UBI is empirically proven to help the feminist cause

The extensive social science research on women and welfare rarely offers feminist and women political arguments in favor of guaranteed basic income or citizens wage. This is surprising in view of the convincing arguments that large groups of women would benefit from a basic income scheme, which would: (1) lead to equal treatment of the genders on the labour market and in the social sphere; (2) express recognition of unpaid work; (3) guarantee income outside the labour market and thus strengthen family life; (4) give many people more incentive to work; (5) ensure economic independence within the family; and (6) might encourage a more equal division of labour in families (McKay and Vanevery, 2000; McKay 2001). Women’s research generally agrees that the current Scandinavian welfare states are among the most “women friendly” societies, but that gender-related injustice still exists. “There are still fundamental contrasts between work life and family life, and women earn less than men at the same level. In addition, women rank lower than men in the job hierarchy, and they have less power and influence in society than men” (Borchorst, 1998: 127). It therefore seems odd that basic income has not attracted more attention in women’s research. Considering that some feminists (Siim, 2001) call for new equality and solidarity visions that include women as well as marginalized social groups in the welfare state, it seems obvious to ask why it is so hard for many feminists to see and accept basic income as a long-term, ideal solution to ongoing gender inequality and injustice. With reference to the debate in Denmark, I will argue that: ß One reason for the modest feminist interest in basic income is that women’s research and the women’s movement have been locked into a Wollstonecraft’s dilemma (Pateman, 1989: 195-204, Christensen and Siim, 2001: 19-20). The dilemma is named after Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), the pioneer of the British women’s movement, and has been discussed in different versions in the women’s movement ever since. 2 As a social movement, the women’s movement has worked, on the one hand, for equality and a gender-neutral society, and, on the other hand, for recognition of women’s difference from men, their special abilities and needs. In other words, there seem to be two different paths to gender equity, which appear to be contradictory or incompatible; hence the talk of a dilemma. In modern society, the dilemma is often formulated as follows: If you follow the path of equality, the women’s movement will tend to join the dominant, male wage work norm. If you follow the path of difference by prioritizing women’s care work over wage work, you will continue to be marginalized in relation to the men on the labour market. ß Wollstonecraft’s equality/difference dilemma is not a real logical conceptual dilemma, but rather an impossible choice that resembles a “double bind” defined by the dominant, patriarchal power structure. Like other gender - political dilemmas - commodification/decommodification, dependence/independence and wage work/care – this dilemma can be broken down by a critical, deconstructive analysis. ß The dilemma of adapting to the wage work norm and thus deprioritizing the care norm, or prioritize the care norm and risk marginalization in relation to wage work can be solved or softened theoretically by adding conceptual nuance to the equality and difference concepts like American philosopher Nancy Fraser has done. Nancy Fraser proposes that a universal basic income or citizens’ wage will fulfill the wish for equality and difference, combine decommodification and commodification, and create a new type of economic independence that could be a basis for new dependence relations. ß The modest interest in the basic income concept both in Danish and international women’s research is a result of a greater focus on 3 increasing women’s participation on the labour market (commodification) than on securing economic independence in relation to the labour market (decommodification). In addition, attempts to accommodate care needs have been met with skepticism because they might retain women in the traditional gendered division of labour. Unconditional basic income was either seen as utopian or as dangerous in the short term because it might keep some women from entering the labour market. ß Despite the modest attention from women’s researchers and the women’s movement, Danish feminists have developed theoretic understandings of the relation between wage work and care that open up for new arguments in favor of the basic income concept.