![]() ![]() Examples include a mandate that employers split the paycheck between their employee and their stay at home partner (Okin, 1989), or a ‘caregiver’s allowance’ in the form of a voucher given to parents who provide hands-on care (Alstott, 2004). Some of these policies support care directly, by entitling to financial compensation individuals who provide care to their family members and who thereby often forego employment or downsize their career ambitions. But their claim does not speak against care-supporting policies.įeminist scholars and activists regularly defend public policies that support care-giving and care-givers. This gives them special claims against men occupying the vast majority of top positions and against their higher share of opportunities for positions of advantage. Women can have a complaint grounded in the expressive disvalue of sexist discrimination. Further, women who have a real chance to occupy positions of advantage have most likely already enjoyed more than their fair share of opportunities they lack a claim to more. Moreover, some of the most advantageous existing jobs entail excessive benefits we should discount the value of allocating such jobs meritocratically. Supporting care also improves the overall condition of disadvantaged women who are care-givers justice gives priority to the latter. This, I argue, is not sufficient reason against such policies. The Feminist Argument Against Supporting CareĬare-supporting policies incentivise women’s withdrawal from the labour market, thereby reinforcing statistical discrimination and further undermining equality of opportunities between women and men for positions of advantage. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |