Could women strike?

Is that an atypical and depressive example?

And the state/society/patriarchy win.

I don't think that most women would take that risk, let alone the risk that the children would be totally left to it.

But that's how this stuff works Bertie, that's the core of it. Which is why it is so difficult.

Personally, I live knee-deep in the world of SEN, disability, statemented DC and carer's assessments. The state, society, the patriarchy, (whichever) saves millions of pounds via exactly that mechanism. They gamble that women (because it is overwhelmingly women) will not risk inadequate care for their loved ones.

A strike would be the same battle writ large. But it's happening every day already.

But I think withdrawing the essential, female, non-voluntary labour would be the sticking point. People already notice and value non-essential voluntary labour (I am assuming voluntary means chosen-not-forced, rather unpaid, here)

If all women withdrew, then there would be a lot of children left with nobody to look after them. The question would then be what would men do? Would they look after them, leave them to fend for themselves? If they looked after them (which you'd hope!), would they think about the emotional impact and try to address that or would it be more institutional; fed, watered and clothed, that's it. (Perhaps that would be a necessity, TBH, with half of the adults gone.) I don't think that most women would take that risk, let alone the risk that the children would be totally left to it.

But all the extraneous stuff where women disproportionately pick up the slack.

Some kind of work-to-rule, but I'm scrabbling a bit beyond that because there aren't really rules are there?

It's why it's hypothetical, isn't it? Because nobody would seriously put a child into care (a care system which would have just dissolved, too, considering it's largely staffed by women and the majority of foster carers are also women) for 6 months in order to make a political point.

Thinking it through, though, there is much non-essential voluntary female labour that could be withdrawn. And the important point would be to ensure that the patriarchy noticed and (preferably) was inconvenienced. You wouldn't necessarily need to reside with a man or descend into squalor. One could be selective.

Single mothers would join in, absolutely. Their children would have to be looked after by their fathers, or other relatives, or I suppose the state.

It's why it's hypothetical, isn't it? Because nobody would seriously put a child into care (a care system which would have just dissolved, too, considering it's largely staffed by women and the majority of foster carers are also women) for 6 months in order to make a political point.

Agree, which is why I'm very active in the lean in community and mentoring women in industry.

Mutton I have a full time senior corporate job (and a non-sleeping 10 month old DD) and I do very little housework and very little childcare.

But I can see how (for example) the lack of male partners willing to subjugate their careers is contributing to holding back corporate women from realising their full potential, thus often making me The Only Woman In The Room.

Women's work being undervalued affects all of us I think.

Sounds like a great idea, Garlic!

My problem is though that I'm a militant spinster so the only effect of me going on strike would be that my flat would become even more grubby that it is already...

She sold it. The island.

What would single mothers do? Or would there be no point in them joining in?

Eh, there'll be enough of us that we can just revel drunkenly or sleep and ignore her disapproving glares.

Xenia's Island ! I wanna go there. The only problem is, she doesn't like women. Could be a problem...

Bertie I'm coming too! About 90% of my sleep for the last year has been in 2-3 hour blocks, I'm shattered! DH should share the experience

Oh right, definitely not talking to me then.

Will retreat gracefully.

Bertie Feminist retreat count me in. Bliss!

I think the problem is that it involves pissing off individual men.

With a train strike, or whatever, it's annoying to the passengers which means it's annoying to the bosses because they're not able to provide the service.

But individual train drivers don't have to go and deal with their individual boss or the person who has picked up the pieces and get their wrath from it. They are a collective mass, with the support of the others, and usually a union, too. The "bosses" are faceless, they don't deal with them day to day.

If women (housewives, is really what you mean) decided to go on strike and just announced it and their DHs suddenly had to find childcare or leave work for the day and cook their own lunch and run out of socks, then yes you'd get the odd DH who said "I'm so sorry honey, I had no idea you did so much!" but you'd probably get more who were just pissed off at the fact their partnership had dissolved, some who would deal with it with no question but also no change/understanding and of course, abusive husbands would just get... well, abusive.

Plus, you don't get the "wifework" from one or two days of childcare. I've heard lots of people say "He looked after the children for a weekend when I was away/for three days when I was in hospital/other reason and now when I am tired he says "Well I don't know what's so hard! I found it easy!"" - well duh, it's easy to play trains and cook fish fingers and wipe noses for three days. It's not so easy to do that for one hundred and fifty days in a row. It's easy to hold a baby for twenty minutes. It's not easy to hold a baby for ten hours, for six months in a row. It's easy to sort out childcare as a one off, to take the occasional day off work, to deal with broken sleep once in a while, to look after the kids on that weekend you don't have anything else to do, but it's the relentless nature of being with beings who are repetitive by nature, can't hold a conversation and don't have a concept of adult things like "not wasting stuff". Of trying to deal with them when you also need to buy a present for the birthday party next weekend and shop for your upcoming holiday and plan a presentation for work when you have a toddler who won't go to sleep without hours of input and arguing.

Leaving blokes to deal with stuff for a day or a week would be nothing. They'd think it was a fun project. Leave them for six months, then they would discover what it's really like. But of course who is going to leave their young children, their jobs, homes, etc, for six months. (And I surprise myself with a slight hint of panic that they would get it all magically sorted in those six months and we'd come back to be laughed at and told "Never mind, you're not needed any more! )

Actually I am starting to warm to this idea. I'd love to take six months off Can we arrange some kind of feminist retreat?

Okay, do you associate more with being a woman than being a "Smith" or a "lawyer", or a "blonde" or a "bristolian".

I don't have more affinity with my own sex than I do my profession or locality, but I would stick up for any if I felt they were being unfairly treated.