Janice Turner: women as cheap "unskilled" labour (aka carers)

[Lamahaha]

This is a topic dear to my heart. I'm glad it's close to Janice's too.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/how-dare-they-call-care-workers-unskilled-b83mzbch9

That's a huge theoretical 'if' - I very much doubt climate change will cause the end of mechanisation, other technology and women's education.

Sure, but consider it a thought experiment. Does it mean equality for women, respect for women as equal in dignity to men, is wholly dependent of achieving a certain level of technology?

If so, it's not reasonable, for example, to criticise people living in the past for supposedly sexist attitudes or practices. Women by nature are not equal from that perspective. It's only since the 60's that really reliable birth control became widely available, that is a blip in human history.

If you look at it on a longer timescale, maybe the 'blip' was the rise of patriarchal, hierarchical social structures which needed a lot of labour/fighters following the invention of agriculture.

Does it mean equality for women, respect for women as equal in dignity to men, is wholly dependent of achieving a certain level of technology?

Respect and dignity are not dependent on technology. Black men and women in the Antebellum South were physically and intellectually a match for their white counterparts but were treated as chattel, and technology didn't end this, changes in law did.

Equality of opportunity may well require technology to meaningfully achieve. For example, I can't lift as much as a man but a lifting aid can render that strength difference moot.

In terms of job equality, I'm increasingly thinking that female inequality in terms of pay and job status is because "women's work" is devalued. We should fix the structural problem by revaluing "women's work" higher, not try to fix the women by e.g. pushing them into STEM.

If you look at it on a longer timescale, maybe the 'blip' was the rise of patriarchal, hierarchical social structures which needed a lot of labour/fighters following the invention of agriculture.

Yeah, I'm not convinced there is much strong evidence for this reading of history. It's a bit of a romantic invention IMO.

Respect and dignity are not dependent on technology. Black men and women in the Antebellum South were physically and intellectually a match for their white counterparts but were treated as chattel, and technology didn't end this, changes in law did.

Certainly, but I am very much thinking in terms of women specifically. Women's lives overall have had a very different curve than mens, almost entirely due to the demands of childbearing and nursing. Exceptions often were women who did not marry and have children.

There is a strain of feminism that has tended to say that freedom for women is only possible under certain technological conditions, and is very focused on making women more like men - so for example you have some feminist businesswoman who argues breastfeeding is bad for women because it ties women down to children and keeps them from working as much as men. Some of these people get very into the transhumanist approach too.

I tend to think we need to look at social structures that can accommodate that kind of difference while still being materially stable and recognised as important and worthwhile. Which, to a large extent, can look a lot like like a fairly traditional extended family structure.

Capitalism however prefers what we have now, and that's a real barrier, and I'm sorry to say that feminism has sometimes been an enabler for increasing the reach of capitalism.

Now, I personally disagree with this on a pretty deep level, but I also am willing to accept that in many instances, a culture that respects men and women equally may have a social structure that does not treat them in the same way, or their daily lives etc could look quite different. Their choices may not be identical, there may be trade offs they have to make that aren't the same as the ones men make.

is very focused on making women more like men

I know two couples who've adopted bottle-feeding because it makes the man able to feed. Arguably, that makes him more like a woman.

Reproductive biology is the one thing we can't alter and again the solution is to revalue the caring work more highly. Not having children at all is an individual solution and doesn't scale because the State will not allow it to (see also: Romania's birth control and abortion ban under Ceaușescu).

I'm sorry to say that feminism has sometimes been an enabler for increasing the reach of capitalism.

Marx and Engels saw the exploitation of women's reproductive labour as essential to capitalism and the nation-state, using women's bodies and work to create more citizens, more consumers, and more workers. It's the market forces of capitalism that have driven the commoditisation and exploitation of women's bodies through commercial surrogacy, pornography, and prostitution.

Radical feminists are standing against this exploitation of women's bodies.

^a culture that respects men and women equally may have a
social structure that does not treat them in the same way^

You're right here. Sometimes, treating people identically is
grossly unfair. If I build a building with 30 steps to get to the
front door, I'm treating everyone identically by requiring them
to climb the steps, but that's very unfair to elderly people and
wheelchair users.

Quite often though we assess the success of our structures based on equal outcomes, which isn't necessarily reasonable. If there are fewer women in some sectors, for example. If we accept that will happen it becomes much more difficult to see where there are real inequalities, but the other option seems to be trying to push everyone into some predetermined slots in order to make up numbers, whether they like it or not. I don't see that as very successful as an approach.

I like Marx generally, and I think it's true women do perform the necessary reproductive labour for society. Though that also means for themselves, women are also dependent on society as a whole. Actually I think that's a problem that reflects a similar issue in Marxism generally.

If we accept that will happen it becomes much more difficult to see where there are real inequalities

Not necessarily. If we see a sexed pay gap and also see women over-representated in some jobs but under-represented in others, that strikes me as grounds to assess whether the salaries paid in those jobs are fair. Paying people less than we should is a real inequality. Which brings us back to Turner's point that care work is more skilled than most people think and is undervalued and underpaid. I add to that that care work is female-dominated and hence will contribute to the nation's sexed pay gap.

This debate reminds me of the early days of coding. Women were initially seem as ideal for it as it was a sideways step from typewriting and diction, requiring little strength and attention to detail.

Then men got more interested in doing the work. The status and the pay went up, whilst strangely, the amount of women went down. To the point where we are trying to encourage them back into a "male" industry.

It's systematic.

Not necessarily. If we see a sexed pay gap and also see women over-representated in some jobs but under-represented in others, that strikes me as grounds to assess whether the salaries paid in those jobs are fair

We can also see if the relative salary for a profession changes when the sex distribution changes.

There are two relevant petitions on change.org right now. We're not allowed to link from here, but one's called Care workers need to be seen as skilled professionals (referring to immigration points) and the other is Carers and Support Workers to be paid MINIMUM £10 An Hour. I'm glad to see that awareness of the skilled nature of care work goes beyond FWR.

Suggest you start a thread with a clear title containinglinks to these petitions, it may pick up some interest before it gets shuffled off to the Petitions and Activism board. The trick then is to keep bumping it often enough that it makes Active Convos.

I'm not sure MNHQ actively look for petitions on other boards if no one is arse enough to report threads which exist on one relevant board and are not spam.

Realistically though how can carers ever be paid a wage that recognises their skill level when their wages rely on individuals to pay them?

An elderly relative died last year in a nursing home and was paying £1000/ week in fees. Her house was sold to pay for it. If £4000/month/resident isn't enough to pay the carers a living wage then how high will fees have to be?

I honestly think that the only way to pay carers a fair wage is for care to be socialised and the tax payer pays.

that strikes me as grounds to assess whether the salaries paid in those jobs are fair.

Yes, I think so, but many people would say that having unbalanced sexes in different sectors is a problem in itself.

Beyond that though, I think pay gaps are tricky to assess. When you look at how they typically group occupations for example, they often have significant differences. Or how to account for different patterns of employment. There are some patterns for sure that are questionable but typical pay gap charts are not IMO very good at revealing that.

Caring jobs though I'd look at a bit differently. They were relatively late to be commercialised, and part of the reason I think is the economics don't work out all that well. It's similar to the economics of hiring for your domestic work. Even when you socialise those roles, many public sector jobs are paid less than their private sector equivalents.

It's also.important to consider that care fees, where payable, are met by selling the person's home. How many generations is that going to be sustainable for? Likely only for one more and so how will we meet the costs after the next 25 years or so?

Are we going to have to have a huge rethink as a society and go back to elderly parents being cared for by their children?

Are we going to have to have a huge rethink as a society and go back to elderly parents being cared for by their children?

In the end it comes down to, someone has to care for the people who need care. It might be a good thing if we stopped thinking of it as something we'd prefer to get out of.

Considering the impact provision of care has on those doing it, that seems optimistic.

This could be turned around perhaps but only for those with relatives who have houses/money. Women or families who look after their relatives could charge them just as if they were going into a home. If the relative moves in with them then surely they could charge them rent and caring fees. This is exactly as it woud be in a care home except your are keeping the money in the family.

sewingsinger

There are some jurisdictions where this happens I believe. One downside I know is that you can get a fair number of instances of financial abuse of elders with some of these situations.

It might be a good thing if we stopped thinking of it as something we'd prefer to get out of.

How do you propose to do this? You can't make yourself want to do something.

How do you propose to do this? You can't make yourself want to do something.

What we value as a culture, what we think of as important, even things like how we conceptualise or proritise relationship, work, community, make a difference to haw we feel about tasks we do.

There is a lot of emphasis on getting out of certain things that are unpleasant - work that is physical for example, work where we serve others, domestic tasks. We often see them as getting in the way of real life, important things. We spend a lot of time setting these things up so we don't have to do them, or even try to avoid seeing others do them.

What we value as a culture, what we think of as important, even things like how we conceptualise or proritise relationship, work, community, make a difference to haw we feel about tasks we do.

As a culture, we treat people who are single or don't have children as deficient, yet there are plenty of people out there who, despite that social pressure, refuse to marry or have children. Some people feel so strongly about things that no amount of cultural value will change their view.

I've had really bad jobs and have tried to talk myself into liking them. Both times, it resulted in workplace suicide attempts. I still carry the scar from the self-electrocution attempt. Even with the threat of unemployment and homelessness, I could not make myself like the work I was doing. Some people just are not suited to some types of work.