Exploiting women to support yourself

Aunt - I guess you could reconcile them by emphasising the 'some degree' and possibly downgrading 'solidarity' to 'common cause'. After all, history is littered with examples of political movements aiming communally for one particular thing, despite their members disagreeing on plenty of others - hence the way revolutions etc often subsequently break down into infighting.

So long as feminism is seen essentially as a large interest group - i.e., something which all (/many) women are pursuing because it benefits each of them individually (though possibly to varying degrees) - then this is not really problematic.

I think where the inconsistency creeps in is when feminism takes on a moral aspect, which it actually does in most people's arguments - even liberal feminists rarely see their motivation as pure self-interest. At this point it becomes problematic because the ethical arguments for feminism are largely based in doctrines of rights, and the same arguments that support women's rights also tend to support the extension of rights to other underprivileged groups. So, in this view, there is a logical inconsistency in being a feminist but not worrying about other inequalities.

Which I am guessing is what Felas means here:

"the ethics of talking about my own oppression while simultaneously taking advantage of my privilege over someone else… makes me feel very uncomfortable."

I think the position that support for one underprivileged group logically entails support for others is correct. (I am also pro a more radical and less capitalist version of feminism because I am not convinced that the issues of invisible and emotional labour can be resolved within the capitalist system, and other reasons, but this is wandering from the point).

However, practically, I worry that the 'support for one disadvantaged group entails support for all' line of thought leads to an absurd situation in which you are not allowed to try to make any efforts to change the social system unless you are addressing every conceivable inequality with in it, which paralyses any change at all (essentially the move that the 'women shouldn't hire cleaners' argument in the OP is trying to make). On the other hand, still thinking practically, the risk of pursuing liberal feminist objectives without addressing other inequalities - so hiring the cleaner etc - is that it alienates poorer, or otherwise disadvantaged, women who (probably correctly) perceive themselves to be benefiting only marginally from feminist advances, while those advances give major benefits to women who are exploiting them in other ways. (See that extremely instructive thread a while back about women of colour and their attitudes to feminism).

That's my take on it anyway.

Doesn't the cleaning question also have an element of self-employed (setting own prices) versus employed? Our window cleaners earn £7 for 10 minutes' work. There's a bloke with a dustbin-cleaning machine vehicle (no idea what it's called!) who earns £10 per fortnight per household. Contrast with, say, a school caretaker presumably on NMW.

And yet society probably does see painting and decorating as more skilled than cleaning, yes, so the former probably get paid more. The question to ask ourselves is, why?

There's skilled cleaning and less skilled cleaning too.
The everyday cleaner at my workplace is likely to be low paid. He vacuums, mops, dusts, wipes, etc. Yes, some people are hopeless at it and some people are better, but I wouldn't say it was skilled.
The company that comes to clean the interior and exterior windows and glass, I would say is more skilled and required more specialist equipment. I would guess the guy (in our case) who does that earns more.

Mechanics / builders/ gardeners are seen as more skilled than cleaners/ child carers / house keepers and I think are paid more too

Some of these things are not like the others. You do have to study to be a mechanic. That's not true of any other role you mention: even childcare, which is highly skilled, features plenty of childminders without formal qualifications. There are loads round my way. So it doesn't particularly surprise me that a mechanic is seen as more skilled or that they're paid more. Qualifications can do that. There are some builders who would also fall into this category.

So I think the more appropriate comparison for traditionally 'male' roles would be drivers rather than fixers of vehicles, and decoraters rather than builders of houses. Because care of children and cleaning are things that most households take care of themselves, most people can clean a house just as most people can paint one. And yet society probably does see painting and decorating as more skilled than cleaning, yes, so the former probably get paid more. The question to ask ourselves is, why?

I'm interested in the idea of sisterhood too (although it might be better on its own thread - I'd start it but not sure if it'd be a TAAT).

Things like: how does

I think most of us have longs since moved away from the notion of an undifferentiated mass of 'sisterhood' which automatically bestows a seamless political innocence

work with

feminism is by definition based on some degree of solidarity among women?

Is this about an underlying solidarity but recognising that some of us are in very different social and class-based positions? What does this look like in practice?

Is this in fact you're talking about OP - the feeling that you're letting down other women in some way because capitalism creates a fundamental inequality that you believe to be unjust? That your status as a feminist means you should be better at mitigating this?

The idea that women exploiting women being the greatest sin depends on a belief that there is some sort of fundamental sisterhood that links all women due to a shared oppression. Does liberal feminism buy into this theory? It seems to be a cornerstone of radical feminism (although it could be a misinterpretation on my part).

Thanks, Fela - and thank you for starting an interesting thread.

Lass, yes - I actually agree with that point.

Unlike you, I do buy the idea that work, especially low paid work, is generally exploitative, but I think that the particular argument in the OP - i.e., that there is something uniquely exploitative about women employing women to do childcare or cleaning - i.e., that it is worse than any other combination of men/women employing (?exploiting) men/women - is inaccurate, and set up as (false) paradox to undermine (liberal) feminism.

To a radical feminist, therefore, the system of wealthier women employing (exploiting) poorer women is a problem, whereas to a liberal feminist it is not

Still does not answer the question of why a woman employing another woman =exploitation. I could understand, although not agree with, the idea that all low paid work or even all work is exploitative.

I'm finding it really interesting, Fela, and I'm learning a lot (which I always enjoy). So thank you for starting the thread: bold choice.

Also this notion that if we close a sweatshop the employees move to a brothel! Somewhere is the business rival to the sweatshop- the factory that pays decent wages. When that business is closed down because everyone's buying from the sweatshop, don't that factory's employees end up in a brothel instead?

It was a specific example of an instance where that happened.

I presume what you're arguing here is that people will need to buy a certain number of shirts, meaning there needs to be a certain number of factories making them. So there's no reason to favour the sweatshop workers above the decently paid workers who'd make the shirts if the sweatshop shut.

The problem with that argument most of us in the West buy more than we need, and some people are only able to afford this level of consumption because of sweated labour. So while some could afford to pay more for goods, others couldn't and would simply have to reduce the amount they buy if they were purchasing at a fairer price. Well and good, in some ways. Environmentally, for one. But that does mean that the number of people needed to produce the consumer goods Westerners buy would reduce as a whole, because we wouldn't be buying as much of it. It would be rather foolish to delude ourselves that this wouldn't have consequences. There are some instances where eg parents and children are in the same sweatshop, so if you pay a living wage to the parents the children won't have to work there. There are families and communities where fewer people would have to work if those who did were paid more. But this doesn't cover every sweatshop situation in the world, so you are still left with people who would have to go to their next choice down. What do you think that will be, if a sweatshop was the best they could get previously?

This ties in to the argument in the OP because even if one thinks employing cleaners, nursery nurses etc is intrinsically exploitative in itself, they won't magically be able to get better paid jobs if their sectors disappear overnight. Improving the lot of exploited workers is a two part process. Closing the sweatshops is the easy part.

Are you sure lots of Eastern European women with children are leaving them at home to come over here?

I live in Italy and it is very, very common here to have cleaners and carers for the elderly from Ukraine, Romania and Moldavia. In fact, we employ a carer for my FIL from Romania. A lot of the women can no longer afford to live off their own wages or pensions in their home countries (e.g. 200 euros a month) as prices have rocketed. Some leave young children behind with relatives. However, I think it is more important that they are employed with a proper work contract and rights rather than try to ban the phenomenon completely - which would only mean that they would be forced to work for less ethical employers.

Cat I have ordered the book, so maybe there is some actual discussion about Smith's living arrangements - I know very little about the man and his writing.

Incidentally, if I want to observe that a pile of dirty nappies, is just that, I shall have no inhibitions in doing so. But, if (the possibly) Mary Kelley wants to call it art, I won't turn a hair either. It'll be a 'whatever' moment.

I've just bestirred myself to google (and order). Can see I was a bit wrong.

Already ordered it.

Cadno I haven't read the book but I'm guessing the point will be that, as Adam Smith sat in his study, writing, he gazed about him and scribed his view into theory. What his keen gaze almost certainly failed to notice - and he was not alone in this - were the hidden hands and bodies that cleaned his study, lit the fire, collected the wood, cooked the food, gave birth to him, breastfed him, helped him learn to walk, taught him to speak, etc., etc, - and this didn't make it's way into his analysis and texts.

The book, I am guessing, will be an analysis of the 'blindspots' of various economic analyses. And I am willing to further guess that those blindspots will be related to a. domestic labour b. gender.

I could be wrong. But I'm picking that up from the title.

I'm assuming good-intent on your part. I could be wrong. But your remark is a little like someone looking at 'Post-partum Document' by the feminist artist (forgotten name temporarily. Mary Kelley??) and saying: 'But that's not Art! That's just a load of pictures of dirty nappies!!'

One person's facetious remark is another's honest question. Smith's mother came from a wealthy landed Scottish family. His father was a writer and lawyer. Smith presumably had his salary from his academic career (at least) - what financial crisis befell this family such that they were unable to afford to employ domestic staff ?

And thanks for reading recommendations buffy and almond.

Felas I think what you're describing is the classic cross-fire between liberal and radical feminism.

Liberal feminism basically aims to make women the equals of men, within the pre-existing capitalist society. It wants women to have all the opportunities men have, but doesn't mind reproducing the inequalities and injustices within that system. For instance, capitalism has always allowed (encouraged) some men to be much poorer than others, liberal feminism is fine with some women being much poorer than others, or at least it doesn't immediately concern itself with trying to change that.

Radical feminism is more concerned with changing the entire system; it wants not just to balance out inequality between the sexes but to try to eradicate it entirely. To a radical feminist, therefore, the system of wealthier women employing (exploiting) poorer women is a problem, whereas to a liberal feminist it is not.

Liberal feminists would probably argue that no political movement can address all the woes of the world, and it's not their job to sort out the wider issue of economic equalities, which were largely created by and continue to be perpetuated by men.

Radical feminists would probably argue that, given that feminism is by definition based on some degree of solidarity among women, a solution which just improves the lives of wealthier women and leaves poorer women still being exploited, just exploited by women as well as men, isn't really an improvement.

My sympathies lie somewhere between the two. I think that the lives of poorer women probably are improved to some extent even by liberal feminism - legal and cultural changes to women's rights which have some degree of trickle down - but I am also pro a more radical approach to capitalism, and I think there's a natural affinity between this and feminism, due to the large burden of unpaid work which needs to be done and tends to fall on women, as several people have mentioned.

That's right - the two aren't mutually exclusive.