Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T19:42:44.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development Ethics, Gender Complementarianism, and Intrahousehold Inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Serene J. Khader
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Development ethicists see reducing intrahousehold gender inequality as an important policy aim. However, it is unclear that a minimalist cross‐cultural consensus can be formed around this goal. Inequality on its own may not bring women beneath a minimal welfare threshold. Further, adherents of complementarian metaphysical doctrines may view attempts to reduce intrahousehold inequality as attacks on their worldviews. Complicating the justificatory task is the fact that familiar arguments against intrahousehold inequality, including those from agency and self‐esteem, depart from premises that complementarians reject—premises about the value of independence or the moral irrelevance of gender. I propose that development ethicists should offer complementarianism‐compatible arguments against the norms and practices constitutive of intrahousehold inequality. I develop arguments against two intrahousehold inequality‐supportive practices that depart from complementarian premises. Specifically, I argue that patriarchal risk and gender schemas that devalue women's labor prevent men from discharging complementarian duties to promote women's welfare.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , Spring 2015 , pp. 352 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 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

Ackerly, Brooke. 2000. Political theory and feminist social criticism. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, Bina. 1997. Bargaining and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics 3 (1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, Fauzia Erfhan. 2008. Microcredit, men, and masculinity. Feminist Formations 20 (2): 122–55.Google Scholar
Alim, M. Abdul. 2009. Changing villagers' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes regarding gender roles in Bangladesh. Development in Practice 19 (3): 300–01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkire, Sabina. 2007. Concepts and measures of agency. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative Working Paper. http://www.ophi.org.uk/working-paper-number-09/ (accessed January 14, 2015).Google Scholar
Alkire, Sabrina, and Ibrahim, Solava. 2007. Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. In Missing dimensions of poverty data, Special issue, Oxford Development Studies 35 (4): 379–403.Google Scholar
Bartky, Sandra. 1990. Femininity and domination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Basu, Alaka Malwade, and Brij Koolwal, Gayatri. 2005. Two concepts of female empowerment. In A focus on gender: Collected papers on gender using DHS data, ed. Brij Koolwal, Gayatri. Calverton, Md.: ORC Macro.Google Scholar
Cain, Mead, Khanam, Syeda Roseka, and Nahar, Shamsun. 1979. Class, patriarchy, and women's work in Bangladesh. Population and Development Review 5 (3): 405–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christman, John. 2004. Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies 117 (1): 143–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 2004. Minimalism about human rights: The best we can hope for? Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2): 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, David. 2008. Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, Jack. 2013. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drydyk, Jay. 2013. Empowerment, agency, and power. Journal of Global Ethics 9 (3): 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, Arturo. 1994. Encountering development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ewing, Katherine. 1991. Can psychoanalytic theories explain the Pakistani woman? Ethos 19 (2): 131–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Marilyn. 2006. Autonomy, gender, politics. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Sally. 2004. The marginalization of evangelical feminism. Sociology of Religion 65 (3): 215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashim, Iman. 1999. Reconciling Islam and feminism. Gender and Development 7 (1): 7–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, Thomas. 1995. Servility and self‐respect. In Dignity, character, and self‐respect, ed. Dillon, Robin S. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit voice and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
Interparliamentary Union. 2014. Women in national parliaments: Situation as of December 1, 2014. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm (accessed February 2, 2015).Google Scholar
Iverson, Vergard. 2003. Intra‐household inequality: A challenge for the capability approach. Feminist Economics 9 (2–3): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, Alison, and Tobin, Teresa. 2013. Situating moral justification. Metaphilosophy 44 (4): 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabeer, Naila. 1998. “Money can't buy me love”? Re‐evaluating gender, credit, and empowerment in rural Bangladesh. Sussex, UK: Institute for Development Studies.Google Scholar
Kabeer, Naila. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Development and Change 30 (3): 435–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabeer, Naila. 2011. Between affiliation and autonomy: Navigating pathways of women's empowerment and gender justice in rural Bangladesh. Development and Change 42 (2): 499–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khader, Serene J. 2011. Adaptive preferences and women's empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khader, Serene J. 2012. Must theorizing about adaptive preferences deny women's agency? Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4): 302–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khader, Serene J. 2014. Empowerment through self‐subordination? Microcredit and women's agency. In Poverty, agency, and human rights, ed. Meyers, Diana T. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Catriona. 2008. Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. Journal of Social Philosophy 39 (4): 512–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of piety. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mies, Maria. 1982. Lacemakers in Narsapur: Indian housewives produce for the world market. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1995. Human capabilities, female human beings. In Women, culture, and development, ed. Nussbaum, Martha C. and Glover, Jonathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001. Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1991. Gender, justice, and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan Moller. 1995. Inequalities between the sexes in different cultural contexts. In Women, culture, and development, ed. Nussbaum, Martha C. and Glover, Jonathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Olsaretti, Serena. 2005. Endorsement and freedom in Amartya Sen's capability approach. Economics and Philosophy 21 (1): 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papanek, Hannah. 1990. To each less than she needs, from each more than she can do: Allocations, entitlement, and value. In Persistent inequalities: Women and world development, ed. Tinker, Irene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parekh, Bhikhu. 1999. A varied moral world. In Susan Moller Okin, Is multiculturalism bad for women?, ed. Cohen, Joshua, Howard, Matthew, and Nussbaum, Martha C. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Phillip. 2000. Republicanism. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Pettit, Phillip. 2001. Capability and freedom: a defense of Sen. Economics and Philosophy 17 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, Robert. 1999. Between norms and choices. In Susan Moller Okin, Is multiculturalism bad for women?, ed. Cohen, Joshua, Howard, Matthew, and Nussbaum, Martha. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1988. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Christopher, and Jetha, Cacinda. 2011. Sex at dawn. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1990. Gender and cooperative conflicts. In Persistent inequalities: Women and world development, ed. Tinker, Irene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Natalie. 2000. Autonomy and the feminist intuition. In Relational autonomy, ed. Mackenzie, Catriona and Stoljar, Natalie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, Theresa Weynand. 2007. On their own ground: Strategies of resistance for Sunni Muslim women. Hypatia 22 (3): 152–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Roop Rekha. 1995. Femininity, inequality, and personhood. In Women, culture, and development, ed. Nussbaum, Martha C. and Glover, Jonathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1996. A vindication of the rights of woman. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Thrift.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2012. World development report 2012: Gender equality and development. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.Google Scholar