Exploiting women to support yourself

Yes, and the Eastern Bloc is where the phrase 'dual burden' originated. It is not like men suddenly took their fair share of domestic care there.

Again it's interesting that you say a consequence of women working rather than of men working OP. After all, you don't need a vagina to do this care work. And actually, in an EU context, the poorer EU countries we're talking about had very high women's employment in the postwar period. You didn't have much choice about it in the Eastern Bloc.

I think the whole issue of traditionally 'women's skills' being valued much less than men's is definitely a huge part of this whole debate.

Eg I have a friend who is a very skilled dressmaker/soft furnishings maker/textile artist. This is viewed as her 'little hobby' and people think nothing of saying 'oh, I bought this beautiful fabric, could you make it into cushions for me?' and they expect that she'd be willing to do this for free. I have a male relative who is skilled at woodwork and carpentry. When people say they have a stash of wood that they would love to be made into shelves, and would he be able to do it, the next sentence is always 'I'll pay you, of course'. Always. Yet my female friend is accused of greed, and of over valuing her skills if she suggests payment. Because, you know, anyone could do what she does

Oh yes, there's EU nationals. They don't need visas. However, the reality is that in a lot of EU countries there aren't any opportunities, or not enough. It isn't simply the case that there were jobs for workers there and they've all come here so that's created a shortage at home. Things like eg the Latvian recession a few years back (they're doing ok now) blighted a generation. So people left because there was nothing for them, and this was especially true of ethnic Russian Latvian citizens who felt marginalised and discriminated against. Think of push factors, not just pull. The argument you mention OP also doesn't consider the fact that large numbers go back. And again this is something that happens when the economy is doing better.

Lastly, I think this 'care deficit' because of women leaving is significant. The women in a society are assigned to eat shit, because they're women. When they're no longer present to eat the shit, the problem is seen to be them not being there. Rather than with a system that used them to eat all the shit in the first place.

I think Maoist Rebel News might be coming from a particular viewpoint

Indeed. I suspect not the most objective or reliable source.

The comments about clothes seem to me a perfect example of middle class, not really understanding other people's lives.

I make a point of buying clothes and shoes which are made in European countries but I can afford to.

I agree with you, Boner, you make good points.

I am talking about my clothes because I am feeling defensive and like I need to justify my choices. This is one way exploitation continues to work, because it sets one group of women against the other, rather than a) asking the question you ask about things being gendered and b) what we are to do about it, as many different women in many different circumstances?

But the post I was responding to cocoa was saying that this contracting out (and I've posted upthread about why it's not women contracting this out but households, something you touch on with your final sentence) isn't as significant as exploitation of women in the third world. British people who employ cleaners and carers are using British residents, whereas that's obviously not the case when you buy clothes made in China or wherever. The idea that the service sector in Britain is contributing to labour shortages in poorer countries doesn't really fit with current immigration law either. You can't get a visa for that type of unskilled labour and haven't been able to for a long time. People doing it in the UK are either here illegally or have some other entitlement to be here such as a spouse visa or the dependant of a skilled worker. Which suggests they'd be here anyway.

In terms of clothes, women who can wear any old rags at home but not at work might well find they buy more of their clothes from the less sweatshoppy end of the market working than they would at home. And again, it says everything that you're only talking about your clothes. Men wear clothes too. There doesn't appear to be any scrutiny about whether their working arrangements are contributing to global oppression. It's a gendered discussion when there's no reason for it to be.

But yes, there must be a whole parallel debate about the damage done from producing the parts made for computers and cars etc. in the developing world - not to mention the piles of unnecessary crap you can buy in shops like ManKind or whatever it is.

Exactly Boner. All of this was framed in the OP as something middle-class women have special responsibility for. Where is the guilt being attributed to middle-class men for going to work and outsourcing certain household tasks to others? Let's ask ourselves why that's not being presented as a problem in the same way.

I think Boner, the gendering comes from the fact that women are contracting out or buying in aspects of domestic life, be that cleaning, caring or clothing - in order to participate in the labour market. I mean, I can wear any old rags at home. I cannot do that at work. I cannot send my children to school to learn and get a job without clothes and money to buy these.

The fact that this is all still seen as women's work - and I need to get back to parenting before DC wreck something...

The really interesting question is, in my opinion, how you exploit women in other countries. In Europe and the US, the standard of living is pretty high for everyone, so even the poorest, most exploited people usually have a roof over their heads and enough to eat.

The really interesting question is why this is being gendered. All people in the wealthiest countries rely on the exploitation of people of both sexes in the poorest countries. It's not a women exploiting women issue, it's a rich exploiting poor issue. I presume you're not suggesting that whether a woman has a job makes much difference to the level of her participation in this exploitation?

The thing is Vestal, if you have a family here with on a low income, the children need clothes, shoes etc which they need to be able to afford.

If your child grows out of shoes, gym shoes and non-school shoes six weeks before the end of the year, and their trousers don't fit, and your bath waste pipe bursts, all in the same week, and you have enough money left for food budgeted, then actually, you might find yourself in Primark looking for the cheapest way to clothe your child.

That's my life described and I actually am not in a minimum wage job, I get all the ethical arguments, I don't buy new fashions etc, but I am can't see how blaming mostly women for the condition other women work in helps any of us.

vestal What about that point upthread that if sweat shops close, then women turn to prostitution? Is a very low paid job better than no job?
Trying to figure out the right thing to do makes my head hurt...

Am in a bit of a hurry and can't find that post now, so I'll answer this without reading it, sorry.

What about fair trade? Surely it is possible to pay women in third world countries a wage they can live on decently in their country, even though it is still lower than minimum wages here?

For most women, being able to access childcare/cleaning etc is necessary to allow them to work at all. I also feel that if I was to pay e.g. a cleaner, I would be giving her an income so she wasn't financially dependent on her husband or on benefits. Maybe that's me trying to justify myself though.

I don't think childcare and cleaning are the main areas where you exploit other women.

Yes, those jobs are paid badly, but I expect you pay your cleaner minimum wage, and childcare will be minimum wage, anyway, if you don't hire a nanny but send your kids to kindergarten.

The really interesting question is, in my opinion, how you exploit women in other countries. In Europe and the US, the standard of living is pretty high for everyone, so even the poorest, most exploited people usually have a roof over their heads and enough to eat.

You need childcare, yes. But do you also need dirt-cheap clothes, and new, fashionable ones every year? Do you need cheap imported food?

There's this essay, in which the author essentially states that the first world worker cannot be classified as "proletariat" : maoistrebelnews.com/2016/05/16/jacobin-magazines-defense-of-the-white-worker-denies-the-reality-of-class/

That's interesting NotCitrus, and turns the argument the OP was referring to on its head rather.

I always thought the problem was th elow value that the whole of society places on jobs that are traditionally done by women. They arent even seen as work really sometimes just stuff you have a duty to do. Childcare cleaning etc its what we are expected to do for free and if we dont do it for free and pay someone else we are exploiting those people.... ok then. Personally i think we are all being exploited. Its like traditionally masculine jobs are the only 'real' jobs.

slightlyglitter It's 20 years since I lived in Norway, but that article is pretty accurate (most of my family are American and fighting for jobs that include medical insurance).

It is true that many more men work in nurseries and schools than do in the UK, and many more women in every other job than most such jobs in the UK. And working hours are on the whole shorter than in the UK or US. The difference that made them make use of women to solve the labour shortfall problem in the 60s was that back then Norway was a very poor country dependent on the fishing industry and even if they'd had an Empire, no-one would have wanted to move there from it. Whereas even post-war Britain could be made to sound attractive to men from the Caribbean and later Pakistan and Bangladesh. So in the late 80s, apart from a few experts drafted in to help grow the oil industry - which wealth the Norwegians have indeed invested into their country - there were practically no immigrants. And the ones there were couldn't become citizens.

Now Norway has had to accept immigrants in order to trade with the EU, even though it isn't in the EU, and I hear it's changing a fair bit, but they have to have someone nearby to sell electricity and gas and oil to! Though with their mountains and hydroelectric power, they could actually be reasonably self-sufficient if they wanted. I don't know the male:female split of immigrants there but a far right movement blaming immigrants for lcak of jobs and depression of wages sounds the same as such people everywhere.

Me neither. Seems it already is in some areas.

To expand this point further, I'm reminded of something I read a while ago about how women often end up in the local brothel when a sweatshop closes. That is, you don't do any low paid worker any favours by taking their low paid job away and not replacing it with anything.

"In terms of low paid work, it's always worth remembering that people choose the option most advantageous to them" That's true BonerSibary and I think that is where things are going to get very interesting in the next decade. I can't take for cleaning but there is a rapidly growing recruitment gap in childcare, it's not a job people want to do any more and jobs are being advertised for months and years with no suitable candidates, I can't see it being very long at all before it becomes a significant problem.

The problem with the argument advanced in the OP is that it always, implicitly or otherwise, lays the blame on an individual woman returning to work rather than the male partner who isn't staying at home to do childcare and housework or, more widely, a global labour system that perpetrates inequality. This means it will always fail. I'm not blaming you OP, you didn't pick that view up from nowhere, but it's bollocks. It's you, woman should eat a certain and disproportionate amount of shit because vagina, and you refusing to eat that shit means you, rather than the expectation that you should eat more than your share of shit that's the problem. Nope.

In terms of low paid work, it's always worth remembering that people choose the option most advantageous to them. Unless your childminder and cleaner were trafficked or are being exploited in some other way, they're doing what they do because it was the best choice they had available. It may well be the least worst in a banquet of shit options, but they still preferred it to the next gig down. As such, how would you not going back to work or going back but making other arrangements assist them? It's not going to suddenly open up all manner of opportunities. And why are there complaints that better paid women contract out childcare but not that lower paid women pass on some aspects of parenting traditionally falling to the mother such as the teaching and nursing care of children? After all, most people think those professions are underpaid and undervalued. BTW I'm middle income, don't have a cleaner and my childcare comprises male relatives and a preschool I'd use whether I worked or not, so no horse in this race.