Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T01:40:02.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberal Daddy Quotas: Why Men Should Take Care of the Children, and How Liberals Can Get Them to Do It

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Linda Barclay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The gendered division of labor is the major cause of gender inequality with respect to the broad spectrum of resources, occupations, and roles. Although many feminists aspire to an equality of outcome where there are no significant patterns of gender difference across these dimensions, many have also argued that liberal theories of social justice do not have the conceptual tools to justify a direct attack on the gendered division of labor. Indeed, many critics argue that liberalism positively condones it, presuming that it arises from the free choices of individuals, which must be respected. In this paper I will accept the feminist goal of equality of outcome across roles, occupations, income, and wealth, but will argue that liberal theories of justice are consistent with strong measures aimed at promoting such equality. I will show that liberalism has the conceptual resources to justify a concrete policy measure that goes considerably beyond the measures usually championed by feminists. The example I focus on is “daddy quotas,” which refers to the tagging of a significant part of parental leave for the exclusive use of fathers.

Type
Open Issue Content
Information
Hypatia , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Winter 2013 , pp. 163 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109 (2): 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, Richard. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56: 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, Richard. 1999. Equal opportunity for welfare defended and recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4): 488–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr, Amy R. 2004. Feminist politics and feminist pluralism: Can we do feminist political theory without theories of gender? Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4): 411–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr, Amy R. 2007. Liberal feminism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/ (accessed September 16, 2011).Google Scholar
Bergmann, Barbara R. 2008. Long leaves, child well‐being, and gender equality. Politics & Society 36 (3): 350–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse, Harry, and Olin Wright, Erik. 2008. Strong gender egalitarianism. Politics & Society 36 (3): 360–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchorst, Anette. 2006. The public‐private split rearticulated: Abolishment of the Danish daddy leave. In Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states, ed. Ellingsæter, Anne Lise and Leira, Arnlaug. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Borchorst, Anette. 2008. Woman‐friendly policy paradoxes? Childcare policies and gender equality visions in Scandinavia. In Gender equality and welfare politics in Scandinavia: The limits of political ambition?, ed. Melby, Kari, Ravn, Anna‐Birte and Wetterberg, Christina Carlsson. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Brake, Elizabeth. 2004. Rawls and feminism: What should feminists make of liberal neutrality? Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3): 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1992. Okin on justice, gender, and the family. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 22 (2): 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudd, Ann E. 1994. Oppression by choice. Journal of Social Philosophy 25: 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellingsæter, Anne Lise, and Leira, Arnlaug. 2006. Introduction: Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia. In Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states, ed. Ellingsæter, Anne Lise and Leira, Arnlaug. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Gheaus, Anca, and Robeyns, Ingrid. 2011. Equality‐promoting parental leave. Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (2): 173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gornick, Janet C., and Meyers, Marcia K. 2008. Creating gender egalitarian societies: An agenda for reform. Politics & Society 36 (3): 313–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 2004. Feminist contractualism. In Varieties of liberal feminism, ed. Baehr, Amy R.Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Jagger, Alison. 1983.Feminist politics and human nature. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2002. Contemporary political philosophy, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lammi‐Taskula, Johanna. 2006. Nordic men on parental leave: Can the welfare state change gender relations? In Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states, ed. Ellingsæter, Anne Lise and Leira, Arnlaug. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Leira, Arnlaug. 2006. Parenthood change and policy reform in Scandinavia, 1970s–2000s. In Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states, ed. Ellingsæter, Anne Lise and Leira, Arnlaug. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Levey, Ann. 2005. Liberalism, adaptive preferences, and gender equality. Hypatia 20 (4): 127–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, Ruth. 2008. Gender, citizenship and social justice in the Nordic welfare states: A view from the outside. In Gender equality and welfare politics in Scandinavia: The limits of political ambition?, ed. Melby, Kari, Ravn, Anna‐Birte and Wetterberg, Christina Carlsson. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. A. 1994–95. Situating a feminist criticism of John Rawls's Political Liberalism. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 28: 1319–44.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. A. 1998. Toward a liberal theory of sexual equality. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 9: 202–23.Google Scholar
Mason, Andrew. 2000. Equality, personal responsibility, and gender socialisation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100: 227–317.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 2004. Defending equality of outcome. Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 2006. “Really” equal: Opportunities and autonomy. Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1): 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Roman, Christine. 2008. Academic discourse, social policy and the construction of new families. In Gender equality and welfare politics in Scandinavia: The limits of political ambition?, ed. Melby, Kari, Ravn, Anna‐Birte and Wetterberg, Christina Carlsson. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Rønsen, Marit, and Skrede, Kari. 2006. Nordic fertility patterns: Compatible with gender equality? In Politicising parenthood in Scandinavia: Gender relations in welfare states, ed. Ellingsæter, Anne Lise and Leira, Arnlaug. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Betsey, and Wolfers, Justin. 2006. Bargaining in the shadow of the law: Divorce laws and family distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (1): 267–88.Google Scholar
Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending gender. Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2001. Equality of whom? Social groups and judgments of injustice. Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar