Why doesn no-one care about slavery when the slaves are female?

[margerykemp]

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2011/oct/18/visa-migrant-domestic-workers

Rhubarb I think *Thistledew has probably explained it better than me, but looking at something from a feminist lens and focusing on how it affects women is not the same as ignoring or discounting the effect on other groups. It's just that IMO women as a group have received far less attention historically, which is something I'd like to redress, hence my focus on women. It doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of children, or that I ignore them.

For me feminism is intrinsically linked to wider issues of social justice. It's just that I choose to approach that issue through a feminist lens rather than the more traditional capitalist v socialist lens adopted, because I think only a feminist lens will allow me to think of ways of improving social justice that take into account the unique difficulties faced by women. Presumably you feel the same way about children and slavery. I say we work together each respecting our own field of interest. It's not a competition and each can benefit from the other's POV. As a starter, the issue of children in slavery is directly linked to feminism because feminism will be looking at the issue of how children can be so easily separated from their mothers.

Don't see what's wrong with focusing on the feminist side. As Thistledew says, it narrows the discussion to something manageable - of course there's a place for broader conversations too. You need both, I imagine to gain an understanding.

Like if you were discussing climate change - you could focus on deforestation today, methane producing livestock tomorrow, and coal burning stations the next day.

Where have I told anyone to get off the thread?

Thank you moonshine, that does explain it well. I think from my own point of view I am loathe to turn it into a feminist issue in case there is an assumption that more women are affected or that it doesn't affect other genders or ages.

The OP linked to an article concerning domestic slavery, which does affect everyone, men women and children. If it was about sexual slavery then I would agree on a certain angle.

ComradeJing, you first mentioned "what about the menz" which I thought was an unnecessary comment that completely misunderstood what Pan and Zombie were saying. Moonshine and Thistledew have managed to explain their pov without resorting to sarcasms and whilst I still have my reservations about confining domestic slavery to feminism, I can now understand why you want to do so.

So I didn't ask anyone to leave the thread? I was simply sarcastic and a wee unnecessary. I understood what they were saying and it sounded pretty what about the men to me.

Anyway, it's late here so I'm going to bed.

Not everyone who has a viewpoint is siding with men and the sarcastic comment plus the statement that you were going to ignore the issue they raised seemed to me as if you were implying that their views were not welcome. So no, you didn't ask them to leave, you just made it clear they weren't that welcome either.

Throughout the middle east and asia ( and that's a big chunk of world population) there are most probably just as many men and children in bondage. It is only a feminist if you see it through your western perspective.

Would it help is we described it as 'an issue for feminism' rather than 'a feminist issue'?

Domestic slavery predominately affects women. The reason that it predominately affects women is because domestic work is seen as women's work in patriarchal society.

It would be interesting to discuss this from a feminist perspective I think. Doing so doesn't mean that we don't care about any other type of slavery surely?

Yes thistle i think it would.
It is certainly pivotal in a theory that examins the structures of society but it is not intrinsically and exclusively feminist imho.

I will give only one exampleof a society that i know very well: Mauritania.
Whilst it is a muslim country, the structure of society is completely matriarchal. Slavery is common practice and most slaves are Black men and children.

Domestic slavery predominently affects women: not true.
All unqualified migrants from the indian subcontinent throughout middle east and asia are in bondage as cooks, drivers, houseboys and they are not the worse off. Have you ever seen those building sites in the middle east? Quarries? Factory workers and industrial farming throughout china?

the article which triggered this conversation is about domestic workers in the UK. A subset of slavery which would certainly be a feminist issue.

Maybe someone could start a broader thread in Politics? I don't know enough about the issues to do so myself but would be interested in both discussions.

I get your point stewie about retructuring society to benefit all. Could not agree more. But on the subject of slavery, Stating that we don't care enough when slaves are women narrows the perspective and is counter productive, no?

This is surely getting a bit silly now. The type of slavery in the OP predominately affects women - i.e. domestic slavery in which women are employed to do 'women's work' in the home such as housekeeping, cooking and looking after children. Work that is traditionally neither paid nor valued in capitalist society.

Anyway, whatever - I'm off this thread, as yet another one in this section becomes filled with obtuse posts.

Thanks for posting this OP. I hope you manage to get some sort of discussion going later on the actual subject.

Is Mauritania really a matriarchy? I thought it had been under a military dictatorship until relatively recently. You don't get much more patriarchal than that.

But I know very little about the country TBH so I'm prepared to be educated.

Well, it's a perspective you are free to disagree with - but I do think there's value in discussing it from a feminist perspective. That's not to say you can't have other conversations through a socialist/post colonial/religious lens.

Why not?

SGM I meant it to imply the opposite- the same as your view. I was trying to get across the point that slavery is an issue that is ripe for analysis from a feminist perspective, but that it is not an issue that is solely important to feminist discussion, to the exclusion of other political/social theories. It is an issue for feminism to engage with, not an issue that engages only feminism.

Yes sinical, sorry off the tangeant, but just thought since the question ws raised, might as well discuss it.
To come back to the article, the treatment of women domestic workers is not Worse than say that of migrant labourers on uk farms for instance.

The article suggests that domestic 'employees' are more vulnerable due to isolation, alone in a private house with no excuse to converse with anyone but your employers, and the fact that someone living in your home is classed as family and not subject to any employment/h&s regulations.

There was a comment below the article wondering HOW you could have a woman in your house who so hated and feared you, and whether that was the point... also it could be as SGM suggests, that they're so Othered that their feeling are totally irrelevant and don't impact on the householders at all.