Care Management: A story about women?
Feminist progress, patriarchy and humanism
Dear all,
Today, I felt like talking to you about sex… teaser teaser…
Well, actually, about sexes: the so-called “weaker sex” and the “stronger sex.” Yes, believe it or not, these notions are still very present in our collective unconscious. Incredible, isn’t it? But remind me again—who’s supposed to be the “weaker sex”? (What? Science would contradict the Bible?!)
Today, I want to talk about gender, feminism, but also sexism, and the persistent clichés around the ethics of care. During a 100% male executive committee, I was once told (quote): “Isn’t care more of a women’s approach?”
The question wasn’t asked in a malicious way, at least not on the surface, but I must admit—it irritated me. Because while it reveals a lack of knowledge about what care ethics really means in the workplace, it especially reflects a clichéd image of gender roles in society and at work. Not to mention the fact that the gentleman in question used the word “girls” instead of “women”: dismissive, inappropriate.
So let me ask you the burning question: is care really just a “women’s thing”?
Without spoiling the whole article, the answer is both YES … and NO.
👉 YES. Care ethics, if we go back to its origins, was indeed theorized by women and thanks to women. In fact, three brilliant Anglo-Saxon feminist thinkers brought it into existence, using the richness of the English term “care” (which goes far beyond the French “soin” or “caregiving”). I’ll share below the history of care, the inspiring women who founded it, and the undeniable link between care and feminism.
👉 BUT. Behind this whole “women’s approach” comment lies the persistence of sexist biases in the workplace, and a patriarchal mode of management that often dismisses or even mocks behaviors considered “feminine”—such as emotion, care for others, empathy, listening, or inclusion.
So let’s reframe the question: what if care wasn’t a matter of women or men at all… but simply a new form of humanism?
1. Care ethics: a story of women and feminism
Carol Gilligan’s psychological approach
The concept of care was popularized by American psychologist Carol Gilligan in 1982, in her book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. With this seemingly simple word, she sparked a huge debate in moral, social, and political philosophy—one that continues today (even if it took nearly 20 years to reach Europe!).
In English, “care” carries nuances that “soin” in French cannot capture.
“To take care of” refers to providing care—like a nurse treating a patient, a mother caring for her child, or someone offering help.
But “to care about” means to feel concerned, to show interest in someone or something.
Care is therefore about concern for others, attentiveness, empathy, solidarity, and connection.
For Gilligan, this “different voice” of care expressed a more sensitive, relational, and attentive worldview—often associated with women. She contrasted it with the dominant moral framework of the time, represented by her male colleague Lawrence Kohlberg, who emphasized justice and abstract principles as the highest form of moral reasoning.
Gilligan demonstrated empirically that this wasn’t always true: many women (though not only women) also considered other essential factors in decision-making, such as maintaining relationships and meeting people’s needs.
At its core, care is grounded in a fundamental notion: the interdependence between self and others.
Gilligan’s goal was not to replace justice with care, but to restore balance between these two equally valid moral approaches.
Since then, care has become a fascinating field of study, shedding light on dispositions, skills, and practices of caring for others, and on the social and gender dynamics that shape them.
The Educational Approach of Nel Noddings
Another key woman in the history of care is Nel Noddings, a feminist philosopher and American professor. For her, care is not just a type of individual moral reasoning, but rather a natural form of relationship—“a concern for the other and an engagement with the other.” She writes: “All human life begins in relationship, and it is through relationships that a human individual emerges.” (Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, 1984).
Noddings does not reduce care to moral principles. Instead, she sees it as something that is experienced through relational practice. She dedicated much of her work to promoting care-based practices in education, framing them as a major path of progress.
For her, teaching through care goes far beyond kindness or benevolence: it is grounded in four essential capacities to develop: modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation (recognition/validation). Her writings remain a powerful source of inspiration for rethinking schools and pedagogy today.
The Political Approach of Joan Tronto
Joan Tronto, an American feminist political scientist, also championed care ethics, but from a broader perspective. For her, care is not only an interpersonal relationship, but also a way of relating to the world around us.
As she puts it: “Fundamentally, every person must care for others and find meaning in doing so.” (Un monde vulnérable: Pour une politique du care, 2009).
Historically, care work has been assigned to women and to marginalized groups in society—immigrants, precarious workers, undervalued professions such as motherhood, teaching, or caregiving. Tronto stresses the need to revalue care work and those who perform it.
Like Gilligan, she highlights the moral dimension of care versus justice, but unlike Gilligan, she rejects the idea that care is inherently tied to women. She insists that men are equally capable of care, but that this dimension of their lives is “immediately erased or silenced.”
Tronto outlines four stages in building a politics of care:
Caring about – first, we must feel concern for others and for our environment.
Taking care of – we must take responsibility and act.
Care giving – the actual work of care, in all its forms.
Care receiving – reciprocity, acknowledging our shared vulnerability.
Because at some point in our lives, we are all vulnerable, we must all be both givers and receivers of care—toward people and toward the planet. This is where care intersects with ecology: taking care of ecosystems and all living beings.
Yes, the history of care was initially carried by women and helped advance both feminist and ecological movements. From moral theory to education, and then to politics, care ethics planted the seeds of another possible society—less individualistic, more equitable, just, and human.
Today, care is no longer gendered. As Joan Tronto writes, it is a way to “maintain, continue, and repair our world.” Care has become nothing less than a project for society.
“Without care, society collapses.”
Closer to home, French philosopher Cynthia Fleury develops this further in her book Le Soin est un humanisme (Care is Humanism), where she explains why care has become central to our modern societies. We need care, she says—a *“society of care” where we understand that our interdependencies are strengths, allowing us to transform the world in the most creative and solidaristic ways possible.”
Care is humanism.
2. Patriarchy, When It Holds Us Back…
Let me circle back to that executive committee, and the director who referred to care as “a women’s thing.” I highly doubt he was thinking about Gilligan, Noddings, or Tronto! Rather, what I saw behind his words was a patriarchal and dismissive view of behaviors traditionally associated with women: emotion, empathy, listening, kindness, collaboration.
This contempt is everywhere: contempt for empathy and inclusion—qualities essential in a self-destructive world. Contempt for women, contempt for men who also embody these qualities, contempt for those who challenge the dominant values of work, contempt for the younger generations searching for meaning and balance. Above all, contempt reveals an inability to question oneself, locked into an outdated, authoritarian, hyper-masculine vision of work—and therefore an inability to evolve.
Boomer misogynist alert. 🚨
They don’t always reveal themselves right away. Often, it’s more insidious—even unconscious. But that doesn’t make it less violent. That’s how belief systems work: inflated with testosterone and certainty, blind to the consequences of their words, behaviors, or nonverbal signals.
Which woman hasn’t experienced, at work, a dismissive remark, a paternalistic smile, doubts about her commitment when she becomes a mother, doubts about her ability or leadership style—“too soft and lenient,” or on the contrary “too tough… for a woman”? (Because of course, a woman “without balls” is a problem—but a woman “with balls” is also a problem!).
Who hasn’t seen that knowing smirk exchanged between men in a boardroom, or during an interview?
So here’s the real question: how do we break free from this patriarchal grip that is still far too present?
Well, start by reading, talking and educating yourself about the political issue of care, which takes us away from individualism and competition and towards greater solidarity and humanity. ‘No, sir, care is not “a women’s issue”, it’s a new social project. I have some fascinating books to recommend to you.’
Embody the values of care at work; whether you are a man or a woman is no longer the issue. Put relationships at the centre. Embrace it fully, aware of our impact in terms of team cohesion, ecology and sustainability.
Train managers who are still too ‘old school’ in care management, so that they better understand what this new managerial approach entails: not ‘girly’ management, but an approach based on listening, action, autonomy and reciprocity.
Denounce the problem – #BalanceTonBoomerMisogyne – and sexist behaviour.
By practising good care in your daily life, at home and in your organisation, you will find a lot of meaning and joy.
Take good care of yourself, see you next month,
Alice