A basic income further devalues care giving – it reinforces existing attitudes that unpaid work is worth less than paid work. A basic income only reentrenches the value system of the society that adopts it.

In spite of sending the message that oneʹs social value should not be entirely dependent on whether or not one holds paid employment, introducing a BI would lead to further public devaluation of care‐based lifestyles. It has already been argued that a BI would result in improvements with respect to the ability to choose between paid and unpaid work, as well as between different types of work (Robeyns, 2001). This consequence, welcome in a world where men and women have equal bargaining powers and where preferences are formed under structurally just circumstances, would in fact perpetuate the traditional gendered division of labour resulting (as already mentioned) in a drop of womenʹs participation in paid work. A BI would, all things being equal, lower the costs for individuals to pursue their preferences. It is precisely this feature – which makes it attractive to liberals (and, of course, to libertarians) – that should worry feminists. As long as most men will resent doing care work as demeaning, tedious, and unimportant, or otherwise regard it a threat to their masculinities, a BI will also perpetuate the devaluation of care. Thus, given the pressure that social environments put on individuals, for the more gender conservative groups the existence of a BI would raise the costs for individuals (of both sexes) to engage in gender‐symmetrical lifestyles. Moreover, gender‐unjust norms would be more deeply entrenched – and here comes my next argument.