| Description |
This paper explores three feminist interpretations of the gender division of labor, the purpose of which is to explore the philosophical underpinnings of possible solutions to this problem. The first of these is liberal feminism. Liberal feminists argue that the injustice engendered by the division of labor is a result of the fact that it is not chosen. That is, women and men are socialized to fulfill certain roles including who should perform which types of work. Thus, the development and fulfillment of individual interests and skills are hindered. The second approach is Marxism. For a Marxist, the gender division of labor is problematic because it serves the interests of capitalism. Women, by working in the home for their families, provide necessary services without monetary compensation. This allows capitalists; to maximize their profits because they do not have to pay someone to provide these; services which their workers need. The third approach is based on an argument by Catharine MacKinnon. Drawing upon an argument made by her regarding gender in general, I argue that the gender division of labor is unjust because it subordinates women to men. Men benefit from the division in numerous subtle and overt ways that ultimately contributes to their domination over women. Because the division of labor is based on a hierarchy between men and women, when a woman chooses this role for herself, she contributes to her own subordination. Using the work of Thomas Hill, I further argue that while a woman may not be blameworthy for this choice, it is, nonetheless, a morally problematic one. The inequality created by or inherent to the division of labor can only be overcome when the larger issue of equality between men and women is rectified. |
