UBI is only radical in theory, while in practice it will leave gendered divisions of work unchallenged – prefer our comparative analysis

Should the state not take action too with regard to gender equalities? Norms will develop: there is no such thing as total ‘real’ freedom. Legal frameworks how- ever, such as parental leave policies can see changes to norms, even those as deeply embedded as parenting practices. In Sweden, such statements are hardly contro- versial, but choice and gender equality are sometimes contrasted, and the limits to state intervention are con- stantly renegotiated. Basic income would potentially change the bound- aries for state intervention, which for many sounds intu- itively positive, and may well bring many benefits. How- ever, if the state does not intervene regarding gender- equality, gender norms will be determined by other less visible forces, such as the power dynamics within house- holds. It is likely that a universal basic income has the potential for empowerment for all, but for this to be achieved, attention will need to be paid to its potential for gendered outcomes. The concerns raised here regarding the limitations of empowerment for women from a basic income— particularly with regard to whom remains holding the baby, doing the majority of domestic work and the ma- jority of both formal and informal care work—are not in themselves arguments against the implementation of a basic income. However, there are certainly strong rea- sons to not let basic income replace other structures that have been shown to be relevant for gender equality, in particular the ones directed at supporting families, such as parental leave and childcare services. McLean (2015, p. 2) notes that ‘basic Income is in some ways a microcosm of wider feminist controversies regarding how the state can recognise the unpaid work women largely do without reinforcing existing inequal- ities, also known as Wollstonecraft’s Dilemma (Lister, 1995; Pateman, 1988)’. Indeed, feminists involved with policy making sometimes find themselves falling into one of two camps: that of a more pragmatic approach and that of a more idealistic approach. The former aim to take the situation they see at a current time in front of them, such as mothers doing most of the childcare, and to sup- port women in that situation. The latter might rather take issue with the root imbalance of this situation and aim to create a new situation where fathers are doing more childcare. Arguably, many aspects of the current Swedish welfare state are more radically ambitious than the idea of basic income in that it seeks change to the gendered division of both paid and unpaid work. The implemen- tation of a basic income would be gender-neutral and so, in theory, fathers and mothers would have the same sup- port. In practice, however, and especially given the likely low level of basic income, this policy might have the (un- intended) consequence of encouraging a return to the breadwinner model of parenting, with one parent bet- ter able to stay at home, but another parent still need- ing to remain firmly attached to the labour market. Once again, we have a political movement, which has not fully embraced the challenge from radical feminism to move us beyond the ‘fundamental biological condition’ as ob- served by Shulamith Firestone (1970, p. 1) towards an equal distribution of care work.