Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2351482
 


 



Strange Bedfellows at Work: Neomaternalism in the Making of Sex Discrimination Law


Deborah Dinner


Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law

April 9, 2014

Washington University Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2014

Abstract:     
In contests about pregnancy discrimination during the 1970s, feminists, the business lobby, and anti-abortion activists disputed the meaning of sex equality. Existing scholarship has yet to take account of the dynamic interaction between these groups. This Article fills that void by analyzing the legal and political debates that resulted in the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”). The Article reveals how competing ideas about the family, wage work, and reproductive choice shaped the evolution of pregnancy discrimination law.

Feminists, the business lobby, and anti-abortion activists drew upon two legal discourses in debating pregnancy discrimination: liberal individualism and “neomaternalism.” Each of these discourses, in turn, encompassed dual valences. Liberal individualist discourse challenged sex-role stereotypes, but it also reinforced the idea that private reproductive choice rendered reproduction a private economic responsibility. Neomaternalism leveraged the social value of motherhood to gain entitlements for pregnant women, but also reinforced the normative primacy of motherhood.

Feminists’ legal goals and rhetorical frames at times overlapped with and at other times diverged from those of both the business lobby and anti- abortion activists. Feminists used liberal individualist principles of equal treatment and neutrality to challenge gender stereotypes that states and employers used to justify the exclusion of pregnancy from public and private insurance schemes. The business lobby used liberal individualist principles of private choice to advance a market libertarian interpretation of sex equality that justified the denial of pregnancy-related benefits. In opposition to the business lobby, both feminists and anti-abortion activists forged a fragile alliance. Both groups made neomaternal arguments in advocating the PDA. While feminists emphasized the value of pregnancy as a form of socially productive labor, however, anti-abortion activists stressed the need to protect pregnant women and fetuses.

The points of confluence and departure between the arguments of feminists, business opponents, and anti-abortion allies both advanced sex equality under the law and also limited its scope. Feminist advocates for the PDA synthesized liberal individualist and neomaternal discourses to pursue the elimination of sex-role stereotypes under the law as well as collective societal responsibility for the costs of reproduction. While the PDA took a significant step toward the realization of this vision, it remains illusory. Our legal culture evolved to embrace not only the valences of liberal individualist and maternalist ideologies that advance sex equality but also those valences that reinforce gender inequality. Market libertarianism continues to privatize the costs of reproduction, while maternalism reinforces the sexual division of reproductive labor. Ultimately, this Article points to the persistence of tensions in the definition of sex equality and the consequent need for new legal paradigms.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 78

Keywords: Legal History, Feminist Theory, Employment Discrimination, Constitutional Law

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 9, 2013 ; Last revised: April 10, 2014

Suggested Citation

Dinner, Deborah, Strange Bedfellows at Work: Neomaternalism in the Making of Sex Discrimination Law (April 9, 2014). Washington University Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2351482

Contact Information

Deborah Dinner (Contact Author)
Washington University in Saint Louis - School of Law ( email )
Campus Box 1120
St. Louis, MO 63130
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 199
Downloads: 41

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.594 seconds