Exploiting women to support yourself

[Felascloak]

This is partly inspired by another thread and partly by an item on immigration I heard on women's hour a couple of weeks ago.
Women returning to work typically the use other people (usually women) to provide childcare, and maybe do cleaning/housekeeping. In some countries, so many women are emigrating to richer western countries to do these jobs that it leaves a care deficit in their home country, causing issues there.
I've read numerous arguments implying that middle class feminists have exploited working class women for their own benefit and this is anti-feminist.
For most women, being able to access childcare/cleaning etc is necessary to allow them to work at all. I also feel that if I was to pay e.g. a cleaner, I would be giving her an income so she wasn't financially dependent on her husband or on benefits. Maybe that's me trying to justify myself though.
I don't know what the answer is. I want to get my thoughts straight on this so wondered what others though?

I'm back now things seem a bit calmer. Some great posts on the last couple of pages, thank you all!

thecat " I think a lot of progressive political movements used to be - and perhaps still are - slightly hypnotised by the desire to find some position (embodied by some idealised poitical subject) of political purity. In that position, the person is wholly innocent: exploiting nobody."

Yes - I think that might be the trap I have slightly fallen into.

simonetta I really like your post about radical vs liberal feminism. One of the places I've read some of these arguments is in relation to Sheryl Sandberg - that overlooks the contribution of other women to her career. I also think this board has made me realise I am pretty much radical . Maybe that's why. I agree with your paragraph
"Radical feminism is more concerned with changing the entire system; it wants not just to balance out inequality between the sexes but to try to eradicate it entirely. To a radical feminist, therefore, the system of wealthier women employing (exploiting) poorer women is a problem, whereas to a liberal feminist it is not."

I'm finding it really interesting, Fela, and I'm learning a lot (which I always enjoy). So thank you for starting the thread: bold choice.

To a radical feminist, therefore, the system of wealthier women employing (exploiting) poorer women is a problem, whereas to a liberal feminist it is not

Still does not answer the question of why a woman employing another woman =exploitation. I could understand, although not agree with, the idea that all low paid work or even all work is exploitative.

Thanks, Fela - and thank you for starting an interesting thread.

Lass, yes - I actually agree with that point.

Unlike you, I do buy the idea that work, especially low paid work, is generally exploitative, but I think that the particular argument in the OP - i.e., that there is something uniquely exploitative about women employing women to do childcare or cleaning - i.e., that it is worse than any other combination of men/women employing (?exploiting) men/women - is inaccurate, and set up as (false) paradox to undermine (liberal) feminism.

The idea that women exploiting women being the greatest sin depends on a belief that there is some sort of fundamental sisterhood that links all women due to a shared oppression. Does liberal feminism buy into this theory? It seems to be a cornerstone of radical feminism (although it could be a misinterpretation on my part).

Grim Its not sisterhood for me but more the ethics of talking about my own oppression while simultaneously taking advantage of my privilege over someone else (Omg what a horrific tumblresque sentence that is). It makes me feel very uncomfortable.
I do think the exploitation of working class women is greater due to everything discussed here. Mechanics / builders/ gardeners are seen as more skilled than cleaners/ child carers / house keepers and I think are paid more too.

I'm interested in the idea of sisterhood too (although it might be better on its own thread - I'd start it but not sure if it'd be a TAAT).

Things like: how does

I think most of us have longs since moved away from the notion of an undifferentiated mass of 'sisterhood' which automatically bestows a seamless political innocence

work with

feminism is by definition based on some degree of solidarity among women?

Is this about an underlying solidarity but recognising that some of us are in very different social and class-based positions? What does this look like in practice?

Is this in fact you're talking about OP - the feeling that you're letting down other women in some way because capitalism creates a fundamental inequality that you believe to be unjust? That your status as a feminist means you should be better at mitigating this?

Mechanics / builders/ gardeners are seen as more skilled than cleaners/ child carers / house keepers and I think are paid more too

Some of these things are not like the others. You do have to study to be a mechanic. That's not true of any other role you mention: even childcare, which is highly skilled, features plenty of childminders without formal qualifications. There are loads round my way. So it doesn't particularly surprise me that a mechanic is seen as more skilled or that they're paid more. Qualifications can do that. There are some builders who would also fall into this category.

So I think the more appropriate comparison for traditionally 'male' roles would be drivers rather than fixers of vehicles, and decoraters rather than builders of houses. Because care of children and cleaning are things that most households take care of themselves, most people can clean a house just as most people can paint one. And yet society probably does see painting and decorating as more skilled than cleaning, yes, so the former probably get paid more. The question to ask ourselves is, why?

And yet society probably does see painting and decorating as more skilled than cleaning, yes, so the former probably get paid more. The question to ask ourselves is, why?

There's skilled cleaning and less skilled cleaning too.
The everyday cleaner at my workplace is likely to be low paid. He vacuums, mops, dusts, wipes, etc. Yes, some people are hopeless at it and some people are better, but I wouldn't say it was skilled.
The company that comes to clean the interior and exterior windows and glass, I would say is more skilled and required more specialist equipment. I would guess the guy (in our case) who does that earns more.

Doesn't the cleaning question also have an element of self-employed (setting own prices) versus employed? Our window cleaners earn £7 for 10 minutes' work. There's a bloke with a dustbin-cleaning machine vehicle (no idea what it's called!) who earns £10 per fortnight per household. Contrast with, say, a school caretaker presumably on NMW.

Aunt - I guess you could reconcile them by emphasising the 'some degree' and possibly downgrading 'solidarity' to 'common cause'. After all, history is littered with examples of political movements aiming communally for one particular thing, despite their members disagreeing on plenty of others - hence the way revolutions etc often subsequently break down into infighting.

So long as feminism is seen essentially as a large interest group - i.e., something which all (/many) women are pursuing because it benefits each of them individually (though possibly to varying degrees) - then this is not really problematic.

I think where the inconsistency creeps in is when feminism takes on a moral aspect, which it actually does in most people's arguments - even liberal feminists rarely see their motivation as pure self-interest. At this point it becomes problematic because the ethical arguments for feminism are largely based in doctrines of rights, and the same arguments that support women's rights also tend to support the extension of rights to other underprivileged groups. So, in this view, there is a logical inconsistency in being a feminist but not worrying about other inequalities.

Which I am guessing is what Felas means here:

"the ethics of talking about my own oppression while simultaneously taking advantage of my privilege over someone else… makes me feel very uncomfortable."

I think the position that support for one underprivileged group logically entails support for others is correct. (I am also pro a more radical and less capitalist version of feminism because I am not convinced that the issues of invisible and emotional labour can be resolved within the capitalist system, and other reasons, but this is wandering from the point).

However, practically, I worry that the 'support for one disadvantaged group entails support for all' line of thought leads to an absurd situation in which you are not allowed to try to make any efforts to change the social system unless you are addressing every conceivable inequality with in it, which paralyses any change at all (essentially the move that the 'women shouldn't hire cleaners' argument in the OP is trying to make). On the other hand, still thinking practically, the risk of pursuing liberal feminist objectives without addressing other inequalities - so hiring the cleaner etc - is that it alienates poorer, or otherwise disadvantaged, women who (probably correctly) perceive themselves to be benefiting only marginally from feminist advances, while those advances give major benefits to women who are exploiting them in other ways. (See that extremely instructive thread a while back about women of colour and their attitudes to feminism).

That's my take on it anyway.

Felascloak, coming to this late and skim reading (I admit) - I don't think it's so much that you were being attacked, nor that this is a squabble between liberal feminism and radical feminism. I think you're bringing here (sincerely, for all the right reasons) an attack on feminism, by patriarchal media. I think it's that simple. I think there is a certain level of impatience with it, because it's a canard, but not with you.

"practically, I worry that the 'support for one disadvantaged group entails support for all' line of thought leads to an absurd situation in which you are not allowed to try to make any efforts to change the social system unless you are addressing every conceivable inequality with in it, which paralyses any change at all "

Yes, that is the point of this line - we are supposed to feel too guilty to continue to attempt to make changes. It is supposed to preserve the patriarchal status quo. This is the point of this argument - not to liberate low paid workers into richer, happier lives - but to make sure that women as a class are too hamstrung by guilt to change anything.

Indeed. There's also the point that women disadvantaged by both their sex and other factors such as race, class, religion etc will be experiencing some of that oppression from people they love. That is, the men in their own communities. I have some limited experience of this myself, and what I found was that it's much easier to hate the oppression perpetrated by people you don't live with and cherish. That is, by women who are more privileged than you rather than the men in your own community. This doesn't hold true for all non-sex based forms of disadvantage, for example a disabled woman doesn't necessarily have male family members who are also disabled. But for women who also deal with racism, sectarianism, class disadvantage etc, they probably do. So this is a part of the reason why many liberation movements, whilst justified and righteous, end up being very patriarchal.

BS, part of ethical factories is that each employee works fewer hours and the quotas for production are reduced. It isn't about employing fewer people but about each person producing less.

Almond This still increases the price of the goods and reduces demand. Overall production will fall, so less workers needed.

Not sure why employing anyone on NMW is exploiting them - we all pay people to do things we cannot or do not want to do, and work doing things we need to be paid for because we would not do them for free.

Also not sure, when looking at 'unpaid' work - if a SAHM, for example, is supported by her husband, is he not 'paying' her?

Production has already fallen by capping working hours per person.

Is it exploitation if I pay the nanny more than I earn myself? She is doing pretty well financially and isnt very experienced.

most people can clean a house just as most people can paint one. And yet society probably does see painting and decorating as more skilled than cleaning, yes, so the former probably get paid more. The question to ask ourselves is, why?

I'd put painting and decorating into the skilled category. It's quite easy to make a mess and you need proper tools. For example houses in my street need internal scaffolding. There is no way husband and I could paint or decorate. And it's so time consuming- cleaning can always be a make do effort - if you can't be bothered one day - you can have another go another day.

Child care seems on the one hand incredibly hard and on other one of the easiest things in the world as billions of people do it and most don't make too much of a fist of it.

So to answer your question there is a smaller pool of people who know how to paint and decorate a room with 15' ceilings than know how to keep a small child happy, safe and entertained whilst parents are at work or know how to clean a kitchen.
Obviously there are carers working with special needs and specialist cleaners which are a different case.

Having said that my nannies were far more qualified than me to look after a baby and they had the papers to prove it.

Also not sure, when looking at 'unpaid' work - if a SAHM, for example, is supported by her husband, is he not 'paying' her?

Supported is probably the wrong word but yes I agree. If one partner is working full time outside the home and the other is taking care of the home and children then presumably the income is treated as shared household income. I appreciate it that might not always happen in practice but that is an issue between the parties concerned.

Actually I think childcare - of babies and small children - is abominably difficult. I think it demands incredible endurance PLUS incredible subtlety and various forms of intelligence and understanding.

I think that people who think it is easy are possibly terrible* at it. I think the world is awash with damaged adults who were not brilliantly looked after as children by parents of the 70s and 80s who didn't really actively think about whether they wanted children, or make many personal sacrifices of time and energy to look after them in emotionally sustaining ways.

*actually let's break this down a bit. I think men who think childcare is easy are probably terrible at it. they probably dick about on their phones rather than engage properly with the child, they probably don't cook decent food and pull things out of the freezer if left to do tea, they probably don't observe clues about tiredness and so on and trigger meltdowns, they probably don't even attempt to multi task on the things like laundry and tidying and food shopping that are the back drop to a comfortable life for the child.

women who think childcare is easy are likely to be trying really bloody hard and beating themselves up about how hard they find it because they have internalised messages that it should be trivially easy

HowBadIsThisPlease: "Actually I think childcare - of babies and small children - is abominably difficult. I think it demands incredible endurance PLUS incredible subtlety and various forms of intelligence and understanding."

I so agree. I was shocked by how hard it was. I often tell people that I felt like a caterpillar/butterfly: my entire psyche sort of melted and was then re-formulated by the parenting process.

(And the rest of your post has made me laugh and smile wryly at the same time. )

Howbadis I think that is an incredibly sexist comment. Both men and women can be good or rubbish parents. In some way looking after your own children is far better than earning a living, due to love, nurture, seeing them grow and achieve and in other ways can be as harder.
The truth is both parents (in a non-abusive relationship with shared finances and shared household chores) are normally jealous of the other because the grass is greener - regardless of who does the majority of 'homework'.
I see the difficulty is that the conversation who does what and expectations is not had before the pregnancy and often women settle for a worse position - no idea why.

That is a really sexist comment Howbad

You can go on as much as you like about how difficult looking after a child is - it doesn't alter the fact billions of people, men and women, manage with no special need for qualifications.

Hard =/= requires qualifications

You will like it on FWR, Howbad.