Abstract

This Essay is the third piece of my project to resolve what I call the "caregiver conundrum" for working caregivers. I define the "caregiver conundrum" broadly, to include all of the workplace norms, rules and practices that make it difficult for working caregivers to successfully balance work and family.

In conceptualizing my ideas, I realized that one of the critiques of my proposal would be that it does nothing to change the gender norms, or stated another way, it accepts the gendered division of work and family with which most people live. I do nothing to get women to do more market work or men to do more work at home. In this essay, I will respond to this critique and explore the debate between those who want to embrace motherhood without being marginalized, and those who either do not fit the "motherhood mold" or do not think that women will be treated equally in the workplace if their motherhood status is salient--in other words, those who believe that women need to act more like men to achieve equality in the workplace.

My proposals are gender neutral but they are aimed at maximizing the choices for all caregivers. In my reform piece, I advocated for increasing flexibility options for working caregivers; improving the status of part-time workers, including proportional pay, benefits and promotional opportunities; and providing paid leave and sick days to help lower income workers.

Accordingly, in this Essay, I will defend my position in the theoretical debate--explaining why I think changing gender norms is unwarranted, unrealistic and unnecessary to solve the caregiver conundrum.

This abstract has been adapted from the author's introduction.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2011

Publication Information

41 Southwestern Law Review 1-41 (2011)

Download

Share

COinS