within general gender-neutral leave and beneWt policies. Such policies would
be relevant to any physical condition that renders anyone, male or female,
unable to work. The second approach suggests that this does not actually
constitute the pursuit of gender-neutrality as it takes male lives as the norm
and so disadvantages women (Williams 1984 ). From this perspective, the
problem is not only that policies claiming to be neutral are actually partial,
but also that the distinctiveness of women’s contribution is not positively
recognized. By contrast, some feminists propose a gender-diVerentiated
approach that might positively recognize, and give public conWrmation of,
the social contribution of childbearing. This entails the recommendation of
positive action strategies, based on women’s diVerences from men. Yet, as,
Deborah Rhode argues, this strategy reinforces feminine stereotypes rather
than feminist principles given that ‘‘pregnancy-related policies aVect most
women workers for relatively brief intervals,’’ while ‘‘the absence of broader
disability, health, child-rearing and care-taking assistance remains a chronic
problem for the vast majority of employees, male and female, throughout
their working lives’’ (Rhode 1992 , 154 ).
This unease with the oscillation between recommending equal treatment
and positive action has led to the emergence of a third gender equality
strategy: gender mainstreaming. Recognizing that the criteria of equivalence
used to establish fairness might themselves be biased, mainstreaming aims to
identify ‘‘how existing systems and structures cause indirect discrimination
and altering or redesigning them as appropriate’’ (Rees 2002 , 46 – 8 ). The aim
of the mainstreaming strategy is therefore to focus on the structural repro-
duction of gender inequality and to transform the policy process such that
gender bias is eliminated.
Meanwhile, with the political theory literature more generally, the response
to the limitations of liberal egalitarianism is to broaden out the account of
equality of opportunity such that it engages with cultural and political forces
as well as economic ones, and considers structural and institutional barriers
as well as individual ones. This refocuses attention back on civil and political
rights, highlighting the extent to which these are still to be fully realized for
many marginalized groups. It also replaces the liberal egalitarians’ apparent
dichotomy between the ‘‘choices we make’’ and the ‘‘circumstances we face’’
with a more complex account of the ways in which social institutions, and the
decisions others make within them, constitute and constrain the context in
which we act.
equality and difference 477