This book defends progressive political interventions to erode the gendered division of labor as legitimate exercises of coercive political power. The gendered division of labor is widely regarded as the linchpin of gender injustice. The process of gender equalization in domestic and paid labor allocations has stalled, and a growing number of scholars argue that, absent political intervention, further eroding of the gendered division of labor will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Certain political interventions could jumpstart the stalled gender revolution, but beyond their prospects for effectiveness, such interventions stand in need of another kind of justification. In a diverse, liberal state, reasonable citizens will disagree about what makes for a good life and a good society. Because a fundamental commitment of liberalism is to limit political intrusion into the lives of citizens and allow considerable space for those citizens to act on their own conceptions of the good, questions of legitimacy arise. Legitimacy concerns the constraints we must abide by as we seek collective political solutions to our shared social problems, given that we will disagree, reasonably, both about what constitutes a problem and about what costs we should be willing to incur to fix it. The interventions in question would effectively subsidize gender egalitarian lifestyles at a cost to those who prefer to maintain a traditional gendered division of labor. In a pluralistic, liberal society where many citizens reasonably resist the feminist agenda, can we legitimately use scarce public resources to finance coercive interventions to subsidize gender egalitarianism? This book argues that they can, and moreover, that they can even by the lights of political liberalism, a particularly demanding theory of liberal legitimacy.

This book defends progressive political interventions to erode the gendered division of labor as legitimate exercises of coercive political power. The gendered division of labor is widely regarded as the linchpin of gender injustice. The process of gender equalization in domestic and paid labor allocations has stalled, and a growing number of scholars argue that, absent political intervention, further eroding of the gendered division of labor will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Certain political interventions could jumpstart the stalled gender revolution, but beyond their prospects for effectiveness, such interventions stand in need of another kind of justification. In a diverse, liberal state, reasonable citizens will disagree about what makes for a good life and a good society. Because a fundamental commitment of liberalism is to limit political intrusion into the lives of citizens and allow considerable space for those citizens to act on their own conceptions of the good, questions of legitimacy arise. Legitimacy concerns the constraints we must abide by as we seek collective political solutions to our shared social problems, given that we will disagree, reasonably, both about what constitutes a problem and about what costs we should be willing to incur to fix it. The interventions in question would effectively subsidize gender egalitarian lifestyles at a cost to those who prefer to maintain a traditional gendered division of labor. In a pluralistic, liberal society where many citizens reasonably resist the feminist agenda, can we legitimately use scarce public resources to finance coercive interventions to subsidize gender egalitarianism? This book argues that they can, and moreover, that they can even by the lights of political liberalism, a particularly demanding theory of liberal legitimacy.

The Anatomy of Justice argues for a reorientation in liberal egalitarian theorizing about justice. Gina Schouten argues that the orientation she proposes supports compelling resolutions to longstanding disputes and difficulties internal to egalitarianism, as well as compelling defenses of liberalism against feminist and egalitarian critics. On the orthodox approach, a theory of liberal egalitarian justice comprises a set of normative principles to guide the design and workings of social institutions. Schouten argues that we should instead think of theory's most important product as evaluative discernment. Theorizing should aim to discern with as much precision as possible the achievements, or values, by realization of which a society can be more rather than less just. Schouten offers a weighted specification of the values of justice, which she calls “the anatomy of justice,” and she makes the case for the anatomy by letting it flex its muscles. First, the anatomy of justice resolves difficulties internal to liberal egalitarianism, in part by deflating longstanding debates, like the debate about whether equality is fundamentally a distributive or a relational value. Second, the anatomy provides systematic and plausible guidance for addressing injustice. By precisifying the values of justice, the anatomy supports a unified liberal egalitarianism that could be developed to describe the ideally just society, but that also, and more importantly, provides guidance for improving an unjust society. That's because the very same values that are optimally realized in a just society also provide guidance in circumstances of profound injustice, even if the normative principles those values underpin differ across circumstances. Because the anatomy offers a modular framework for theorizing justice across (just and) unjust circumstances, it is more broadly and concretely helpful than normative theory is often thought to be. Finally, the anatomy underpins compelling defences against criticisms of liberalism from the left. The book aims to demonstrate that feminist liberal egalitarianism is viable and valuable for progressive politics. To make the case, Schouten shows that the anatomy of justice serves as a possibility proof for what liberal egalitarianism can do. She assembles the fundamental, definitive commitments of liberal egalitarianism in a novel way to reveal liberalism's radical potential.

Despite women's increased labor force participation, household divisions of labor remain highly unequal, as women continue to perform the vast majority of unpaid housework and childcare. Recent research shows that gendered allocations of domestic work have harmful consequences for women and for men, and that political interventions can be effective in inducing families to share work more equally. But according to opponents, political power cannot legitimately be used to change the ways individuals behave within their own families. The project of my dissertation is to show that political interventions aimed at bringing about a more equitable sharing of paid and unpaid work within families are not illegitimate. Indeed, I argue that, under the circumstances which in fact obtain in our society, it is politically illegitimate to abstain from enacting these interventions. My argument turns on the fundamental liberal concept of citizenship. I argue that citizens, properly construed as free and equal, would insist that the state protect the "genuinely available opportunity" for citizens to enact gender egalitarian lifestyles. I argue, moreover, that our current gendered norms and labor structures effectively foreclose the availability of such lifestyles. Because the conception of citizens as free and equal persons is at the normative heart of liberalism, liberal theories of justice not only can countenance political interventions to redress this situation; their most basic theoretical commitments demand such interventions.

This book defends progressive political interventions to erode the gendered division of labor as legitimate exercises of coercive political power. The gendered division of labor is widely regarded as the linchpin of gender injustice. The process of gender equalization in domestic and paid labor allocations has stalled, and a growing number of scholars argue that, absent political intervention, further eroding of the gendered division of labor will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Certain political interventions could jumpstart the stalled gender revolution, but beyond their prospects for effectiveness, such interventions stand in need of another kind of justification. In a diverse, liberal state, reasonable citizens will disagree about what makes for a good life and a good society. Because a fundamental commitment of liberalism is to limit political intrusion into the lives of citizens and allow considerable space for those citizens to act on their own conceptions of the good, questions of legitimacy arise. Legitimacy concerns the constraints we must abide by as we seek collective political solutions to our shared social problems, given that we will disagree, reasonably, both about what constitutes a problem and about what costs we should be willing to incur to fix it. The interventions in question would effectively subsidize gender egalitarian lifestyles at a cost to those who prefer to maintain a traditional gendered division of labor. In a pluralistic, liberal society where many citizens reasonably resist the feminist agenda, can we legitimately use scarce public resources to finance coercive interventions to subsidize gender egalitarianism? This book argues that they can, and moreover, that they can even by the lights of political liberalism, a particularly demanding theory of liberal legitimacy.

This book is a defense of political liberalism as a feminist liberalism. The first half of the book develops and defends a novel interpretation of political liberalism. It is argued that political liberals should accept a restrictive account of public reason and that political liberals' account of public justification is superior to the leading alternative, the convergence account of public justification. The view is defended from the charge that such a restrictive account of public reason will unduly threaten or undermine the integrity of some religiously oriented citizens and an account of when political liberals can recognize exemptions, including religious exemptions, from generally applicable laws is offered. In the second half of the book, it is argued that political liberalism's core commitments restrict all reasonable conceptions of justice to those that secure genuine, substantive equality for women and other marginalized groups. Here it is demonstrated how public reason arguments can be used to support law and policy needed to address historical sites of women's subordination in order to advance equality; prostitution, the gendered division of labor and marriage, in particular, are considered.

Praised and denounced when it was first published in 1970, Sexual Politics not only explored history but also became part of it. Kate Millett's groundbreaking book fueled feminism's second wave, giving voice to the anger of a generation while documenting the inequities -- neatly packaged in revered works of literature and art -- of a complacent and unrepentant society. Sexual Politics laid the foundation for subsequent feminist scholarship by showing how cultural discourse reflects a systematized subjugation and exploitation of women. Millett demonstrates in detail how patriarchy's attitudes and systems penetrate literature, philosophy, psychology, and politics. Her incendiary work rocked the foundations of the literary canon by castigating time-honored classics -- from D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover to Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead -- for their use of sex to degrade and undermine women. A new introduction to this edition draws attention to some of the forms patriarchy has taken recently in consolidating its oppressive and dangerous control.