Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T22:50:47.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pregnancy Leave, Comparable Worth, And Concepts of Equality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2020

Marjorie Weinzweig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pregnancy leave and comparable worth deal with differences between female and male employees. In each case feminists are divided as to whether special treatment for women will promote equality or reinforce sex stereotypes and gender based segregation in the workplace. A radical restructuring of the workplace is necessary, to make possible a more human life for men and women. This restructuring is articulated in terms of the concepts of equality as “participation” or “incorporation” of all individuals into a community, and androgyny.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 2 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Philosophy and Women Symposium , Winter 1987 , pp. 71 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References: I. Articles and Books

Beardsley, Elizabeth Jane. 1982. On curing conceptual confusion: Response to Mary Anne Warren. In “Femininity,”“masculinity” and “androgyny”, ed. Vetterling Braggin, M.Totawa: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bishop, Sharon, and Weinzweig, Marjorie. 1979. Philosophy and women. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Blumrosen, Ruth. 1979. Wage discrimination, job segregation and title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. University of Michigan Journal of Labor Reform 12: 396–502.Google Scholar
California Comparable Worth Task Force. 1985. Report to the legislature.Google Scholar
California Comparable Worth Task Force. 1985. Comparable worth task force report background information.Google Scholar
California Employment Law Council. 1985. Why CELC supports pay equity, job mobility, affirmative action and nondiscrimination in employment, but opposes the controversial concept of comparable worth.Google Scholar
California State Bar, Law and Employment Section, Ad Hoc Committee on Comparable Worth. 1986. Report to the section.Google Scholar
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 1984. Discussion materials on the subject of pay equity for women and comparable worth.Google Scholar
Christie, Drew. 1985. Comparable worth and distributive justice. Read at Radical Philosophy Association meeting, 4/24/86, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Cook, Alice. 1984. Developments in selected states. In Comparable worth and wage discrimination, ed. Remick, Helen. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Alice. 1985 Comparable worth. Industrial Relations Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Golper, John, Hemminger, Pamela, and Zepeda, Susan. 1985. Comparable worth pay methodology should not be legislated in the state of California: A report to the California legislature.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1982. The obligations of mothers and fathers. In “Femininity,”“Masculinity” and “Androgyny”, ed. Vetterling Braggin, M.Totawa: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1977. Political philosophies of women's liberation. In Philosophy and Women, eds. Bishop, S. and Weinzweig, M.Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Karst, Kenneth L. 1983. Why equality matters. Georgia Law Review 17(2): 245–289.Google Scholar
Kay, Herma Hill. 1985. Models of equality. University of Illinois Law Review: 39–88.Google Scholar
Kay, Herma Hill. 1986. Equality and difference: The case of pregnancy. Berkeley Women's Law Journal 1(1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda J. and Cooney, Patricia N. 1983. The Miller‐Wohl controversy: Equal treatment, positive action and the meaning of women's equality. Golden Gate University Law Review 13(3): 513–577.Google Scholar
Law, Sylvia A. 1984. Rethinking sex and the constitution. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 132: 957–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Michael. 1984. Comparable worth: The feminist road to socialism. Commentary September 1985: 13–19.Google Scholar
Littleton, Christine A. 1982. Toward a redefinition of sexual equality. Harvard Law Review 95: 487–508.Google Scholar
Littleton, Christine A. 1986. Reconstructing sexual equality. Draft in circulation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1979. Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1983. Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A.et al. 1984. Feminist discourse, moral values and the law: A conversation. Buffalo Law Review 34:11–87.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1961. Economic and philosophical manuscripts. Trans. Bottomore, T.B. In Marx's Concept of Man ed. Fromm, E.New York: Ungar Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Merleau Ponty, Maurice. 1962. The phenomenology of perception. Trans. Smith, Colin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie. 1986. Portia in a different voice. Berkeley Women's Law Journal 1(1): 39–63.Google Scholar
National Committee on Pay Equity 1984. The cost of pay equity in public and private employment.Google Scholar
Nelson, Bruce A., Opton, Edward M. Jr., Wilson, Thomas E. 1980. Wage discrimination and the “Comparable Worth” theory in perspective. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 13(2): 233–235.Google Scholar
Pielke, Robert G. 1962. Are androgyny and sexuality compatible? In “Femininity,”“Masculinity, “and “Androgyny,” ed. Vetterling Braggin, M.Totawa: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Plato, , 1956. Apology. Trans. Church, F.J. In Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. New York: Liberal Arts, Bobbs‐Merrill.Google Scholar
Plato, 1964. The Republic. Trans. Lee, H.D.P.Baltimore: Penguin.Google Scholar
Powers, Kathryn L. 1979. Sex segregation and the ambivalent directions of sex discrimination law. 1979 Wisconsin Law Review: 55–124.Google Scholar
Scales, Ann. 1980-81. Towards a feminist jurisprudence. Indiana Law Review 56. Moulton.Google Scholar
Shrage, Laurie. 1986. Some implications of comparable worth. Read at Radical Philosophy Association Meeting, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Trebilcot, Joyce. 1975. Two forms of androgynism. In Feminism and Philosophy, eds. Braggin, M., Elliston, F., & English, J.Totawa, N.J.: Littlefield Adams.Google Scholar
Treiman, Donald J. and Cheng, Phyllis W. 1985. California comparable worth task force minority report.Google Scholar
Treiman, Donald J. and Hartmann, Heidi I. 1981. Women, work, and wages: Equal pay for jobs of equal value. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mary Anne. 1982. Is androgyny the answer to sexual stereotyping? In “Femininity,”“Masculinity” and “Androgyny”, ed. Vetterling Braggin, M.Totawa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weinzweig, Marjorie. 1983. Discriminatory impact and intent under the equal protection clause: The supreme court and the mind‐body problem. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice 1(2): 277–339.Google Scholar
Weinzweig, Marjorie. 1986. Should a feminist choose a marriage‐like relationship? Hypatia 1(2): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissman, Andrew. 1983. Sexual equality under the pregnancy discrimination act. Columbia Law Review 83: 690–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westen, Peter. 1982. The empty idea of equality. Harvard Law Review 95(3): 537–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Wendy W. 1984. Equality's riddle: Pregnancy and the equal treatment/special treatment debate. Review of Law and Social Change XIII: 325–380.Google Scholar
Wolgast, Elizabeth H. 1980. Equality and the rights of women. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar