Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Exploiting women to support yourself

161 replies

Felascloak · 28/05/2016 09:11

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?

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 03/06/2016 08:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LassWiTheDelicateAir · 03/06/2016 08:40

Hard =/= requires qualifications
In the context of paid employment , yes.

How many people could do child minding as opposed to brain surgery.

grimbletart · 03/06/2016 12:55

It's difficult to define hard isn't it? Personally, if I am not very good at something e.g. I am not at all dextrous then I call things requiring dexterity hard.

If I am a natural at something (which other people who aren't would call hart) I would define it as easy.

Very subjective I know Smile

thecatfromjapan · 03/06/2016 13:59

Parenting is so interesting, isn't it? Suggesting that it may, in fact, be skilled, difficult, hard to get right, require practice, draw on various micro-skills (which are dispersed differentially throughout a population and may, themselves, require acquiring/refinement) threatens to open a veritable minefield.

For myself, I think one helpful analogy is learning how to play an instrument. It takes many hours of practice to acquire proficiency in an instrument. Many people can acquire proficiency if they put those hours in. Very few (but there are some) are limited in their ability to pick the skills up because of something innate that hampers them. Some people (very few) have an amazing aptitude. But for most people, it's about practice. And, of course, you can extend proficiency into real mastery and expertise.

When you think about it, you have a baby - and it's a shock. Some babies are quite 'easy', some are 'trickier', and some have quite complex needs. However 'easy', you have to make a series of rapid, quite profound re-adjustments. The skills are new but (relatively) simple. The biggest shift, I think, comes in altering your mindset: you have to alter your mode of being into a state of responsibility - and interpretation, I think. There's a lot more to say about this but I'm sure others have said it better.

I like Buffy's description of 'plaaning-response-re-planning'. That is so apt. It is like being in charge of establishing and/or monitoring a complex system - with no instructions.

So that goes on for a bit. And it's a bit like practising, practising, practising with an instrument. But the odd thing is, the system/instrument becomes incrementally more complex. And the skills it requires to be operated/interacted with become more complex. You scarcely notice.

The other difference between learning an instrument and parenting is that you are hugely incentivised to learn. The cost of failure is high. The margins are, mercifully, quite wide but ... emotionally, it's analogous to being forced to learn a piano by some terrifying person who is threatening to cause harm to your child if you 'fail'.

So most people don't fail. They learn fast, with high levels of competence.

By the time a child is five, say, your average mother will have put in an enormous number of hours of (highly-incentivised) practice. It's no wonder that we look as though it is 'nothing' and fairly effortless.

I suspect if many of us put in that number of hours, with that level of incentive, into brain surgery a lot of us would be pretty competent. Mind you, I think a better analogy might be with those groups of men and women who were mobilised and sent to the Front to work in field hospitals in the 1WW, being expected to pick up medical skills fast. Or the fighter pilots.

The fact that parenting is skilled work is probably less interesting to me than why this is so tricky to acknowledge; how that lack of acknowledgement limits our thinking and actions; and the thinking about what that 'skill' is comprised of.

thecatfromjapan · 03/06/2016 14:01

I was really struck by the eloquence with which HowBadIsThisPlease outlined some of those skills.

thecatfromjapan · 03/06/2016 14:09

Tying this back to the initial discussion ...

A collusive refusal to see skills and to see labour has to be the most effective tool of exploitation/oppression, surely?

If you think about Hegel's (or Marx's version thereof) master-slave dialectic, if you have both master and slave not seeing what the slave does as work, or work with no skill ... where does that leave you?

Dozer · 04/06/2016 10:01

Men (why does the OP not mention men?) and women paying for childcare are not "exploiting" other women if they pay a reasonable rate.

Do we all "exploit" others in low paid jobs like shop workers, agriculture workers? Then we should campaign to raise the MW and other things.

Staff in nurseries and nannies and cleaners are paid minimum wage or above. CMs set their rates, which can be less than the MW per child - I felt local CMs' rates were too low and offered to pay more.

Of course it's not good that a lot of low paid work is done by women - care of the elderly also comes to mind. And other slightly higher paid roles, like teaching and nursing.

bridget666 · 04/06/2016 16:21

This is to my mind the reasonable solution..you pay your cleaner or child minder a rate commensurate with the loss to you if you had to do the work..and yes..split it with your partner.

caroldecker · 04/06/2016 16:30

bridget666 But that means a couple earning £50k each will pay the cleaner/childminder £50k a year, whilst a SAHM will pay them nothing.

BonerSibary · 10/06/2016 17:37

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.

Hmm but the problem with this analogy is that you've chosen an unusually difficult aspect of painting and decorating there Lass. I mean yes, there are clearly some houses that require internal scaffolding and the like when they're being done up, but equally there are people like me who live in bog standard postwar affairs who can and do get most of the painting done themselves with no skill or training. Knowing what I do about the British housing stock, Group B are the larger group.

So yes, it's true that some painting and decorating requires particular skills and training, but equally that point could be flipped on its head by pointing out that so does some childcare. Some children have extremely complex needs. There are, for example, parents on here who've become experts in their children's medical and SN conditions and provide extremely skilled management, education etc. This sort of specialist skill and knowledge, rather than simply keeping a small child happy, safe and entertained, is the appropriate comparison: after all, if a child is NT and easily managed you could do that by throwing food at them at regular intervals and letting them go on the Ipad all day. Basically, you are not comparing like with like.

BonerSibary · 10/06/2016 17:50

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.

This won't really do though almond, because as has been pointed out, when things cost more this is inevitably going to reduce consumption. Consumption already having fallen/also falling because of reducing working hours per person doesn't change that. You are still left with some people whose livelihood was the sweatshop, who are now going to have to go for their next worst option, which by definition is worse than the sweatshop, and you either give a fuck about this or you don't. You certainly don't make things any better for them by pretending they don't exist, and this goes back to my point about how closing the sweatshops is the easy part.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page