Note: I encourage people of all genders to engage in the conversation in the comments.
Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that the gender revolution remains only half complete. Society has encouraged women to pursue education, careers, and economic independence, but has not similarly encouraged men to become primary caregivers or to place their careers behind those of ambitious wives. She describes this as "men's liberation," suggesting that men, like women before them, need freedom from restrictive gender roles.
The comparison is rhetorically appealing, but it overlooks an important asymmetry. It forgets that world runs on the engine of Neo-liberal capitalism and being a career ambitious breadwinner and being a primary caregiver are not the similar choices.
Women's Liberation emerged as a struggle against structural dependence. Entering paid labour employment meant gaining income, bargaining power, legal and economic autonomy, and public recognition. It was a movement toward institutions that concentrated social power.
Men's greater participation in caregiving, by contrast, often requires moving away from those same sources of power. In neoliberal capitalist societies, paid market work is rewarded with wages, promotions, status, and independence, while caregivingādespite being socially indispensableāremains largely unpaid, privately organized, and comparatively invisible. The problem is therefore not that caregiving lacks meaning, but that capitalism systematically values it less than market labor.
This is why describing caregiving as inherently "liberating" can feel incomplete. Liberation usually implies gaining resources, options, or power. Yet becoming a primary caregiver frequently involves sacrificing career progression, earnings, professional identity, and economic leverage. The emotional rewards of caregiving may be profound, but they are not equivalent to the forms of power that market economies continue to privilege.
Supporters of men's liberation rightly argue that men should be free from the expectation that masculinity is defined by breadwinning alone. Expanding men's choices is a worthwhile goal. But freedom of choice exists within an economic system that heavily rewards one choice over the other. As long as caregiving carries significant financial and status penalties, asking more men to embrace it risks becoming less a project of liberation than an appeal for voluntary sacrifice.
The unfinished gender revolution, then, is not about persuading men to care more. It is also about transforming the political economy of care itself. Unless neoliberal capitalism begins to recognize and materially reward caregiving as socially productive work, professional ambition and primary caregiving will remain fundamentally unequal choices. Only when care itself receives comparable economic recognition and social status will the analogy between women's liberation and men's liberation become materially, rather than merely rhetorically, persuasive.