世界経済・社会統計 = World development indicators

Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

Attachment--and loss.

Symposium Review: 25th Anniversary of Moral Boundaries by Joan Tronto

Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. Janet C. Gornick and Marcia K. Meyers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 2003. 392 pp. ISBN 0-87154-356-7. $39.95 (cloth). This book begins with the phrase "imagine a world," which aptly describes the authors' aim. The "world" that Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers imagine is a "dual-earner-dual-carer" U.S. society, a "fully gender-egalitarian, economically secure, caring society" (p. 4). They acknowledge the enormous magnitude of transformation that would be required for such an end vision to be achieved, but point out that without a clear end vision, such a transformation would be impossible. Gornick and Meyers propose that a dual-earner-dual-carer society can be achieved through three key changes: 1) Shifting several hours per week of men's time from paid work to care for children, and a smaller number of women's hours from home to paid work 2) Creating new employment arrangements to allow men and women to take time for parenting without excessive financial or advancement penalties in the workplace 3) Reducing standard working hours and expanding paid family leave and public funding for child care Although not given a great deal of space in the book, I was intrigued by Gornick and Meyers's analysis of tension among three discourses about work and family. Advocates for children tend to favor policies such as child tax credits and maternity leaves that make it easier for mothers to stay at home with young children, temporarily opting out of the labor market. Discourse about work-family conflict tends to favor policies that make it easier for women to be workers and parents simultaneously, such as part-time work, job sharing, and flexible schedules. Feminists emphasize the pursuit of gender equality by improving access to high-quality nonparental care for children and access to high-quality jobs for women. The problem with each of these solutions, according to Gornick and Meyers, is that they pit gender equality against the interests of children, in each case sacrificing one interest in favor of the other, and in all cases sidestepping the need for change in men's behavior. The dual-earner-dual-carer vision is an effort to simultaneously pursue both goals by transforming both men's and women's roles. Much of the book is devoted to articulating shortcomings in U.S. policies relative to other industrialized nations in North America or Europe. While the theme is familiar, the book includes an expansive, data-driven, and clear articulation of the evidence, drawing on national data sets and the content of specific regulations in several countries. For example, the U.S. spends $650 per child and 0.5% of its GDP on children, less than half the amounts allocated by countries in Scandinavia and Western Europe. Policy data are juxtaposed with an embarrassing litany of poor outcomes for children in the United States relative to their peers in other countries: high rates of low birth weight and mortality among infants, low achievement scores in science and math and high levels of television watching among school children, and high rates of teen pregnancy. …

Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment

Care theorists have made significant gains over the past twenty-five years in establishing caring as a viable moral and political concept. Nonetheless, the concept of caring remains underdeveloped as a basis for a moral and political philosophy, and there is no fully developed account of our moral obligation to care. This article advances thinking about caring by developing a definition of caring and a theory of obligation to care sufficient to ground a general moral and political philosophy.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3811114.pdf

Rethinking Care Theory: The Practice of Caring and the Obligation to Care

Acknowledgements Introduction 1. The Nature of Caring and the Obligation to Care 2. Care Theory and Domestic Politics 3. Care Theory and Economic Justice 4. Care Theory and International Relations 5. Care Theory and Culture Conclusion

The heart of justice

Researchers have studied the impact of different welfare state regimes, and particularly family policy regimes, on gender equality. Very little research has been conducted, however, on the association between different family policy regimes and children’s well-being. This article explores how the different family policy regimes of twenty OECD countries relate to children’s well-being in the areas of child poverty, child mortality, and educational attainment and achievement. We focus specifically on three family policies: family cash and tax benefits, paid parenting leaves, and public child care support. Using panel data for the years 1995, 2000, and 2005, we test the association between these policies and child well-being while holding constant for a number of structural and policy variables. Our analysis shows that the dual-earner regimes, combining high levels of support for paid parenting leaves and public child care, are strongly associated with low levels of child poverty and child mortality. We find little long-term effect of family policies on educational achievement, but a significant positive correlation between high family policy support and higher

Do Family Policy Regimes Matter for Children's Well-Being?

Feminist care ethics have generally been considered too particular and situational to provide the basis for an institutional political theory. In recent years, however, a number of feminist authors have demonstrated care ethics’ applicability to general moral and political problems. Yet they have not yet developed an institutionally based caring political theory. This article outlines such a theory by drawing upon contemporary natural law theory. It is argued that contemporary natural law theory provides a framework for formulating a caring political theory, and, alternatively, that care theory provides a foundation for justifying a form of natural law theory.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00144.x

Care Ethics and Natural Law Theory: Toward an Institutional Political Theory of Caring

Care theorists have outlined an approach to animal welfare issues that appears to avoid many of the most contentious claims of other animal welfare positions. The reason to oppose animal suffering from the perspective of care ethics is not because we wish to maximize utility or consistently apply our rights theory across species, but because we have relations with animals and care about them. By grounding human beings’ moral duties to animals in our relationships with them, care theorists sidestep debates about whether or not animals possess the necessary cognitive capacities to qualify for rights possession. They likewise evade disputes about whether or not social utility actually supports abolishing factory farming, eliminating animal testing and the like. In care ethics, our duties to animals arise out of the concrete, empirically verifiable relationships we have with them. Despite its promise, care ethics’ approach to animal welfare issues has been criticized as vague and underdeveloped, or in the words of one critic, as “simplistic and superficial,” “confused and confusing.” Some care theorists suggest that our capacity for caring is located in an innate sense of sympathy that needs only to be extended to include animals. Julian Franklin asks, however, whether we should extend sympathy to all animals or only some: Should we sympathize with the lion or the gazelle, the hawk or the field mouse? By his account, some sort of general rules or guidelines are necessary for deciding conflicts and directing applications of our compassionate feelings. “The lack of a rule of reason to regulate compassion is . . . a serious objection to the ecofeminist ‘ethic of care’.” Critics have also argued that care theorists fail to explain adequately why we should extend our sympathy to animals. Tom Regan asks, “What are the resources within the ethic of care that can move people to consider the ethics of their dealings with individuals who stand outside the existing circle of their valued interpersonal relationships?” Regan’s question is important since the majority of people currently do not seem to consider most animals worthy of moral consideration. Gary Francione further censures care theorists for failing to justify their speciesist bias. Most care theorists endorse some preference for human life over animal life, but fail to explain why human beings should enjoy absolute protections to life and bodily integrity while animals might sometimes be killed or harmed. Care ethics’ ambiguous position on animal welfare reflects deeper ambiguities in this still relatively new field. Carol Gilligan first outlined an account of care ethics about twenty-five years ago, and it is only in the last decade or so that care

/pdf/care-ethics-and-animal-welfare-10it3qpqbq.pdf

Daniel Engster

Papers

Rethinking Care Theory: The Practice of Caring and the Obligation to Care

The heart of justice

Do Family Policy Regimes Matter for Children's Well-Being?

Care Ethics and Natural Law Theory: Toward an Institutional Political Theory of Caring

Care Ethics and Animal Welfare