Could women strike?

[GarlicNovember]

It'd mean finding enough supportive men to take over child and other caring duties. Could it be done? Would it make the point that the world would grind to a halt if women didn't do all the supposedly invisible stuff they do?

Single mothers would join in, absolutely. Their children would have to be looked after by their fathers, or other relatives, or I suppose the state.

It's why it's hypothetical, isn't it? Because nobody would seriously put a child into care (a care system which would have just dissolved, too, considering it's largely staffed by women and the majority of foster carers are also women) for 6 months in order to make a political point.

It's why it's hypothetical, isn't it? Because nobody would seriously put a child into care (a care system which would have just dissolved, too, considering it's largely staffed by women and the majority of foster carers are also women) for 6 months in order to make a political point.

Thinking it through, though, there is much non-essential voluntary female labour that could be withdrawn. And the important point would be to ensure that the patriarchy noticed and (preferably) was inconvenienced. You wouldn't necessarily need to reside with a man or descend into squalor. One could be selective.

I feel you're right, Arsenic. I need to you to elaborate, please.

Some kind of work-to-rule, but I'm scrabbling a bit beyond that because there aren't really rules are there?

But all the extraneous stuff where women disproportionately pick up the slack.

But I think withdrawing the essential, female, non-voluntary labour would be the sticking point. People already notice and value non-essential voluntary labour (I am assuming voluntary means chosen-not-forced, rather unpaid, here)

If all women withdrew, then there would be a lot of children left with nobody to look after them. The question would then be what would men do? Would they look after them, leave them to fend for themselves? If they looked after them (which you'd hope!), would they think about the emotional impact and try to address that or would it be more institutional; fed, watered and clothed, that's it. (Perhaps that would be a necessity, TBH, with half of the adults gone.) I don't think that most women would take that risk, let alone the risk that the children would be totally left to it.

I don't think that most women would take that risk, let alone the risk that the children would be totally left to it.

But that's how this stuff works Bertie, that's the core of it. Which is why it is so difficult.

Personally, I live knee-deep in the world of SEN, disability, statemented DC and carer's assessments. The state, society, the patriarchy, (whichever) saves millions of pounds via exactly that mechanism. They gamble that women (because it is overwhelmingly women) will not risk inadequate care for their loved ones.

A strike would be the same battle writ large. But it's happening every day already.

And the state/society/patriarchy win.

Is that an atypical and depressive example?

The withdrawing of all the non-essential female labour, wouldn't that just reinforce the notion that women are first and foremost to be carers, and nothing else?

Maybe Widow but it would also reinforce the idea that they aren't the go-to labour pool for free flower-arranging, commitee-sitting, tea-making, floor-sweeping, baby-sitting etc

I don't think it's depressive, and while I want to say it's atypical, I don't think it is - it's just more extreme and obvious with SEN and disability.

You're right that a, it's happening and b, they are winning. They have won. Because we won't do it. I probably personally could - DH would take on DS, no problem (apart from possible legal stuff since he's not his legal dad - but then who would look too hard if there were no women) but if he was younger, if I was still a single parent, if I was still with my ex, no way could I do it. It's a biological drive to protect your DC, it has to be.

I would think that most (and I mean 99% of) women are either in a situation where they have somebody that they absolutely would not leave under threat of death, or don't see the problem [at all, or] as anywhere near important enough to leave/strike over.

The problem is that when everybody sees it as women's responsibility to do these things - men/patriarchy/state see it as women's responsibility and rely on them, women see that nobody else is doing it and hence know it's on them, it's very hard to then say "Well no, actually, it is your responsibility too. Here, deal with it." Because if everyone thinks it's your responsibility, and you've accepted (reluctantly or not) that it's your responsibility and everyone's acting like it's your responsibility, hasn't that made it your responsibility? It's not just something you can randomly assign. Somebody has to take it. And we have. Even if we handed control over to men, everyone would go "Wow, women neglecting their responsibilities!", they wouldn't magically think "Oh hang on, this was supposed to be my responsibility all along too."

How does one define non-essential? Perhaps hotels could provide meals, but not serve them or clean the rooms. Perhaps admin, customer service and telesales could go undone. Tbh, all the women walking out of workplaces would make a big difference. Perhaps those in life-or-death occupations could arrange a rolling exit - more of a go-slow than an all-out strike - as the nurses did. Perhaps no meals should be cooked, no shopping or housework done, and all those with male partners & children should be absent at night time. Retail stores would be open, but service slow as they'd have to rely on male staff. Offices would stay dirty. Pubs would be short-staffed.
? Would it be scary enough, though?

More to the point, employers would have to figure something out for their male employees with children! Few teachers, even fewer nursery workers, no female staff ...

Actually, it would be interesting to see what happened if all the women of the world stopped listening sympathetically to men's problems/lengthy accounts of their agonising manflu.

I suspect it could be quite dramatic. Plus no children would be harmed.

Yes but even if you had it all like that, you still need enough individuals to a, care enough, b, be willing to piss off their individual employers and/or husbands and children, c, not have very small children, terminally ill or disabled children (etc) or children who would suffer for other reasons and d, not be at risk of violence of abuse personally if they did b.

I can't disagree with any of your posts, Bertie, but they really highlight the existence of female oppression and it's making me miserable. It cheers me up slightly to think about what would happen if women just stopped feeling "no-one else will, so I'd better get on with it." Women, know your place :( Irene, that absolutely would be hilarious guess why I'm staying divorced!

No Arsenic, it's not atypical. There are stats somewhere on my old computer about how much time women devote to their DCs with SEN. A lot of us simply can't work, because schools fail to cope, childcare is impossible to get and employers get a little funny about their new employee having to take days off here and there randomly as schools illegally exclude their children. This is compounded by the stats for relationship breakdown for families where there is a child with additional needs, which pushes the women into further poverty. DLA doesn't go as far as the layman would think, so families get into debt paying for therapies, special aids etc. Levels of depression among carers is high. And on. And on.

If carers withdrew care for a few days, the government would very quickly sit up and take notice. But of course they won't, and this is what governments bargain on, and because carers carry on caring, it saves society millions. Because they don't/can't work and may live on benefits, they are seen as lesser beings, a drain on society and have no voice. Because they may be in debt, they are blamed for being frivolous, and are silenced even more.

I might see whether my donkey jacket has survived all the many moves we've done. I'm feeling quite militant right now

:( Sorry to make you miserable.

I'd love to unionise carers.

This scenario still assumes that women only do a certain type of role. How would a female MD or senior manager "striking" show the men that they shouldn't take women for granted for childcare and flower arranging?

I was imagining my 'work-to-rule' scenario Widow.

So i thought paid work was fine to do and meeting the immediate survival (food, hygeine) needs of yourself and your immediate dependants was permissible, because everyone, regardless of gender should be doing that (and single women would have to anyway or they'd be living in filth with starving pets and children.)

So I was predicting that it was the unpaid extras, that even the female MD does, that would turn out to be highly gendered.

I disagree somewhat. Granted, I'm exploring the concept rather than trying to create a strategy, but I would like to see women MDs, judges, ministers - all women - taking part. It keeps the focus on the message that all women's work is important & valuable, making the action about 'women' rather than 'underpaid drudges'. Otherwise you're getting close to socio-economic class action, diluting the message about women.

Obviously there's plenty of need for actions by carers, poorly-paid and unpaid people, and other exploited classes. Men fall into those groups, too, but all women are women!

Maybe the women directors of companies could host a strike holiday activity for all the women in their companies, including also their employees' female domestic workers :) And charge it to their companies