Patriarchy v. Capitalism?

Cogito, that isn't answering the question though, is it?

Presumably both you and the childminder receive child tax credits, and possibly you also receive the childcare element of child tax credits.

In that case, it isn't working per se that has made you or the childminder independent, it is the government's financial support for people with primary caring responsibilities for children, which is something that I think that should be acknowledged by society because it has been a hugely positive move forward for many women.

But it doesn't change the position of many married women, who are often not entitled to that help, or only entitled to very small amounts of money, and so cannot afford to pay for the childcare from their wages so cannot afford to work. They are financially dependent on their husbands. The only way they can become financially independent is to end the relationship so that they can afford to work by becoming dependent on the government instead. I don't think that should be a reason for ending an otherwise happy relationship.

I have worked in a shop and I have looked after children. I don't think the two are comparable. I don't think that any women should be paid minimum wage for childcare or that a mother who is also a shopworker should be paid solely minimum wage. She should also receive child tax credits for her mothering, regardless of who she is or is not married to.

Whichever way you look at it, women are still doing most of the childcare, whether it is their own children or other people's, whether they have another job to do as well or not. That is fine as long as the government ensures the income they get for doing so is at a reasonable level through wages and tax credits. We cannot collectively be financially independent of men because they make up half of society; we just have to make sure that they collectively pay us for doing the childcare work that most of them don't currently want to spend a lot of time taking responsibility for. I don't particularly want to be a refuse collector and female ones are few and far between. I gather it is a fairly well paid job and I am happy that we all pay mostly men to do it. I'd like the same courtesy returned to mostly female tasks like childcare.

Ah right, glad you're not having to live with that awful struggle so many women have to. I think the probelm is that within the current capitalist system, having children, whihc ought to be a source of great strenght for women - without that, the effing human race would die out FGS - is actually a massive source of weakness, because we've constructed (well, actually men have constructed, but women have either helped them or been beaten into acquiesing) a society which economically disempowers woemn when they reproduce - you can't go out and earn money while you're breastfeeding and bonding with young babies and working places and hours have been arranged sothat you can't easily fit them around bringing up children. So yes, it's very hard to see how much is choice and how much is fatalistic acceptance of a no-brainer, because any other choice is just so bloody difficult.

Oh Philbee I'm so sorry.

That is horrible, your DH making it clear that he thinks childcare is your probelm.

That's not equality.

That's him knowing that the power balance has changed now you have a child.

So he can pull rank on you and prioritise what he wants from life, ahead of your life.

More than a bit rubbish.

I see what you mean philbee, whenever we make a decision to take the conventional route for women, it's so hard to know whether we actually want it, or whether we've been conditioned to want it, or whether we only want it because sexism has made the unconventional route harder than it ought to be. I haven't found a solution for that one yet!

What would you like to retrain as? Maybe that would be a better solution, it seems a bit pointless to go back to a job you hate. I think your DH is being very unfair to say 'well, find a childminder then.' : as you are equal parents who'd both like to work, he has as much responsibility as you to organise childcare.

"Cogito, how do you manage then to be a sole parent and in paid employment?"

I've managed fine, thanks. I don't get the 'unequal exchange of labour' thing, however. If you buy something in a shop and you're served by a lad on minimum wage, does that bother you? FWIW My childminder (also a single parent) was another independent woman that paid her own way.

MillyR yes. It is bizarre that involvement in politics and raising children should be mutually exclusive. Think of the native American tribes that had Mothers' councils as a kind of second chamber. Oooh totally got it! Get rid of the House of Lords and replace it with ....... Mumsnet!!!!

I think that in addition to career goals, it is important for society that jobs that have an important impact on all of our lives are not male dominated. I want there to be a gender balance in politics, medicine, law and so on. I just want that done in such a way that family life and the important job of raising children isn't sidelined.

Custy, that is interesting. You couldn't just pop them out admittedly! There would have to be some kind of monitoring which gets a bit scary and interventionist. Arguably people would make better parents if job fully appreciated, but all a bit Big Brother sounding. Hmmm...dunno.

well said messy

MillyR you are so right. We have to accept that women are going to have babies but also need careers and personal goals. And motherhood shouldnt be seen in terms of a loss of money but as a positive contribution to society and to be done with pride and confidence.

who pays them -in this situation ?

i think if i was paying them working within a capitalist system, i would be pissed off that i have to prove my worth, yet missus brown can pop out 6 kids and not be a good parent at all - yet get paid.

so like all jobs there must be monitoring - who does this - to what standard.

Custy you're falling into the trap of believing that the way men have organised paid work (with 1 2 1's, progress reports etc.) is the only way to work.

We don't have to slot something suitable for an office, into the work we do in our homes.

Sorry, my post was in response to Messy's about why people think feminism is anti-SAHM, when it isn't.

Bedfellows, that's it. Nice and cosy in bed together scratching each others' backs. Now who is making the bed I wonder?

I think perhaps it is because we want women to be in positions of responsibility outside the home and on the surface, being a SAHM seems to get in the way of that.

But that is because of how work is organised. Plenty of men start careers at 20 and retire at 50. There is no reason why we can't organise things so that a woman couldn't be a SAHM until she is 35 and then retire at 65, and be as influential as somebody who had that career path earlier in life. But society doesn't want to organise careers in such a way that many women can do that.

And I think it is important that we do organise work so that women can be SAHM and can still have careers at other points in their lives.

who would conduct the motheres 121s and annual appraisal? what would her performance targets be and how would these be measured. would she have to give an end of year report to the senior management ( whoever they are) to prove that she is actually worth what she is being paid? (who is paying her btw?)

i think in a capitalist society that there is almost an illusion of choice - if there is a choice at all for women.

it certainly did not pay for me to stay at home, i had to work to feed the children, this was no choice at all. Just as my husband worked for the very same reason, he had no choice to stay at home either.

I do think that there are a couple of factors

1. the choice illusion - there really is no choice to speak of - damned if you do and damned if you dont.

2)for most working women don't do it becuase its a bit of pin money, they work to support a family. to pay a mortgage, pay off the loans, to run the car - to enter and play in capitalist society.

there are exceptions to every rule. those who don't wanna play. we call them feckless usually.

What I don't understand is why people believe feminism is anti sahm. Gloria S advanced idea that mothers should be paid for their labour, and asserted that sahm should be seen as a valid option, just not the only option.

excellent post mrsaverage

IMO Patriarchy and Capitalism love each other because one supplies the cheap labour for the other to flourish. If I remember correctly, Marx compared the domestic servant , ie. the wife, to the proletarian worker who was practically enslaved by his capitalist boss because the paucity of his wages meant that he would never be able to accumulate his own capital and escape his predicament.

Obviously that was when women were the legal property of their husbands and had no rights so slightly different now but concept still interesting.

I have never felt that feminism is against sitting at home with children. For me it is movement for free choices for women and for couples, for respect and recognition of house work.

A female fund manager mum of 6 is not an example of effective feminist as long as she has 6 low-paid female helpers cleaning her house and rearing her children. Such woman operates within patriarchal system, and is in perfect harmony with capitalism.

Here is an interesting article on relations between female independence and social order (West vs East Germany).

"Eastern women are more self-confident, better-educated and more mobile, recent studies show. They have children earlier and are more likely to work full time. More of them are happy with their looks and their sexuality, and fewer of them diet. If Western women earn 24 percent less than men, the pay gap in the East is a mere 6 percent (though overall levels of pay are lower)."

Socialism as a mechanism of redistribution of resources from advantaged to disadvantaged is beneficial for women. I am not campaigning for socialism, just pointing out that Patriarchy is not vs Capitalism, they are marching together.

Cogito, how do you manage then to be a sole parent and in paid employment?

When I was working and had young children, I paid somebody else to look after my children. That was an unequal exchange of labour and money, because they were paid very little for their labour. They certainly couldn't have kept themselves and their children housed, clothed and fed purely from that hourly wage. It would require them to have additional support, either from a partner or the state.

Similarly, the amount of money I had left after I had paid them would not allow me to feed, clothe and house myself and my children. I was also dependent on my partner, and if he had not been there, the state.

So I am not sure how working makes women as a group independent. It may, at best, move unequal labour and financial exchange away from one woman and on to another person, almost always another woman. What would seem to be creating greater independence for mothers is that through child tax credits, many of them receive state support both for their mothering and for child care through the child care element of tax credits. But it will only really create independence for women if free child care is available to all mothers and child care workers are paid a living wage.

The central issue of capitalism is that its unit of measurement is money, which allows us to effectively ignore the fact that most exchanges between people are unequal ones when measured in time or energy.