as wecanvassempiricalevidenceaboutthegendereddivisionoflabor;whatis relevantnowisthatthestudyshedslightongenderinequality inacountrythat offersgenerouscaregiversupportpolicies.Duringthethirty-yearperiodstudied, generousjob-protectedpaidparentalleavewasprovidedsothatparentscould carefortheirchildrenathomeduringtheearlymonths.Oncechildrenturned sixmonthsoroneyearold(dependingonthepolicyyearinquestion),parents hadaccesstohigh-qualityandheavily-subsidizedoptionsforpurchasingcare outsidethehome.Evenso,significantgenderinequalitypersists.4 Thestudy foundthattheinequalityinearningsandothereconomicoutcomesthat persistsinDenmarktodaybetweenwomenandmen “isallaboutchildren.”5 Havingchildrenimpactswomen’slabormarketpursuits,includingtheirlabor forceparticipation,hoursworked,andoccupationalrank,sector,and firm: Women,morethanmen, “favorfamilyamenitiesoverpecuniaryrewards,” andsufferanearningspenaltyasaresult.6
Inharnesswithplentyofotherevidencethatwe’llconsult,thissuggests thatrun-of-the-millfamilysupportpolicywillnotmeaningfullyerodethe gendereddivisionoflaborandwillnotreducegenderinequalityinearnings
4 Klevenetal.2018,1. 5 Klevenetal.2018,32. 6 Klevenetal.2018,2.
orotheroutcomes.Infact,suchpoliciesriskpositively strengthening the gendereddivisionoflabor:Familysupportandworkplace flexibilityarefar likeliertobetakenupbywomenthanbymen,andtake-upofsuchofferingsis negativelypricedinthelabormarket.Thus,merely providing caregiversupport willnotpromotegenderequalityandmightfurtherentrenchgender inequalitybyenablingwomentospecializeevenmoreincaregivingandenabling theirpartnerstospecializemoreinpaidwork.
Tooffsetthiseffect,policiesmustincludesomeleverbywayofwhichto encouragetake-upoftheprovisionbymen:somethinglikeso-called “daddy quotas” or “daddymonths,” aportionofleavethatisavailableonlyto fathers.7 ThepoliciesIconsiderinthisbookincludesuchinducements. Theydon’tjustprovidesupport;theyundertaketoinfluencethechoices individualsmakeabouthowtouseit.Theydothisindifferentways,but fromtheirsharedaim,wecanseethatthepolicieswillbehighlydivisive:The policiesinquestionaimnot(only)topromoteamorefamily-friendlysociety buttopromoteamore genderegalitarian society.Ithinkthatthisgoalisworth pursuing,thattheconsiderablecostsofpursuingitareworthbearing,andthat thepayoffjustifiestheintrusivenessofattemptingtoinfluencethechoices peoplemakeabouthowtoarrangetheirlives.Butthereisnoshortageof disagreementonthesematters.
Whatisthesignificanceofthisdisagreement?Itdoesnotchangethefacts aboutjustice.Perhapsinlightofpersistentandreasonabledisagreementabout whatjusticedemands,Ishould tempermyconfidence thatmyownjudgments arecorrect.Butthefactthatdisagreementaboundsoverwhetherthegendered divisionoflaborisunjustdoesnotmeanthatitis not unjust.
Disagreementbearsmoredirectlyonadifferentnormativeconcept: legitimacy.Legitimacyconcernstheconstraintswemustabidebyasweseekcollectivepoliticalsolutionstooursharedsocialproblems,giventhatwewill disagree,reasonably,bothaboutwhatconstitutesaproblemandaboutwhat costsweshouldbewillingtoincurto fixit.Weaspiretoliveinasociety regulatedbythevaluesof liberalism:asocietythatlimitspoliticalintrusion intothelivesofcitizensandallowsconsiderablespaceforthosecitizenstoact ontheirownconceptionsofthegoodlife,regulatedbyvaluesthatthey authenticallyendorse.Forcooperationtobepossibleinsuchasociety,we must findsomewayofdealingwiththedisagreementsthatwillinevitably arise:disagreementsaboutwhatvaluesareworthyofallegiancebothfor individualsandforthecollective,andfurtherdisagreementsabouthow those firstdisagreementsarefairlytoberesolved.Wealsoaspiretoliveina societyregulatedby democratic values.Inademocraticsociety,thestate’s
7 SeeBertrand2018.
authorityderivesfromitsclaimtobeactingonthewillofthepeople,and politicalinterventionsareregardedasexercisesofourcollectivedemocratic power.Aliberaldemocracyseekstoexercisethecollectivepowerofcitizens onlyinwaysthatrespecttheauthorityofeachindividualtoliveoutalifeof herownchoosing.Liberaldemocraticlegitimacyconcernstheconditions underwhichexercisesofpoliticalpowerliveuptothisaspiration.
Thequestionofthisbookisthis:Isit legitimate forthestatetoenactsocial policiesaimedaterodingthegendereddivisionoflabor?Aswewillsee,such socialpolicieseffectivelysubsidizenon-gender-specializinglifestylesatacost tothosewhopreferatraditionalgendereddivisionoflabor,eitherintrinsically orotherwise,forexamplebecausepastchoicesnowmakethatthemost appealingoption.Agreatdealofthedisagreementconcerningtheworthiness ofthegoalandthecostsworthbearingtoachieveitispreciselythesortof disagreementthatliberalismiscommittedtoaccommodating:reasonable disagreementaboutwhatkindsoflivesarevaluableandwhatkindsofgoals weshouldpursueasasociety.Interventionstopromotegenderequalityby subsidizingequalsharingofcaregivingbetweenpartnersbringuscloserto socialendsthatIendorse,butfurtherfromsocialendsthatmanyofmy opponentsendorse.Suchinterventionsmakeitrelativelyeasierformeto pursue my values,butatacost:Otherswill finditmoredifficult,relativeto thestatusquoandrelativetootherfeasiblearrangements,topursue theirs
Subsidiesforsubstitutecaregiving,forexample,depletethe finitestock ofsocialresourcesavailableforpursuingothersocialgoods.Theyalsomake itcostlierforindividualstopursuemoretraditionalgendereddomestic arrangements:intheshortrun,byconditioningfamilysupportprovision ongenderegalitarianuptake;inthelongrun,byerodinggendernormsand thereby,forexample,diminishingthepooloffemalepartnerswillingto shouldersomuchofthecaregivingormalepartnerswillingtoforegothe intimacywiththeirchildrenthatagreatersharewouldafford.Andwemust keepinmindthatthequestionisnotwhethergreatersocialsupportfor caregiving isalegitimatesocialaimtowhichwemaylegitimatelydevote socialresources;norisitwhethersupportingcaregivingisalegitimateaim evenifpursuingit happensto maketraditionalgenderedarrangementsmore diffi culttosustain.Policyoptionsforsupportingcaregivingarediverse.They rangefromoptionsthatmakeitrelativelyattractiveforfatherstoperform caregivingtothosethat,againstthestatusquosocialnormlandscape,will effectivelyworktoenablemotherstodoso.Onlyontheformerendofthis spectrumofpolicyoptionswillourinterventionseffectivelyerodethegendereddivisionoflabor.
Thisisnottosaythatcaregiversupportpolicieshavenothingvaluableto offerunlesstheypromote genderegalitarian caregiving.Shorteningthework weekorprovidingpubliclyfunded,community-basedchildcarecenterswould
dotremendousgoodallontheirown,withnogenderegalitarianstrings attached:Thesestepscouldalleviatethehardshipsofsingleparentsand poororworking-classparents,whostruggletodothebestfortheirchildren underveryunfavorablecircumstances,andtheycouldbenefitchildrenby givingthemmore(andmorerelaxed)timewiththeirparentsandbyextendinganddiversifyingtheirnetworksofcaregivers.8 Weshouldwantbetter familysupportpoliciesforthesereasonsandformanymore.Ifocusongender egalitarianaimsofsuchpoliciesnotbecauseIthinkpromotinggenderegalitarianismisthemostimportantthingthatfamilysupportpoliciescando,but becauseIthinkitisthemostcontroversialamongthethingsthatsuchpolicies should do.Becausefamilysupportpoliciesplausiblywillnotachievegender egalitarianismunlesstheyincludedesignfeaturestobringitabout,ajustificationforcaregiversupportpoliciesthataccomplisheverythingweshould wantfromthemmustincludeajustificationforgenderegalitarianismasa socialaiminitsownright.
Moreover,wewantadefenseofgenderegalitarianinterventionsthatis robustacrossdifferentpolicycontextsandsetsofsocialcircumstances,variationinwhichaffectswhichinterventionswillbringabouttheaimofgender egalitarianism.Itiscrucial,then,tojustifygenderegalitarianismasapolicy aim,andnotonlytojustifywhatevermeanshappentobesufficienttorealize itinourcircumstances,asinstrumentaltosomelesscontroversialsocialaim. Thequestion,then,iswhetherwemayenactpolicy includingcaregiver supportpolicy that aimsinitsdesignandimplementationtoencouragegender egalitariandomesticarrangements.
Aswewillsee, all politicalinterventionspromotesomeendsandfrustrate others,andfew,ifany,willfrustrateonlyendsthatweallagreetobeworthless.Clearly,somepoliticalinterventionsarelegitimatedespitefrustrating endsthatcitizensreasonablychoosetopursue.Aliberaldemocracymay legitimatelyimposetaxesto financeabasiceducationforallchildren,andit maylegitimatelymakethateducationcompulsory,evenifsomedonot endorsethatend,andevenifpubliclyfundededucationmakesitdifficult forsomecitizenstopursuetheirprojects forexample,parentswhoprefer thattheirchildren not besubjecttocompulsoryeducation.Otherpolitical interventionsare illegitimateinpart because ofthecoststheyimposeon citizenswhoseprojectsarefrustrated:Aliberaldemocracymaynotlegitimatelyenforceacompulsoryreligion,evenifbysodoingitcouldpromote certainsocialends.Thedistancebetweenthesetwocasesmayseemlarge, butwewillseethatthelineisdifficulttodrawwithprecisionandthecaseof genderegalitariansocialpolicyisaparticularlyfraughtone.
8 See,forexample,hooks2014,143–6.
Myprojectinthisbookistoarguethatinterventionsaimedaterodingthe gendereddivisionoflaborbysubsidizinggenderequaltake-upofpaidand caregivinglabor are legitimateexercisesofpoliticalpower.Questionsoflegitimacyarequestionsofpoliticalphilosophy,andphilosophicalaccountsof legitimacyaimtoprovideprincipledanswerstothosequestions.Thereare differentwaysofdrawingthelinebetweenlegitimateandillegitimateexercisesofpoliticalpower,evenwithinliberalpoliticaltheory.Mydefenseshall proceedbyshowingthattheinterventionsarelegitimateeventakingonboard thelegitimacyconstraintsimposedbyaparticularlyrestrictivepoliticalframework,whichimposesstringentrequirementsforthekindsofreasonsthatmay permissiblybeinvokedtojustifyexercisesofpoliticalpower.Attheheartof this politicallyliberal frameworkoflegitimacyliesacommitmenttostate neutrality:totheideathatthestateshouldactinaneven-handedwaytoward allcitizensbyremainingneutralamongthedifferentvaluestheymayaffirm andthedifferentwaysoflifetheymayseektoliveout.
The neutralityconstraintonliberallegitimacy holdsthatthelegitimacyofa particularinterventiondependsonthatinterventionbeingjustifiablebyway ofreasonsthatareneutralamongdifferentconceptionsofvalue:reasonsthat donotdependfortheiracceptanceonanyparticularviewsaboutwhatisgood foranindividualorforsociety,apartfromtheviewsimpliedbyvalueswe shareasfreeandequalcitizens.Neutralityismeanttosystematizetherequirementsof mutualcivicrespect.Inaliberaldemocracy,wemanifestmutual respect,evenacrossawidediversityofreasonablewaysoflife,byauthorizing politicalinterventiononlywhenwecanfullyjustifythatinterventiononthe basisofreasonsthatcanberecognizedassuchbyallparties,evenfromwithin theirmanydifferentconceptionsofthegood.
Giventhevastdiversityofconceptionsofthegoodheldbycitizensina pluralistdemocracy,theneutralityconstraintappearsconservativeindeed.It lookslikeitwillbedifficulttojustifyprogressivepoliticalinterventionswithoutrunningafoulofthatconstraint.Mostrelevantlyforourpurposes,itlooks likeitwillbedifficulttojustify genderegalitarian politicalinterventions.Those interventionsappeartorelyfortheirjustificationonfeministvaluesfavoring genderequality.While I affirmthosevalues,theyareclearlyatoddswiththe valuesendorsedbymanyotherreasonablecitizens,andwiththosecitizens’ conceptionsofthegoodlifeandthegoodsociety.Myburdenistoarguethat, despiteappearancestothecontrary,progressivegenderegalitarianpolitical interventionscanbecompliantwiththeneutralityconstraint.
Becausethelegitimacyofapoliticalinterventiondependsonthereasons thatcanbeofferedinitsfavor and,inparticular,onwhetherasetof neutral reasonscansufficetojustifyit meetingthisburdenrequiresdevelopingan argumentforgenderegalitarianinterventionsthatproceedsbywayofonly neutralreasons.ThereasonsIinvokewillnotbeextrinsictotheinterventions
themselves;Iwillnotdefendgenderegalitarianismasinstrumentalforaccomplishingsomelesscontroversialpoliticalgoal.Rather,Idefendgenderegalitarianismitselfasalegitimateaimofpoliticalintervention,andIdefendthe interventionsinquestiononpreciselythegroundsthattheypromotethat aim.Politicalinterventionsaimedatbringingaboutamoreequalsharingof paidandunpaidworkwithinfamilies are legitimate.
Thetheoreticalimportoftheprojectisindependentofanypolicycontext. Iaimtoclarifythenotionofliberalneutralitythatisworthaspiringtorealize, challengeapictureofliberaltheoryaccordingtowhichjusticeissuesdemands butlegitimacyonlyimposesconstraints,andexposethegenuineprogressive potentialofatheoryoflegitimacythatisoftenregardedasparticularlyconstraining.Itakethesetobeimportantcontributionstoliberalpoliticalthought.
Whatofthe practical relevanceoftheproject?Howfardoesthatextend?
Theprojecthasbroadpracticalrelevanceacrossliberaldemocraticpolitical contexts.Evenincountriesthataspiretoprovidegenerousgenderegalitarian familysupportandtoregulatelabormarketstoaccommodategenderequal workallocationswithinfamilies,wemightwonder:Invirtueofwhatarethose provisionsjustified?Theymayhavewonlegislativevictory,butarethey legitimate?Andifso,howrobustistheirlegitimacyagainstsocialchange forexample,theerosionofpublicsupport?Moreover,myargumentwill implythat further progressivegenderegalitarianreformiscalledforevenin countrieswhoseinstitutionaldesignalreadyaspirestoaccommodategender egalitarianism.Recalltheinsightaboutcaregiversupportgleanedfromthe Danishstudy:Equallygeneroussupportmightlookverydifferentdepending onwhetheritisdesignedtoencouragepeopletohavemorechildren;or simplytosupportcaregivers;ortosupportcaregiversinwaysthat accommodate equalsharingbetweenpartners;or finally,tosupportcaregiversinways that encourage morementoperformcaregivingandthusthaterodethe gendereddivisionoflabor.Establishingthelegitimacyofgenderegalitarianismasapolicyaiminitsownrightwillhaveimplicationsevenforcountries withgeneroussupportsforcaregiving,andthoseimplicationswillberobust acrossdifferencesinpolicycontextthatgiverisetofurtherdifferencesinthe typeofpolicythatwecanexpecttofurthertheaiminquestion.
Additionally,thisbookispracticallyrelevantacrosspolicycontextsbecause muchofitisgiventoevaluatingstrategiesforjustifyinggenderegalitarian interventionsthatare not compliantwiththeneutralityconstraintonliberal legitimacy.Thecriticalcomponentsofthebookallplayaroleinsettingthe stageforthepositiveargumentIgive,buttheyarepracticallyrelevantallon theirown.Nonedependsonanyparticularpolicycontext,andsothestrategiesforjustifyinggenderegalitarianinterventionsthatIargueagainstare strategiesItaketobeofflimitswithin any policycontextthataimstoabideby liberalneutrality.
Muchofmypositiveargumentisdevelopedasaconditional:Iarguethat if certaincircumstancesobtain, then genderegalitarianpoliticalinterventions arenotonlycompliantwiththeneutralityconstraint;theyarepositively calledforbythenormativecommitmentsthatundergirdthatveryconstraint. Notonlyisaneutraljustificationofgenderegalitarianinterventionsavailable; themostbasictheoreticalcommitmentsofliberallegitimacy demand such interventionsundertherelevantcircumstances.Ibuildthiscasebyexamining themostfundamentalliberalcommitmentsthatjustifyimposingtheneutralityconstraintinthe firstplaceandshowingthatthosecommitmentscanbe usedtobuildapositivecaseinfavorofgenderegalitarianpoliticalinterventions.AttheendofChapter7,IfocusontheUnitedStatesasacasestudyof sorts.IarguethatthecircumstancesinquestionactuallyobtainintheUnited States.Inthatcontext,then,itispolitically illegitimateto abstain fromenactingthegenderegalitarianinterventionsinquestion.Ithinktheargumentfor genderegalitarianinterventionsappliesfarmorebroadly,andwillsuggestas much.ButmakingthecasedefinitivelyIleaveforanotherday.
Althoughtheneutralityconstraintbelongstothepoliticallyliberalfamily ofliberaltheories,thisbookisn’twrittenonlyforalreadycommittedpolitical liberals.Partoftheprojectistopresentthecommitmentsofpoliticalliberalismintheirbestlight.Theneutralityconstraintisademandingandcontroversialstandardofliberallegitimacy.Butonceclarified,theconstraintismore appealingthanitistakenbyitscriticstobe,andpartofmyprojectistoshow why.Ifsuccessful,mydefenseofaparticularunderstandingoftheneutrality constraintwillhaveimplicationsbeyondgenderegalitariansocialpolicy:It willestablishthattheconstraintislessconservativethanitsdefendersandits detractorshavetypicallytakenittobe,anditwillillustratehowthecommitmentsthatundergirdthatconstraintcan,undercertaincircumstances, demandtheverykindsofprogressivepoliciesthatwemighthavethought neutralityruledout.
Still,plentyofreaderswillrejecttheneutralityconstraint.Inonethelessuse neutralityasmystandardoflegitimacyforthepurposeofevaluatinggender egalitarianinterventionsfortworeasons:First,becauseit is sodemanding,it setsadauntingargumentativeburdenthat,ifmet,generatesaverystrong general defenseofthelegitimacyoftheinterventionsinquestion.Ifthe interventionscanbeshowntoabidebypoliticalliberalism’sneutralityconstraint,theywilllikelyabidebytherequirementsofliberallegitimacymore permissivelyconstrued.
Second,Iuseneutralityasastandardforlegitimacybecausethebestwayto persuadeopponentstoagreewithyouistoofferreasonsthattheyactually findpersuasive.Isaidthatthisbookisnotintendedonlyforpoliticalliberals. Neitherisitwrittenonlyforfeminists.Theburdenthatneutralityimposesis tojustifyexercisesofpoliticalpowerusingreasonsthatcanberecognizedas
suchevenbythosewithwhomweareotherwiseinprofounddisagreement, andIundertaketodemonstratethelegitimacyofgenderegalitarianinterventionsbyofferingjustsuchreasons.Whetherornottheneutraljustification Igiveis,aspoliticalliberalismholds,necessarytoshowthelegitimacyofthose interventions,itshouldbemoreeffectivethanin-campargumentsatpersuadingthosewhoopposesuchinterventions.Ifmyneutraldefenseofprogressive policiestopromotegenderegalitarianismissuccessful,itwillshowthatthose policiescanbecompliantwithaverydemandingprincipleofliberallegitimacy,anditwillofferthekindofdefenseofthosepoliciesthatwemight effectivelyoffereventothosewithwhomfeministsareotherwiseindeep disagreementovermattersofgenderjustice.
IconfessthatIdidnotbeginthisprojectasacommittedpoliticalliberal wonderingnon-committallyaboutgenderegalitarianism.Icameasacommittedgenderegalitarian,whofoundpoliticalliberalism’saspirationfor mutualrespectbywayofjustificatoryneutralityprovisionallyappealing, andwhothoughtitwouldbeworththinkingcarefullyaboutwhetherprogressivefeministpoliticalinterventionscould,afterall,bemadecompliant withjustificatoryneutrality.Thisframingbringswithitahighargumentative hurdle:Cantheseinterventionsbejustifiedevenwithoutrecoursetothe comprehensivefeministvaluesthatunderliemostcritiquesofthegendered divisionoflabor?Ifso,Ithought,theinterventionswouldrestonmuch firmer footing.
Overthecourseofthisproject,however,Ihavebecomeincreasinglyconvincedthatneutrality’sappealisgenuine notleastbecauseIhavebecome increasinglyconvincedthatitcanapprovemoreprogressiveinterventions, feministandotherwise,thanpoliticalliberalsandtheiropponentshave tendedtothink.Moreimportantly,I findthepoliticallyliberalassessment oftheseinterventionsappealingbecauseitisbasedonwhatseemtometobe therightkindsofconsiderations:valuesthatreallycanbesharedbyall reasonablecitizensinaliberaldemocracy.Thismakesourcallsforinterventionstopromotegenderjusticecompliantwiththemostdemandingplausible conceptionofmutualcivicrespect.Moreimportantly,bysodoing,itequips ustosaytoouropponents: “Bythelightsoftheseconsiderationsthat you yourselfoughttoendorse,theseinterventionsarecalledforasarequirementfor legitimacy.” Theconsiderationsdon’texhaustthereasonsIhave asafeminist forwantingamoregenderegalitariansociety.Butplausibly,theyexhaustthe considerationsIamentitledtoinvoketojustifyimposingitonothers.
Theproject,inaslogan,istoidentifyasetofsharedpremisesandtoreason fromthemtoasurprising(giventhepremiseswebeganwith)conclusion:that weshouldenactprogressivesocialpoliciestopromoteequalsharingamong domesticpartnersofcaregivingandlabormarketwork.Iftheargumentworks, itssuccesspointstostillfurtherconclusions:conclusionsaboutthepolitical
statusofthesocialpoliciesinquestion,giventherestrictionsimposedonthe premisesusedtosupportthem;conclusionsaboutthosepremisesthemselves, giventhatsomeofthemwillseeminitiallyinadmissiblewithinthepolitically liberalframework;andconclusionsaboutthatframework,giventhatthe policiesIendorseseeminitiallytobeunsupportablefromwithinit.
0.3OnTerminology
Iuse “genderegalitarian” torefertoa socialideal wherebyanydifferencesin socialrolesbetweenmalesandfemalesconcerningworkarenotdetermined orreinforcedbysocialnormsorsocialinstitutionsthatpromotegendered allocationsofwork.Genderegalitarian socialpolicy ispolicythataimstobring usclosertothegenderegalitariansocialideal.Andgenderegalitarian domestic arrangements arethosewhereinpartnersdonotspecializeincaregivingor labormarketworkaccordingtogender.Crucially,Idonotassume,nordo Ibelieve,thateverydomesticarrangementmustbegenderegalitarianinorder forthesocialidealofgenderegalitarianismtoberealized.Certainindividuals maycontinuetospecializeincertainkindsoftasks,butinafullygender egalitariansociety,thesechoiceswillnolongerbereinforcedbysocial normsaboutgenderorbyinstitutionaldesignthatmakesequalsharing difficult.Ialsoleaveopenthepossibilitythatthesocialidealofgender egalitarianismisconsistentwithsomedifferenceinthe average amountof unpaiddomesticworkperformedbywomenandmeninaggregate.This mightoccur,forexample,ifsomenaturaldifferenceexistsbetweensexes thatinfluencesnurturingbehavior,orifsexdifferencesmakeitrelatively easierforfemalestoraisechildrenontheirown.Iamnotcommittingto eitherpossibilityobtaining.Thepointisthatgenderegalitarianismdoesnot entailthatnosexdifferenceincaregivingbehaviorexists.
ExceptwhenIrefertoparticulardomesticarrangementsamongparticular individuals, “genderegalitarian” referstothe norms and institutionalarrangements thatinfluencefamilies’ allocationsofwork,ratherthantotheallocationsthemselves.Iuse “gendereddivisionoflabor” torefertothenormsand institutionalarrangementsthatinfluenceindividuals’ laborallocationsunder thestatusquo.Andsogenderegalitarianinterventionsarethosethataimto erodethegendereddivisionoflaborbyreformingthenormsthatobstruct genderegalitarianismasasocialidealandbyreformingthesocialinstitutions thatreciprocallyreinforceandarereinforcedbythosenorms,withtheultimategoalofensuringthatanyremainingsex-basedpatternsinlaborallocations arenotduetosocialnormsorinstitutionaldesignthattakegenderedspecializationforgranted.Acrucialaspectoftheburdenofjustifyinggenderegalitarianinterventions,then,isthis:Theinterventionsaimultimatelyto
promotegenderegalitarianismasasocialideal,whichneedn’tentailthat everyparticulardomesticarrangementisgenderegalitarian. But,theparticular forcesthatsustainthegendereddivisionoflabor socialnormssustainedby individuals’ behaviorandgenderedinstitutionssustainedbyindividuals’ compliancewiththem makeitsuchthattopromotegenderegalitarianism asasocialideal,weneedtochangethebehaviorofmanyindividuals,inducingthemtomaketheirdomesticlaborallocationsmoreegalitarian.
Gendermanifestsandperpetuatesinjusticeindomainsoutsideoflabor,and myfocusonthedomesticgendereddivisionoflaborisnotmeanttoimply thatnootherdomainsofgenderinjusticemeritattention,oreventhatno other labor-related genderinjusticesmeritattention.Manyprivilegedfamilies outsourcelargeportionsofcaregivinganddomesticlabor,andthegrowing marketindomesticworkisdeeplyimplicatedinpersistentgenderandglobal injustice.9 Thisinjusticeconnectsinimportantwayswiththeinjusticesofthe gendereddivisionoflaborthatIfocusonhere.AsIsaid,Ithinkthat thegendereddivisionoflaborisalinchpinofgenderinjustice,andIthink thatthesocialpoliciesIconsiderinthisbookwouldhelptoalleviateboth kindsofinjusticeandmanyothersbeyond.Butmakingthatcaseregarding theprivatemarketinsubstitutecaregivingisataskforanotherbook.Aswill becomeclearoverthecourseof this book,generalprinciplesofdistributive justicethatareperfectlypermissiblewithinpoliticalliberalism andindeed impliedbyitsmostbasiccommitments condemnmuchthatisunjustabout theprivatemarketincaregiving.Additionally,thepoliticallyliberalcaseIgive forremediationofthegendereddivisionofunpaiddomesticworkandcaregivingimpliesstillfurthergroundsonwhichtocallforreformofmarket-based caregivinganddomesticwork.ButIfocushereonthegendereddivisionof laborinthehome,bothbecauseIthinkitsustainsgenderinjusticemore broadly,andbecause,aswewillsee,itisaparticularlydifficultcaseforpolitical liberalism.
WhenIusetheterm “feminist” anditsvariants,Iamreferringtoasetof partiallycomprehensivevaluecommitmentsthatsupportgenderegalitarianismasasocialideal,butthatencompassfarmorethanthat.Thefeminist valuesrelevantherearebynomeansexhaustiveoffeministcommitments generally.Onewayofunderstandingthecentralquestionofthebookisthis: Inordertojustifypromotinggenderegalitarianismasasocialideal,mustwe
9 Thatmarketreliesonthedevaluationoftraditionallyfeminineworkandonthewillingnessof anextremelyvulnerablegroupofpeople,mostlywomen,toworkforverylowwages,unprotected bystandardsofprofessionaltrainingandcompensation.Relianceuponthislaborsourcereinforces globalinequalities,anditweakenscoalitionsinsupportofpoliticalsolutionstothegendered divisionoflabor,thusharmingdisadvantagedwomenwhocannotaffordtopursueprivate solutionstothechallengeofbalancingpaidworkandcaregiving.SeeHassim2009.
