GIUSTIZIA DI GENERE

Autores

  • Anca Gheaus University of Sheffield

Palavras-chave:

gender, justice, equality, feminism, freedom

Resumo

I propose, defend and illustrate a principle of gender justice meant to capture the nature of a variety of injustices based on gender: A society is gender just only if the costs of a gender-neutral lifestyle are, all other things being equal, lower than, or at most equal to, the costs of gendered lifestyles. I defend the principle by appeal to the values at the core of liberal egalitarian justice: equality of access and the good of individual choice. I illustrate my case through a discussion of the injustice of a gendered division of labor. Some feminists doubt that liberal egalitarianism has the theoretical resources to recognize the unjust nature of the gendered division of labor. I argue that it does. If the principle advanced here is correct, then gender injustice is pervasive. At the same, it does not affect only women but also men. Liberal egalitarianism is capable of acknowledging this fact without denying that, overall, gender norms oppress women more than they oppress men: Arguably, women who wish to lead a gender-neutral lifestyle have to pay higher costs that men who wish to do the same.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Baker John, Lynch Kathleen, Cantillon Sara (2004), Equality: From Theory to Action. London: Palgrave.

Benatar David (2003), “The Second Sexism,” Social Theory and Practice 29(2), 117-210.

Brighouse Harry e Wright Olin (2008), “Strong Gender Egalitarianism,” Politics and Society 36(3), 360-72.

Carter Ian (1999), A Measure of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen Gerry A. (1979), Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen Gerald (1989), “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics, 99, 906-44;

Eriksson Lina e Goodin Robert E. (2007), “The Measuring Rod of Time: The Example of Swedish Day-Fines,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24(2), 125-36.

Fraser Nancy (1994), “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State,” Political Theory 22(4), 591-698.

Fine Cordelia (2010) Delusions of Gender, How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gheaus Anca (2008), “Basic Income, Gender Justice and the Costs of Gender – Symmetrical Lifestyles”, Basic Income Studies, 3 (3).

Gheaus Anca e Ingrid Robeyns (2011), “Equality-Promoting Parental Leave,” Journal of Social Philosophy 42(2), 173-91.

Gornick Janet e Myers Marcia, Family that Work: Policies for Recocniling Parenthood and Employment, New York, Russel Fage Foundation 2005.

Hakim Catherine (2000), Work–Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hakim Catherine (2003) Models of the Family in Modern Society: Ideals and Realities. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Haslanger Sally (2000), “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be?” Nous 34(1), 31-55

Hildebrandt Karraker Katherine, Vogel Dena Ann, Lake Margaret Ann (1995), “Parents’ Gender-Stereotyped Perceptions of Newborns: The Eye of the Beholder Revisited,” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 33(9), 687-701.

Hochschild Arlie e Machung Anne (1989), The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking Penguin.

Kaiser A., Haller S., Schmitz S. e Nitsch C. (2009), “On Sex/Gender-Related Similarities and Differences in fMRI Language Research,” Brain Research Reviews 61(2), 49-59.

Kupfer Schneider Andrea, Tinsley Catherine H., Cheldeli Sandra e T. Amanatullah Emily T. (2010), “Likeability v. Competence: The Impossible Choice Faced by Female Politicians, Attenuated by Lawyers,” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, (17)2.

Mill John Stuart (1973/1869), The Subjection of Women, in Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill, Essays on Sex Equality. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Orbach Susan (2009), Bodies. New York: Picador.

Phillips Anne, Defending Equality of Outcome, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12 (1), 2004, 1-19.

Raz Joseph (1988) in The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robeyns Ingrid (2007), “When Will Society Be Gender Just?” in Jude Browne, ed. The Future of Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54-74.

Sen Amartya (1980), “Equality of What?” in The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-220;

Smock Pamela J., Manning Wendy D., Gupta Sanjiv (1999), “The Effect of Marriage and Divorce on Women’s Economic Well-Being,” American Sociological Review, 64, 794-812.

Sterling Anne-Fausto (2000), Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Tronto Joan (2002), “The 'Nanny' question in Feminism”, Hypatia, 17 (2), 34-51.

van Parijs Philippe (1997), Real Freedom for All. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valian Virginia (1999), Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

von Hippel C., Wiryakusuma C., Bowden J., Shochet E. M. (2011), “Stereotype Threat and Female Communication Styles,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(10), 1312-24.

Williams Andrea (2002), Dworkin on Capabilities, Ethics, 113 (1), 106-143.

Publicado

2015-07-26

Como Citar

GHEAUS, A. GIUSTIZIA DI GENERE. Gênero & Direito, [S. l.], v. 4, n. 2, 2015. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/ged/article/view/25063. Acesso em: 20 abr. 2024.

Edição

Seção

International Journal