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 make 7500 but by the time I get my tax credits its about 13k (including childcare). I have friends who work in childcare who are getting 10.5k tax credits from childcare. I have my degree and could do teaching but it isnt worth it because I would have to do more hours for about the same amount of pay once you factor in childcare for 2 kids. A lot of people pick those jobs for that reason.

Threeelittleducks it is not unusual for employers to be involved in the decision as to whether someone stays in the country, because often it is only the fact that someone is sponsored by an employee that leads the home office to allow that person to live and work in the country.

sunny I think perhaps there is a bit of sexism involved in attitudes towards domestic cleaners, childcare staff etc - these roles are traditionally 'women's work', and therefore the women is a failure/slattern/idle if she chooses not to do them.

I am sure that I would be capable of doing quite a lot of tasks that I pay others to do, such as conveyancing, DIY, catering for parties etc., but they are not tasks that people feel entitled to pass judgement on.

I also dislike the fact that people feel they have to justify their employment of cleaners/childcare etc...I have so much to do, full time job etc...how about 'mind your own business...why don't you service your own car/stop having your shopping delivered blah, blah.'

I dont think jobs are paid less because they are womens' jobs. They are paid less because more people can do them so the potential labour pool is larger, tipping the supply/demand balance.

This just isn't true. It used to be that clerical work was done exclusively by men, and it was considered an excellent job. Once it experienced an influx of women (wartime) it became devalued and considered unskilled. Many female-dominated industries, like teaching, childcare and nursing, are low paid compared to male-dominatede trades. My plumber earns a lot more than my childcare workers, although both have the same level of qualifications.

I don't know if it's true right now, but in the nineties one could be a stockbroker without formal qualifications. That pays a huge amount, but one needs "masculine" qualities of risktaking and aggression.

It is demonstrable that when male industries let women in they become less high paying and less valued.

But(eg)investment banking/ broking/ asset management have more women in them than every before and is better paid than ever before so it doesnt always follow.

Also, your argument and mine arent necessarily mutually exclusive. When women were "kept out" of certain professions by either trade union activity, legislation or convention, then the workforce was being artifically restricted by 50%. Once these jobs became open to women, then the pool of available candidates doubles and tips the supply/demand ratio in favour of supply, so cost falls.

How do you explain nursing/teaching/childcare vs plumbing/electricians, etc?

slhilly, not everyone is looking for FT employment.

One thing that occurs to me is that middle class women are often the women who think cleaning is drudgery - that by doing it, they are making themselves low status. They are used to having other women do it, perhaps even from childhood. Particularly true of middle class feminists IME. Even more often I hear feminist SAHM middle class mothers say, 'MOTHERING is my WORK, I am not a cleaner.' So they some of the household income (earned by DH) to hire a cleaner, because it seems to difficult/degrading to manage mothering and cleaning at the same time.

It's not really that hard actually :)

I posted that link above dittany

Some people are blind to inequality or think that whre there is inequality is is fair and justified. They have been brainwashed by anti-feminist propaganda. If this level of ignorance didn't have such a detrimental effect on all of us I'd feel sorry for them.

Dittany, surely we must take responsibility for the fact that some women are also guilty of perpetuating sexist habits and memes?

Am I not allowed to note practices and attitudes I have observed among my peers?

Middle class women have always passed on housework to other women. A huge factor in PND during maternity leave and SAHMotherhood is that suddenly they (we) are thrust into a role where we are better placed to do most of the housework occurring in daylight hours. We feel this is low status and become resentful. We lack home ec and basic housekeeping skills. Sometimes we lack the confidence to admit we like our new role. Lots of conflicting feelings.

Anyway, I agree most of the men I know about are not doing an equal share of housework, but they do tend to do more of the traditionally male jobs so that they are indeed doing an equal amount of work.

This is what should, IMO, change. I agree that when more men are doing more cleaning, cleaning will have more status.

Are you talking about me Dittany? I fucking hate the status quo. Anyway, whose status quo? I feel quite pressured and oppressed by a professionalized version of feminism that tells me my life is low status drudgery. I think you and I have very different concepts of equality.

This is not the Radical Feminist section. This is the feminist section.

You don't listen well.

I don't know dittany but I don't mind because it gives me a chance to get my arguments in order. I've learnt a lot on here and it's not all through agreeing. If someone comes on saying "but men have [problem X] too!", it forces me to go and find out, in order to come back with "yes, but only 1 man a year and only on alternate tuesdays".

tortoise - a self employed plumber/electrician will earn more than teacher/nurse/childcarer, but they are running their own business and have all the extra responsibilties and risks that go with it.

An employed plumber or electrician won't earn more than teacher or nurse (possibly childcarer though).

As for employing a cleaner being exploitation surely it all depends on the conditions of the employment and the reasons for it.

Um, how have I excluded men from being people who are sexist?

Simply by daring to say that some middle class women I know are, in fact, also perpetuating sexism by continuing to believe and state that housework should be low status, can never fulfilling and is not meaningful to society?

I have just had an IRL conversation about this, in which I was told by several women they would not stoop to doing housework. As someone who enjoys doing my own housework, I was left scratching my head about what they think of me. These are middle class SAHMs. Not corporate women or men.

Sorry Dittany, but when I say 'we' must take responsibility, I meant that feminists, the feminist movement, broad and ununified as it is, must accept that some of us are in fact guilty of perpetuating sexism against women, in various ways. You may not agree with that, fine.

I do reject that men necessarily benefit the most from domestic chores landing on our shoulders. Everyone living in the house benefits. We benefit, children benefit, and men benefit. What is true is that women seem to be doing most of it and not wanting to do most of it, and doing most of it in situations where it is totally unfair. Therefore, most of the burden is on women, but the benefits are shared between household members.

If men are not pitching in their fair share (depending on particular set-up), they should either pay someone to do their share, be bloody grateful and reciprocate with the lion's share of other work, or fuck off before I hang them by the balls and sic you on them, which would be a bad, bad punishment.

Oh, I also think children should be pitching in a lot more than they do. IMO it's about learning self-sufficiency, equality, and personal responsibility from a young age.

My boys clean, they see me clean, they see their dad clean, and they will help their partners clean when they are grown (or I will go ALL redneck on their asses).

Actually you do agree with me, you think I am anti-feminist.

Ditto re my thoughts. It's the internet, we can only hope we are not misunderstood.

Maybe 'take responsibility' was the wrong phrase, but I do stand by my assertion that (in fact probably the majority of depressingly) women often perpetuate sexism. Lots of reasons - lack of awareness, fear, internalized sexism, emotional and social benefits, class issues and prejudice, etc. I mean we have already had this thread - why do women collude with their own oppression? What I am saying is not any different.

Trust me these women exist. When I was growing up, they were housewives of the dinner-party-planning variety, and they had servants. Now, they are either professional workers with cleaners and nannies or privileged SAHMs, but they are out there and on here (MN). It's especially bad if the SAHM can't afford the household help she thinks she can't live without/deserves. I just want to say, oh do shut up, sort, wash, fold and put away. Your beautifully attached child will be absolutely fine if you ignore her for a minute and clean the floor. In fact she will be much better off for various reasons.

Just because I challenge a small percentage of women, though, does not mean I don't also challenge the majority of men who believe cleaning their own mess is beneath them.

I suppose getting other people to do your dirty work has its origins in slavery - that is probably why many are uncomfortable with the idea.

Nowadays in England at least, it is neither exploitation nor liberation, it is a job that is low paid as it requires no qualifications and little skill.

Those that are highly skilled at it i.e efficient, can probably earn an OK wage on their own terms, be they male or female.

slavery was oppression with no choice.no human rights. humans traded and used as commodities to make profit for someone else

legitimately employed cleaners, have contract, T&C, minimum wage and not compelled to do so. In fact for some it is a job that suits individual circumstances

how is someone legitimately employed cleaning a comparison for slavery?

Well, slaves weren't commonly used as dentists or lawyers or even plumbers. They were however used as cleaners and for childcare. Both of these jobs are low paid and low status and fairly easily outsourced. It just occurred to me that the slavery link may be why some people feel uncomfortable about employing people in this capacity. Maybe not.

i pay someone to watch my children.i pay someone to clean my house.legit employment,circulates money.no compulsion upon them to do so.

a service is delivered,to expected standard. i pay for the service. we all win

Funny really that it's not considered acceptable to pay someone to sleep with your husband. Just another wifely "duty" sub contracted :o