Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While Susan Moller Okin found much to celebrate in Rawls's earlier articulation of his theory of justice, she worried that his later turn to political liberalism evacuated his theory of its feminist potential. Here, I argue that we need not be so pessimistic: some of the strongest arguments for pursuing certain feminist projects can and should be made from within a politically liberal framework. In advancing this claim, I develop Rawls's idea of primary goods—namely those goods that all citizens need qua citizens—as a key conceptual resource for arguing for the elimination of the gendered division of labor using public reason. Drawing on recent empirical literature, I point out that the gendered division of labor continues to distribute to women an unfair allocation of primary goods. I then advocate for a specific public policy, which I call Gender Egalitarian Daddy Quota—a parental leave policy that sets aside time specifically for fathers to encourage men and women to engage in childcare related leave-taking to similar extents—on the grounds that this policy would help secure a fairer distribution of primary goods, and thus is required as a matter of justice.

Keywords

Political liberalism feminism gendered division of labor public reason daddy quotas primary goods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbey

(2007) Back toward a comprehensive liberalism? Political Theory 35(1): 5–28.

Abbey

(2013) Introduction. In: Abbey

(ed) Feminist Interpretations of John Rawls. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press, pp.1–23

Almqvist

Duvander

(2014) Changes in gender equality? Swedish fathers’ parental leave, division of childcare and housework. Journal of Family Studies 20(1): 19–27.

Andersen

(2018) Paternity leave and the motherhood penalty: New causal evidence. Journal of Marriage and Family 80(5): 1125–1143.

Baehr

(2008) Perfectionism, feminism, and public reason. Law and Philosophy 27(2): 193–222.

Baehr

(2013) Liberal feminism: Comprehensive and political. In: Abbey

(ed) Feminist Interpretations of Johns Rawls. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press, pp.150–166.

Barclay

(2013) Liberal daddy quotas: Why men should take care of the children, and how liberals can get them to do it. Hypatia 28(1): 163–178.

Bartel

Kim

Nam

, et al. (2019) Racial and ethnic disparities in access to and use of paid family and medical leave: evidence from four nationally representative datasets. Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/racial-and-ethnic-disparities-in-access-toand-use-of-paid-family-and-medical-leave.htm.

Bergman

Hobson

(2002) Compulsory fatherhood: the coding of fatherhood in the Swedish welfare state. In: Hobson

(ed) Making Men into Fathers: Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.92–124.

10.

Brake

(2004) Rawls and feminism: What should feminists make of liberal neutrality? Journal of Moral Philosophy 1(3): 293–309.

11.

Brake

(2013) Re-reading Rawls on self-respect. In: Abbey

(ed) Feminist Interpretations of John Rawls. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press, pp.57–74.

12.

Brandth

Kvande

(2009) Norway: the making of the father’s quota. In: Kamerman

Moss

(eds) The Politics of Parental Leave Policies: Children, Parenting, Gender and the Labour Market. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.191–206.

13.

Brighouse

Robeyns

(2012) Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Brighouse

Wright

(2008) Strong gender egalitarianism. Politics & Society 36(3): 360–372.

15.

Budig

Hodges

(2010) Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood penalty across white women’s earnings distribution. American Sociological Review 75(5): 705–728.

16.

Bünning

(2015) What happens after the ‘daddy months’? Fathers’ involvement in paid work, childcare, and housework after taking parental leave in Germany. European Sociological Review 31(6): 738–748.

17.

Carlson

Miller

Sassler

(2018) Stalled for whom? Change in the division of particular housework tasks and their consequences for middle- to low-income couples. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 4: 1–17.

18.

Castro-García

Pazos-Moran

(2016) Parental leave policy and gender equality in Europe. Feminist Economics 22(3): 51–73.

19.

Chambers

(2004) Are breast implants better than female genital mutilation? Autonomy, gender equality and Nussbaum's political liberalism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7(3): 1–33.

20.

Collins

Ruppanner

Landivar

, et al. (2021) The gendered consequences of a weak infrastructure of care: School reopening plans and Parents’ employment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender and Society 35(2): 180–193.

21.

Doucet

McKay

Tremblay

(2009) Canada and Québec: two policies, one country. In: Kamerman

Moss

(eds) The Politics of Parental Leave Policies: Children, Parenting, Gender and the Labour Market. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.33–50.

22.

Duffy

(2020) Driven by inequalities: Exploring the resurgence of domestic work in U.S. cities. Sociological Forum 35(3): 608–627.

23.

Einarsdóttir

Pétursdóttir

(2009) Iceland: from reluctance to fast track engineer. In: Kamerman

Moss

(eds) The Politics of Parental Leave Policies. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.159–174.

24.

England

Privalko

Levine

(2020) Has the gender revolutions stalled? The Economic and Social Review 51(4): 463–488.

25.

Exdell

(1994) Feminism, fundamentalism, and liberal legitimacy. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24(3): 441–463.

26.

Fraser

(1994) After the family wage: Gender equity in the welfare state. Political Theory 22(4): 591–618.

27.

Geist

Ruppanner

(2018) Mission impossible? New housework theories for changing families. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10: 242–262.

28.

Gheaus

(2023) Political liberalism and the dismantling of the gendered division of labor. In: Sobel D and Wall S (eds) Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy. Vol. 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198877639.003.0006.

29.

Glenn

(2010) Forced to Care: Coercion and Caregiving in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

30.

Glynn

(2018) An unequal division of labor: How equitable workplace policies would benefit women. American Progress. Available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/unequal-division-labor/.

31.

Goodman

Williams

Dow

(2021) Racial/ethnic inequities in paid parental leave access. Health Equity 5(1): 738–749.

32.

Gornick

Meyers

(2008) Creating gender egalitarian societies: An agenda for reform. Politics & Society 36(3): 313–349.

33.

Hartley

Watson

(2009) Feminism, religion, and shared reasons: A defense of exclusive public reason. Law and Philosophy 28(5): 493–536.

34.

Hartley

Watson

(2010) Is a feminist political liberalism possible? Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 5(1): 1–21.

35.

Hartley

Watson

(2018) Equal Citizenship and Public Reason: A Feminist Political Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

Hirshman

(1994) Is the original position inherently male-superior? Columbia Law Review 94(6): 1860–1881.

37.

Hochschild

(1989) The Second Shift. New York: Viking.

38.

Kelly

(2012) Equal opportunity, unequal capability. In: Brighouse

Robeyns

(eds) Measuring Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.61–80.

39.

Kotsadam

Finseraas

(2011) The state intervenes in the battle of the sexes: Causal effects of paternity leave. Social Science Research 40(6): 1611–1622.

40.

Lam

Greene

McHale

(2016) Housework time from middle childhood through adolescence: Links to parental work hours and youth adjustment. Developmental Psychology 52(12): 2071–2084.

41.

Lammi-Taskula

(2006) Nordic men on parental leave: can the welfare state change gender relations? In: Ellingsæter

Leira

(eds) Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.79–100.

42.

Leira

(2006) Parenthood change and policy reform in Scandinavia, 1970s–2000s. In: Ellingsæter

Leira

(eds) Politicising Parenthood in Scandanavia. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp.27–52.

43.

Livingston

(2018) They’re waiting longer, but U.S. women today more likely to have children than a decade ago. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2018/01/18/theyre-waiting-longer-but-u-s-women-today-more-likely-to-have-children-than-a-decadeago/.

44.

Lloyd

(1998) Toward a liberal theory of sexual equality. The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 9(203): 203–223.

45.

Martinez

Daniels

(2023) Fertility of men and women aged 15-49 in the United States: National survey of family growth 2015–2019. National Health Statistics Report 179: 1–22. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf

46.

Milkman

Appelbaum

(2013) Unfinished Business: Paid Family Leave in California and the Future of U.S. Work-Family Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

47.

Mirckinson

(2011) Megyn Kelly demolishes Mike Gallagher for calling her maternity leave a ‘racket.’ Huffpost, August 9. Available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/megyn-kelly-mike-gallagher-maternity-leave_n_922393.

48.

Nussbaum

(1999) A plea for difficulty. In: Cohen

Howard

Nussbaum

(eds) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.105–114.

49.

Nussbaum

(2000) The future of feminist liberalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 74(2): 47–79.

50.

Nussbaum

(2001) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Nussbaum

(2003) Rawls and feminism. In: Freeman

(eds) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.488–520.

52.

OECD (2021) Caregiving in Crisis: Gender Inequality in Paid and Unpaid Work During COVID-19. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=1122_1122019-pxf57r6v6k&title=Caregiving-in-crisis-Gender-inequality-in-paid-and-unpaid-work-during-COVID-19.

53.

Okin

(1989) Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.

54.

Okin

(1994) Political liberalism, justice, and gender. Ethics 105(1): 23–43.

55.

Okin

(2004) Gender, justice and gender: An unfinished debate. Fordham Law Review 72: 1537–1567.

56.

Okin

(2005) ‘Forty acres and a mule’ for women: Rawls and feminism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 4(2): 233–248.

57.

Patnaik

(2019) Reserving time for daddy: The consequences of fathers’ quotas. Journal of Labor Economics 37(4): 1009–1059.

58.

Perry-Jenkins

Gerstel

(2020) Work and family in the second decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family 82: 420–453.

59.

Petts

Knoester

(2020) Paid paternity leave-taking in the United States. Community, Work, and Family 23(2): 162–183.

60.

Phillips

(1995) The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

61.

Pragg

Knoester

(2017) Parental leave use among disadvantaged fathers. Journal of Family Issues 38(8): 1157–1185.

62.

Rawls

(1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

63.

Rawls

(1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

64.

Rawls

(1997) The idea of public reason revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review 64(3): 765–807.

65.

Rawls

(2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

66.

Robeyns

(2012) Gender and the metric of justice. In: Brighouse

Robeyns

(eds) Measuring Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.215–236.

67.

Rose

(2016) Free Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

68.

Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, et al. (2012) Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1): 165–179.

69.

Salmi

Lammi-Taskula

(2015) Policy goals and obstacles for fathers’ parental leave in Finland.

70.

Schouten G (2016) Is the gendered division of labor a problem of distribution? In: Sobel D, Vallentyne P and Wall S (eds) Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Vol. 2, pp.185–206. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0008

71.

Shockley L and Shen W (2016) Couple dynamics: division of labor. In: Allen TD and Eby LT (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.125–139.

72.

Schouten

(2016) Is the gendered division of labor a problem of distribution? In: Sobel D, Vallentyne P, and Wall S (eds) Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 2, Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 2016), pp. 185-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0008.

73.

Schouten

(2017) Citizenship, reciprocity, and the gendered division of labor. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 16(2): 174–209.

74.

Schouten

(2019) Liberalism, Neutrality, and the Gendered Division of Labor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

75.

Shockley

Shen

(2016) Couple dynamics: division of labor. In: Allen

Eby

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family. New York: Oxford University Press,pp. 125–139.

76.

Udman

Moss-Racusin

Phelan

, etal (2012) Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1): 165–179.

77.

Usdansky

Parker

(2011) How money matters: College, motherhood, earnings, and wives’ housework. Journal of Family Issues 32(11): 1449–1473.

78.

Zerilli

(2012) Value pluralism and the problem of judgement: Farewell to public reason. Political Theory 40(1): 6–31.

Eliminating the gendered division of labor: The argument from primary goods

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References