Is having a cleaner exploitation or liberation?

[foreverastudent]

I remember reading in some feminist book a long time ago (maybe GG?) that when rich/middle class women hire poor/working as cleaners they are exploiting them.

I'm not even sure if that quote is accurate but anyway, is it exploitation?

It is if they aren't being paid well or are being treated badly but is it not liberating to create work and financial freedom for someone who can maybe only do this type of work (eg due to childcare)?

Does one (rich) woman's freedom from domestic drudgery come at the expense of another's?

I did try to hire a male cleaner recently, but his services were oversubscribed

It's liberation if you pay them well.

I'm a socialist
So I'm going for Exploitation

If it is exploitation, then are your DP/H and DCs exploiting you if you do it?

If you pay them well then it is fine, it's better than having no job at all surely. If however they are treated/paid badly then that is exploitation as it is the act of using something/someone in an unjust or cruel manner.

yes, foreverstudent, that's what underlies the socialist ideology.
It's not as though it's your family exploiting you, but that society is set up in a way that women are exploited.
Or not women exactly, but the people who do certain types of work , and those people tend to be women, on the whole

no Riven , you are definitely exploited because you are a full time carer
I'm a SAHM and even though I don't do much housework (!) I'm exploited for being the one who's always "there" while DH can carry on with his work as if we never had kids.
I don't think DH is exploiting me, it's just the societal set-up (I did not want to use daycare in the early years for personal reasons)

I don't see why it is any more exploitation than anyother paid emplyment.

I pay a gardener. I pay him the going rate. I make him tea, I treat him withrespect and i don't expect him to do things outside the role of his agreed employment, like cleaning up dog shit.
I apy a cleaner. I pay her the going rate. I make her tea and I don't expect her to do things outside the role of her agreed employment, like picking up DSs dirty pants.

I have had a male cleaner who I treated just the same, but have never had a female gardener so I have no experience ofthat.

My point is that if you ensurethat you are paying a decent salary and providing a good working enviroment with mutaual respect and professionalism then why should it be an issue.

Of course it gets muddled in with wankers who hire cleaners at black market rates and don't ensure they have sickness benefits etc.
But why is someone working inside my home exploitation when outside my home it is fine.

My mum used to be a xcleaner and i helped her in the holidays. I didn't find it degrading. Cleaning is not degrading

I think that it is certainly liberation for all involved as long as the pay and conditions are fair. I have a cleaner, someone who does ironing for me and a gardener (who is a bloke). Both the women who help me have set their own rates and the lady who cleans for me (and helps a bit with the children too) has a good working relationship with me and the rest of the family. All of these people involved need the money, I can pay them what they want and am immensely grateful for the help. How could this possibly be exploitation?

I am certainly not rich, maybe not even middle class - I am a busy person with lots of responsibilities and help from these people makes things so much easier for me and the rest of the family. A fair days pay for a fair days work is the cornerstone of our society and I personally do not feel that I am involved in exploitation of anyone at any level.

Oh and I used to be a cleaner for many years, despite being highly educated as it provided me with a good income and it was very flexible. I never felt exploited either, mainly because the pay was good (cash in hand) and the people for whom I worked, really valued my help.

I have a (female) cleaner and a (male) nanny. I pay them both market rates. Which one am I exploiting? And if I am, why?

Dittany and Sakura, you seem to be suggesting that no woman can freely choose to be employed or useful to a man domestically without being exploited.

I genuinely don't understand why employing a cleaner is exploitation. Can someone explain this to me? Why is it any different to my employer employing me?

Fair pay or mutual benefit is key. Also key = availability of other choices or opportunities to move on if desired.

Yawn. it's having a cleaner. this is what gives feminist debate a bad name.

If a man or a woman is hiring a cleaner, paying proper wages and providing suitable working environment it is not exploitation.

I don't see why it's exploitation either. You're just paying someone to do a job - like you pay a mechanic to mend your car, or a painter and decorator to paint your house, or a window cleaner to clean your windows. It's just the same.

If paying fair wages and expecting a fair amount of work to be done in a fair amount of hours, then I don't see that it would be explotation - no more than ANY paid employment.

'Men's domestic use of women, either paid or unpaid is definitely exploitation.'

I'm sorry but the more I read this, the more unreasonable, simplistic, and non-sensical it seems to me.

It is gender biased and takes no account of race, class, age, country, culture, history, etc.

Domestic use indeed. DH has just mopped the kitchen floor and is now rocking the baby to sleep. I am MNing. He is in paid employment, I am a SAHM. There's a roast in the oven. I prepared it. But he's had to run to the shop for mustard. We had a cleaner but sacked her because I like the way I clean my own stuff. She charged a bloody fortune as well (and as well she should have - it's hard work). She comes from a country where cleaners really are exploited because there is almost no social mobility and the wages are practically slave. FFS.

I've remembered more of what the original 'exploitation' arguement was.

"When rich (white) middle-class women hire other women to clean (or cook or care) instead of pressurising their DPs to share these tasks they are merely transfering women's oppresion from one female to another. A lot of wealthy western women have freedom from domestic tasks, but women as a group dont.

All women should be liberated from the obligation that it is our job to do these tasks. Men need to take on 50/50 responsibility."