Even economists, the most cold-blooded of all social scientists, are beginning to worry that our economy cannot rely entirely on the individual pursuit of self-interest. Altruism, trust, and solutions to coordination problems are now important topics of research. Why this rather surprising loss of confidence in rational economic man? Perhaps he is running into problems because his rational economic wife is no longer taking such good care of him. Women are now much less likely than they once were to devote themselves entirely to their families. Increases in women's independence are widely perceived as a threat to social integration. Many conservatives blame feminism, abortion, out-of-wedlock births, and affirmative action for our most serious social woes.

In this chapter, we agree that there is cause for concern about a possible decline in the quality of care services. But we reject the conservative argument that women are to blame and insist on the need for state policies that would promote norms, values, and preferences for caring among both men and women. The first section characterizes the motives underlying the provision of care services, offering several reasons why a shift toward more self-interested, pecuniary motives may have negative implications for social welfare. The second section explores the possibility that such a shift is taking place. We argue that the expansion of markets has contradictory effects, weakening patriarchal coercion, but also rewarding purely self-interested behavior.

Patriarchal forms of coercion had some positive indirect effects on the supply of caring services but were neither sustainable nor fair.

Feminism and rhetoric: a parable

Rhetoric and Feminism met on a morning run around the lake at Wellesley College. They were both there to work on Economics, trying to get him into better shape to deal with changing realities.

rhetoric (breathing heavily): This is rough going. I can't seem to make these economists see the underlying assumptions that structure their models. They're all talking about me instead.

feminism (treading lightly): I know what you mean. They really cling to this notion that perfect self-interest rules in the market and perfect altruism rules in the home. They're certainly not maximizing our joint utility.

rhetoric: Let's get together. You concentrate on the ideological substance of their argument, showing how it benefits men. I'll use logic to show them that their assumptions are inconsistent.

feminism: YOU mean you'll divert them with Latin terms while I take away some of their privileges?

rhetoric: Well, if it doesn't work, we could always get married and settle down.

feminism: Yeah, but who's going to take care of the kids?

The contents of basic economics texts and research journals suggest that economists don't like to talk about inequality between men and women (Feiner and Morgan 1985). Most economists seem persuaded that gender inequalities lie beyond the purview of economic analysis, either in the realm of biological givens or sociological imponderables. In this chapter we hope to persuade otherwise and to show how and why this particular economic con- versation has been circumscribed. We argue that certain assumptions embodied in the rhetoric of economics have deafened most economists to the possibility that economic motives help explain inequality between the sexes.