Justice, Gender, and the Family

It was exaxtly what I expected.

Okin's works is sure to be a classic of Feminism. Although the book is now 22 years old, many of its observations hit home as much in 2011 as they did in 1989. Okin strives for a more gender-neutral, or even "genderless" (I know - is that possible? Critics may wonder, and the idea should be discussed) model of the family, in which neither man nor women bear a greater share or burden of unpaid family work, and in which public institutions make possible both men and women sharing in the rearing of the family. It is a bold and challenging feminist vision, no doubt very controversial in its demands, but sure to provoke meaningful thought and conversations amongst readers interested in the issues of justice in the family. Okin convincing argues that divorce, gender expectations, and the general male-bias of society makes it very difficult for women to attain fully equal roles with men. Whether nor not Okin has the answer to women's needs, her ideas are bound to evoke a deep and challenging response in the reader's thought.

In my review of Okin's Women in Western Political Thought I suggested that the book would be improved if it had more scope, if it discussed more philosophers. Justice, Gender, and the Family fulfills this wish, leaving me feeling a little silly. Okin here offers a similar feminist critique to a host of major recent philosophers from different ideologies (from conservatives through liberals) as she presented in WWPT. She asks "What would this theory of justice look like if it took women seriously as moral agents rather than just implicitly assuming all moral agents are male heads of households who are supported by the domestic services of a wife." The theories usually don't fare well under this analysis. I think Okin treats the philosophers she studies fairly, but I think she is a little too quick to extend her judgments of their philosophical programs generally. Two examples. Okin rightly condemns Alasdair MacIntyre's Aristotelianism and Thomism for outright sexism and the privileging of an elite caste. Okin argues that MacIntyre offers little in the way of amendments to this aristocratic morality of domination, and in my experience with MacIntyre, I agree. But Okin seems to assume this must be true for all Aristotelians. But Okin must be aware of a number of neo-Aristotelians who take feminism very seriously indeed. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen spring to mind. Likewise, her treatment of Robert Nozick, while in my view quite devastating, cannot easily be extended to cover all libertarians, and certainly not all classical liberals. Her critique turns on a reductio ad absurdum of strong or absolutist property rights. But this approach would scarcely faze a modern Hayekian, who justifies the liberal order by an appeal to the beneficial consequences for individuals of certain defeasible (rather than absolute) norms. Okin concludes with a powerful case that even modern marriage, unless it is a marriage of equals, makes women vulnerable, whether the wives work outside the home or not. If a wife doesn't work outside the home, she is economically dependent on the husband, and this creates a real power imbalance. Especially if children are involved, divorce worsens the economic condition of the woman (since expensive custody will typically go to her and her earning power has atrophied). But the situation is not much better if the woman works outside the home. In this case, the woman often works the "double day", continuing to do most of the domestic work while also working outside the home. Moreover, many workplaces (I think this has improved since Okin wrote in the late 80s, but likely only for some high skill/high status careers) still implicitly assume that there is "someone else at home" taking care of domestic duties. The woman's career and potential for advancement are thus hindered by needing to leave the job for childcare, domestic errands, family leave, etc. The exit option of divorce will still threaten a much worse economic position. This is exacerbated by the failure to fully take into account that the husband's earning power is typically by far the family's most valuable asset. Court divorce settlements do not reflect this asset as really belonging to the family, but to the male. Thus alimony payments are usually of shorter duration and of lower amount than a family asset model would recommend. Okin carefully avoids the mistake of the radicals, and presents a positive picture of what the family can be. A marriage of equals - in power, economic means, and respect - supported by legal, economic, and cultural institutions that recognize the reality of human dependence and domestic *labor*, can provide a powerful foundation for society. Unlike the hierarchical family that is shielded from the considerations of justice, the egalitarian family in which justice is exemplified can more readily cultivate citizens capable of understanding and defending justice in the broader public world.

C'est un de mes livres préférés, je l'avais lu en bibliothèque il y a quelques années et comme je dois travailler sur l'égalité homme femme, je l'achète pour être sûre de l'avoir sous la main. L'idée que j'en ai retenu est que la famille est le premier lieu de l'éducation à la justice et à l’équité. Et si la famille, par le biais des relations entre les parents, ne montre pas l'exemple de la justice et de l'équité dans les relations homme/femme, il ne fallait pas s'attendre à ce que les hommes aient un comportement équitable et juste une fois adulte et en société. je trouve que l'auteur a souvent un raisonnement et une argumentation claire

Nice