Is it ever acceptable to hire a cleaner?

My cleaner. Is my friend. She was my maid of honour.

She's amazing!!!! She's wonderful. She helps me. She makes my life easier. She went through what can only be described as one of the toughest thing ever where she was left alone. With her child. No money. No house. No roof over her head. I rushed to her. To give her money. I went to pay for food. She refused all of these. I understand. She has pride. So I did the next best thing. I asked her if she'd clean my house and I'd pay her. She agreed. She's now incredibly successful. I'm so proud of her. We helped each other. That's what friends do. On the plus side. She's fucking awesome at cleaning. She's the last thing I'd get rid of now.

Lots of men think about the implications of capitalism, but they dont do so with the cultural expectation that care and cleaning are inherently more their responsibility. So there isn't the underlying idea that paying a cleaner or childcare worker is shirking their duty. That makes it different from when women do it.

Thought of this thread this morning as I listen to Radio Scotland phone in about the importance of cleaning ... representatives from a couple of commercial companies (I think specialist ones) on. Woman commenting saying that cleaners in general, in every company/workplace, are undervalued....

Also occurred to me — Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs and the idea of „hygiene factors“ as something that we take for granted before we start on „real“ goals. It doesn’t surprise me, therefore, how the work involved in cleaning and keeping things hygienic is rarely given much recognition.

That means people working less, wanting less...etc... let’s see!

TBH I think we'd be better off to push as hard as we can in the other direction, and return as much as possible to the underground economy. And yes, that does include things like fixing your own toaster and growing your own food if you can. I read a small article recently that said that most people under 30 have never actually fixed anything.

Invisible women = invisible labour, too

Exactly, Goosefoot.

While all of this is still 'women's issues' we won't get anywhere. Same as with other issues that are actually for society but get framed as 'women's issues' subtext it's up to women to sort them out. Men carry on as usual without a second thought.

I don't think that's true, lots of men think about the implicatons of capitalism. Or not lots, but as many as can be expected when most people doesn't even understand that it is something that could be questioned.

It gets brouht up in the context of women's issues because when you have a capitalist economy, it tends to most advantageous to those who hold the most power and to whom the benefits of the labour of those below accrue. So Bill Gates (for example) is so rich not only because of his own work but because capitalism delivers him a part of the value of what his many workers produce.He doesn't have to do anything to make that happen, it's a systemic feature - in fact avoiding it becoming too extreme requires interventions.

So one problem is that due to biology, women are disadvantaged in the world of paid work, so can often be at the bottom of the heap. (Though in most western countries now I believe unskilled men are worse off.)

But the other question is around work that is not part of the money economy. This kind of work is interesting because it doesn't get transferred anywhere, the benefit goes to the person who does it or to whomever they do the work for (a neighbour, a friend, their kids.) Since capitalism has existed, more and more areas of life have gone from being of this second type of work to the first, there is a real push for that. Many of the areas that have been work for self have until recently been the work of women, domestic work, childcare, other types of care. (Not all obviously, outdoor work as someone said is often more male dominated.) So as it becomes more common to outsource these, it represents a greater commercialisation of life.

Whether you see that as good or bad, it will tend to affect women a lot, so it becomes a women's issue.

It's just bizarre to claim as feminist the perspective that the economic exploitation of women's labour is not a feminist concern

It's just beyond bizarre to have as your starting point that a woman employing another woman as a cleaner is "economic exploitation of women's labour"

you're to blame for the conditions many women face in the pink collar industries.'

Except that's how most issues are framed . Feminists or just women in general are to blame..for everything.

In other words. I wear makeup to work. So shoot me

I don't wear makeup to work, it's not a feminist choice. It's an "I can't be arsed choice".

But how is my employing a cleaner to allow me to work in a professional job detrimental to women as a class overall? If I am paying peanuts and disrespecting her then perhaps it is to the individual’s detriment

It would be detrimental to her as an individual in the same way as it is detrimental to any worker who is over- worked and badly paid.

Absolutely nothing that has said on here makes me believe employing a cleaner is a feminist issue.

If anyone genuinely believes all paid work is exploitative- fair enough. I don't agree but as a logical concept I can understand it, but this idea that a woman employing a cleaner has to be subjected to this feminist analysis is just nonsense.

The whole premise seems to me deeply anti- woman.

Oh what rubbish, of course people can hire cleaners, a cleaner does a job as many others do, their job frees up another person to do something else. Not all cleaners are women either and there are husband and wife teams of cleaners.

Honestly, I despair.

But how is my employing a cleaner to allow me to work in a professional job detrimental to women as a class overall? If I am paying peanuts and disrespecting her then perhaps it is to the individual’s detriment, but overall this surely improves the lot of women as a class in society? Am I missing something ? Unless the answer is that I should instead be sharing the work with my husband 50:50? I suppose that might be superior in class analysis terms...would that be your solution? If not, what would be your solution?

Why is this one, single, solitary form of employment subjected to this nonsensical analysis?

As I said if any of you genuinely are entirely self supporting, off- grid and have entirely opted out of the capitalist system I would have some respect for the hand- wringing going on here- but I doubt that is the case.

And of course if you employ domestic staff you actually have the ability to treat them fairly and decently in a way which you do not have in relation to other employed workers.

The question "is it acceptable to employ a cleaner" is as pointless and stupid as the "question is it acceptable to employ anyone"?

Libfems do no class analysis.
Any choice a woman makes is empowering and feminist.

Other feminists do class analysis and in the end still make choices that they know to be detrimental to women as a class,
But generally we all do what we need to get on as best we can in the world we are in. None of us are free of societal pressure etc.

In other words. I wear makeup to work. So shoot me

There's a big difference between fault and responsibility.

'Do feminists have a responsibility to apply their feminism as assiduously to the women who work for them as they do to their own lives?' is a different question to 'you're to blame for the conditions many women face in the pink collar industries.'

I'm struck by the fact that so many of the arguments for why feminists don't need to apply feminist thought to their employment (either singly or as part of a family) of another women echo other choice feminism arguments.

This board is fond of dissing libfems when it comes to gender, but this thread is jam packed with libfem arguments. I don't mind if people are libfem, but some consistency of approach is always nice.

Yep. Because it's always women's fault.

Why does every. Single. Possible. Action. A woman may take get put under the moral spotlight for the world and his wife to pour over and pontificate about that just simply doesn’t happen to men?

Because women are being held responsible for everything from class inequality to male violence. It was ever thus.

Ironically, I doubt her target audience are cleaners, or any working class/low income women. It's aimed at the middle class, flogging it at 13-14£ while expecting them to self flagellate for outsourcing tasks.

Why does every. Single. Possible. Action. A woman may take get put under the moral spotlight for the world and his wife to pour over and pontificate about that just simply doesn’t happen to men?

Having a cleaner is an entirely voluntary transaction between both parties. It’s not Saudi Arabia. Cleaner’s and maids are little better than slave labour there. This whole thing is a thing so some woke writer can sell to mostly women a book for £14.99 a pop that can press guilt buttons and make you all feel shit and personally responsible for economic disparities you had no hand in setting up! Meanwhile the said writer in true champagne socialist style can enjoy the sort of lifestyle where employing a cleaner is even an option...

I don't understand the hand - wringing going on. If you use any paid for service or buy any goods from a supermarket what on earth is the difference?

Yes. The “exploitation” model casts all low-paid workers (retail staff, hospital porters, care workers, street sweepers...) as victims without agency and very much strips them of their dignity.

Plus, as I said above, the lowest paid decile or quartile of the popular is now much more mixed-sex than it was 30,40, 50 years ago.

So this is a poverty and equality issue. It’s about people deserving decent pay.

I refuse to patronise myself or my fellow women by framing this as a uniquely female issue (although I quite understand how that analysis grew up a few decades back.)

This such a load of bollocks. It is acceptable to employ a cleaner. End of story.

I don't understand the hand - wringing going on. If you use any paid for service or buy any goods from a supermarket what on earth is the difference?

Is the problem that cleaners are generally female or that cleaning is seen as women's work?