Owen Jones on Twitter today

[Bouledeneige]

twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1260134887165739009?s=21

A tweet that middle class people should pay their cleaner to not work quickly descended into 'rich women paying poor women to clean their homes.' So frustrating the casual sexism. Why is it assumed women are responsible for cleaning their homes and not men. Most working women who can afford a cleaner do so because they have 3 jobs - their work, their childcare and their household. Why aren't the men they are married to taking more household responsibility?

Please can I be cheeky / too lazy to deal with it all and ask someone to summarise Sarah Ditum's take? If not too much trouble? Thanks

This - from Goosefoot -" "People who think having a cleaner is exploitative better all be marxists. All of them. Seriously working for the revolution.

Hmm. Does that go for all criticisms of inherent exploitative forces in capitalism? Like if I want to be critical because westerners depend on workers in poor conditions in far off countries where we don't have to look for them, I have to be fighting for the revolution and also never shop at Walmart?"

It is absolutely cool and legit and good for all leftists to criticise the particular conditions of any particular job in its given circumstances. But with domestic cleaners, it's not "pay them right" or "treat them with respect" or "honour their expertise" - or, if / when it is, I completely agree. It's - "this job shouldn't exist". THAT is specific, or at least particular to domestic cleaners, and anyone making that argument had also better be arguing that his next door neighbour doesn't have the right to own a newsagent, still less employ a paper boy, and that his dentist shoudln't have a practice, or a DSA, or a receptionist.

Which is not to say they aren't legitimate positions.

But "pay your receptionist and cleaner fairly!" are entirely different positions from "pay your receptionist fairly! And don't have a cleaner! It's immoral!"

deydododatdodontdeydo

'rich women paying poor women to clean their homes.'

I've seen that opinion expressed on here, though, by feminist women

Indeed and it is every bit as tedious as anything Owen Jones has to say.

This - from Goosefoot -" "People who think having a cleaner is exploitative better all be marxists. All of them. Seriously working for the revolution

Absolutely.

I didn't read the whole thing as I lost the will to live but, from what I saw, Sarah Ditum doesn't even have a cleaner. What she was objecting to - mainly as a parent - was OJ's claim that because of lockdown we all had a lot more free time and could therefore clean our own homes.

She may have said other stuff later - that I don't know.

So I just need to say I can't stand OJ on other opinions - but thats because of trans issues.

My question is if we disapprove of women hiring nannies, childminders, and cleaners then by extension we think that they should stay at home and not work, look after children and clean the house so their men can work. What's the difference? Except it assumes that house cleaning and child rearing are women's jobs not mens. Fuck off. Women can have careers too and that includes caring for other people's children and cleaning their houses. All are decent choices if they are paid fairly. And that means women as well as men being paid fairly so they can pay their childcare and cleaners fairly.

But my point about the twitter feed was that men assume rich women pay cleaners. ie Cleaning is women's work transfered to other women by payment. Where are the men in this equation? Are they not responsible for cleaning too? Why would they rather pay women to do it?

But "pay your receptionist and cleaner fairly!" are entirely different positions from "pay your receptionist fairly! And don't have a cleaner! It's immoral!"

I think what happens with this is that people misunderstand the nature of the argument. It's not really about working conditions as such. It has to do with wage work, and the expansion of capitalism into more and more areas of life. The very wealthy always paid people to do all kinds of things for them, but most people have done all different kinds of "home" work for themselves. By the mid 20th a lot of that was what was considered women's work.
But over time the drive has always been to monetise more and more areas of life, because that benefits the people at the top in capitalism only if you pay for work can some of that pay go to an employer. So when women began to work in the workforce in greater numbers, that normalised a significant up-tick in work that was done for pay - the childcare sector for example but over time all kinds of other things too.

So the tension was - is this all about freedom for women to work and earn, as individuals? Is it about women becoming more independent, as a class? Or is it about furthering the hold of capital on working people? And of the latter is true, you can see that causes a problem with saying it creates freedom for women as a class, because it will tend to disadvantage working class women. So it becomes a question of individualism as well.

Let's not forget this, from a few months ago

I never understood the idea that women can't clean for other women. Or that cleaning is something so dreadful as to not be an honorable profession. Women's work is so foul, so disgusting that it becomes politicised in a way that Men's work doesn't.

What the fuck is it with cleaning that politicises it? It's just the act of making stuff less dirty.

Why is that a female act?

Ash Sarkar tweeted this: “ Final word: maybe - just maybe! - if these women got half as angry at their shitty husbands as they do Owen Jones' tweets, they'd find their houses were a bit tidier.”

Can’t they see how sexist this is? As if it’s women’s job to force their husbands to contribute to the housework and women’s fault if those men do nothing. So many women try for years to get their partners to pull their weight before giving up and getting a cleaner.I can’t believe all the people applauding this outright mysogyny. They really believe this is women’s work.

Of course they can't Gloria, that would make it real, I always thought I was considered to be as good as a man until I realised they didn't consider me as good as them. No matter how hard I tried and well I did, I could beat them over and over and I was always considered an anomaly an oddity.

Never an equal.

You’re right. To see it coming from the insufferably woke is infuriating. They don’t even try to hide their contempt.

The solution, clearly, lies in the women changing the men's behaviour rather than the men having the slightest responsibility for changing it themselves. Couldn't be spelled out more clearly. This, unfortunately, is the problem the Left has with women and domestic labour. They started out with a legitimate point worthy of discussion and then shat all over it.

So Ash Sakur thinks it’s women’s work to police men at home? what a tool.

Ha, I wasn't aware who Ash Sarkar was, I stupidly assume (never assume!) that is was a daft bloke being sexist. Nope, it's a woman. Shows how ingrained sexist ideas are and how we are nowhere near free of them.

Or please tell me I found the wrong Ash Sarker?

Why can I only see my typos after I hit post?

I believe Ash Sarkar was the one who famously asked, in glorious Life of Brian fashion, what Julie Bindel had ever done for women in prison.

Yes, Ash Sarkar decided that Julie Bindel's professed concern about women in prison couldn't be genuine. She concluded this after doing a search of Bindel's tweets which failed to turn up any references to women in prison. (If it's not on Twitter, it hasn't happened, right?)

It was left to others to point out to her Bindel's long history of real-life campaigning for female prisoners, including co-founding Justice for Women.

Dunning Kruger journalist, our Ash.

I believe Ash Sarkar was the one who famously asked, in glorious Life of Brian fashion, what Julie Bindel had ever done for women in prison.

Oh, her! That was fun.

TBF, before her I didn't know as much about JB as I do now, so I should give her some credit.

It was left to others to point out to her Bindel's long history of real-life campaigning for female prisoners, including co-founding Justice for Women.
iirc even after having it pointed out, she didn't backtrack or delete the tweet. It's a perfect example of someone not caring whether or something is true or not, and just wanting mud to sling.

Ash Sarkar was the one who famously asked, in glorious Life of Brian fashion, what Julie Bindel had ever done for women in prison.

When did ignorance become a requirement for contributors to The Guardian?

So hiring a cleaner - bad.
Paying for sex work - fine.

I know which I'd rather do. Have never had a cleaner but have worked as one many times.

Goosefoot - this line in your post

"most people have done all different kinds of "home" work for themselves."

Is exactly what I take issue with, wrt to cleaning.

I addressed this in my first post. It is NOT the case that capitalism has corrupted noble self sufficiency with cleaning. Hiring a cleaner is in fact disrupting a status quo whereby the work is violently extorted from one class of people by another.

The very wealthy always paid people to do all kinds of things for them, but most people have done all different kinds of "home" work for themselves.

That's not really true. A century ago, lots of people employed "domestics" (mainly women) not just the very wealthy but also the middle class. Conditions for servants varied greatly and were very dependent on the employers, the potential for abuse was always there, but domestic service wasn't seen as inherently a degrading option. It was only in the mid 20th century that it became accepted that the "woman of the house" was honor-bound to do the cleaning herself regardless of whether she could afford a cleaner.

In any case, shouldn't the real question be, is it safe for cleaners to enter other people's houses right now? And if it's not safe, are there guidelines for making it so, and how can we enforce such guidelines?