Next Article in Journal
Evaluating Decision Making Capacity in Older Individuals: Does the Law Give a Clue?
Next Article in Special Issue
The Political Contingency of Sex Discrimination Legislation: The Case of Australia
Previous Article in Journal
Decision-Making, Legal Capacity and Neuroscience: Implications for Mental Health Laws
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Laws 2015, 4(2), 139-163; doi:10.3390/laws4020139

Why Workers’ Rights Are Not Women’s Rights

Sociology Department, Wayne State University, 656 W. Kirby, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Academic Editors: Robert Johnson and Frances Raday
Received: 7 January 2015 / Revised: 3 March 2015 / Accepted: 17 April 2015 / Published: 30 April 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Public Law - Engendering Equality)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [246 KB, uploaded 30 April 2015]

Abstract

“Why workers’ rights are not women’s rights” is an argument whose purpose is to make clear why workers’ rights rest on a masculine embodiment of the labor subject and it is this masculine embodiment which is at the center of employment contracts and employment relations systems. By excavating the gender subjects implicit to and explicit in regulations of labor, the paper reveals the opposition of paired terms, masculinity and femininity privileging production over reproduction and naturalizing gender-based power relations. The paper identifies various laboring activities associated with differential rights and responsibilities. An examination of the treatment of part-time employment and waged caring labor, framed in labor, welfare, immigration, and citizenship policies and practices, locates exclusions from labor standards and exemptions from entitlements due to eligibility requirements and thresholds that assume the masculine embodiment of the worker-citizen. Gendering the analysis illustrates how contemporary labor laws and conventions grant rights on the basis of, and to, a rather abstract conception of the prototypical worker-citizen. Its origins lie in what classical political economy labeled a capitalist logic, as well as the historical practices in which free class agents entered into contracts for continuous, full-time work free of care responsibilities outside of the wage/labor nexus. Thus, it is this particular abstract construction of the proto-typical worker which instantiates the separation of “rights to” from “responsibilities for”, and it is this separation that allows the masculine embodiment of the labor subject. Modes of regulation privileging rights over responsibilities will valorize the masculine worker-citizen whose rights derive from their participation in wage labor and simultaneously devalue the feminine worker who is directly connected to caring labor. View Full-Text
Keywords: rights; labor law; gender; regulation; social reproduction; citizenship; shared responsibilities rights; labor law; gender; regulation; social reproduction; citizenship; shared responsibilities
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gottfried, H. Why Workers’ Rights Are Not Women’s Rights. Laws 2015, 4, 139-163.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Laws EISSN 2075-471X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top