Home truths for feminists
How should the work women do as mothers be rewarded?  
Selma James and Melissa Benn argue about carers and careers

Take two, Guardian, Saturday 21 February 2004

Melissa Benn is a writer and journalist whose books include Madonna and child:Towards a New Politics of Motherhood.
Selma James founded the Wages for Housework campaign in 1972 and now co-ordinates the Global Women's Strike; her most recent book is The Milk of Human Kindness.

Hi Selma,
You were probably as surpised as I was to see that Michael Howard's new model Tories are floating the idea, borrowed from Finland, that mothers should be paid to stay at home when their children are young. 

Thinking back to the 1980s when Wages for Housework campaigned so militantly for just such a proposal, and were opposed just as passionately by virtually all feminists, including my younger self, I just wondered whether you feel: victory at last? Or do you have a few sneaking worries now that the right has taken up your ideological cudgels?
Melissa

Dear Melissa,
No, I'm not surprised that the Tories are thinking of paying women. Politicians of both right and left (whatever that means now) are opportunistic, and women in all kinds of jobs have made clear they're exhausted and still underpaid. They're demanding the right to have a life, including with their children, rather than a daily marathon. Wages ? for housework, caring work, women's unwaged work generally ? is on the agenda. 

You're right: in 1972 when we began, most feminists did oppose wages for unwaged work. But working class women who were unlikely to identify as feminists never did. We were told that to be liberated, a woman had to "go to work": why couldn't a woman be more like a man? Many working class women were already struggling with a low-paid jobs on top of caring work, which hadn't liberated them one inch. We argued that this caring work, which produced the world's workers, had to be recognised: measured, valued and paid for.

Many feminists pointed to Margaret Thatcher as a role model; she pushed single mothers off benefits and "into work". Socialist feminists were keen to tell us that women's consciousness would be raised at the "point of production"; Labour used this to push mothers, starting with single mothers, off benefits and "into work". We argued: why can't a man be more like a woman!

About time we had this discussion again.
Selma

Dear Selma
The debate has moved on. Motherhood remains central to feminist thinking but the debate about work is now more sophisticated. Modern feminists, many like myself who have had children, recognise that the parent/child bond is an important one that relies on closeness. Any policy that recognises the value of caring must be an advance.

But if we're not careful, we'll be told that we're hard-wired for caring and men for earning. This, as I remember, was the major worry about Wages for Housework all those years ago, and for me, it remains. Forget Thatcher. Modern feminists insist, rightly, on the importance of mothers remaining in the work world with their hard-earned talents to contribute, and their desire to matter undiminished.

Yet it's proved much bloody harder than it should, because the structures of work have not shifted to allow both parents to care and work and yet remain recognisably human.

Isn't this a key question for our times?
Melissa

Dear Melissa,
I don't dig this work-life balance talk. What's so enriching about working in call centres? I don't think jobs men do are more important than raising children. Nor do I think women should be institutionalised as carers or men deprived of their kids. Time for a change!

Why glorify work outside the home? How many women are professionals? How many men? Most of us go out, get exploited, grab the dosh and run.
Selma

Dear Selma,
I don't think that crude divide between a few career women and the toiling masses holds true anymore. Work-life balance may sound like a new shampoo, but a lot of modern mothers, and a few dads, mix an interesting enough job ? which they may enjoy just because it gets them out of the home ? with spending time with their children.

So how can government help them do that? Extra money might just mean more dosh for consumer durables for middle England, and lower benefits for poorer women. Call me cynical, but I suspect that's the Tory agenda.

So, yes, by all means, let's pay carers, as long as men are also entitled to the money. But I'd still like more public child care, not 12-hour-a-day baby farms but something flexible like the government's Children's Centres.

All caring should earn pension credits, too. The scandal of female pensioner poverty, usually the price of a lifetime of caring for others, has gone on long enough.
Melissa

Dear Melissa,
Going to work to "get out of the home" ? can we accept living like this? Caring for people is the very stuff of life, basic to human survival, yet treated as worthless.

And class divides are strong as ever, I'm afraid. Internationally, women grow 80% of food consumed in Africa and over 60% in Asia, yet are officially "economically inactive". Any wonder that women are 70% of the world's poor?

Women in Venezuela point the way. They won Article 88 in their constitution which "recognises work at home as an economic activity that creates value ? Housewives are entitled to social security". This includes the pension you propose.

As for women wasting carers' wages on "consumer durables", it's theirs, and they can do what they damn well please with it. Men do.
Selma

Dear Selma,
I feel we're in real danger here of forgetting one of feminism's historic achievements: the recognition of womens' need to do more than take care of the home and husband. Remember the "problem that had no name": Betty Friedan's description, over 40 years ago now, of the depressed housewife? Feminism didn't demand the right for women to go out and be a wage slave. Capitalism has distorted that message. But it did put fulfillment on the agenda. Is it so very terrible to want ? to need ? time away from scuddy sinks and sticky fingers?

So I still insist on womens' right to create meaning out of their lives beyond the hugely important job of caring. And I don't think it's a class thing. I think it's a human thing.
Melissa.

Dear Melissa,
Feminists must take responsibility for urging women to get exploited in our own right! For seeing housewives (like sex workers) not as sisters but as obstacles to liberation. Friedan's "problem" not only had no name; it wasn't "work".

If women got wages for it, would we be institutionalised at home? Not in Norway or Finland. Let's have a little respect for what women will do with power.

As caring work is recognised, we win leverage, not just for careers for a few, but to create what Venezuelan women call "a caring economy, an economy at the service of human beings rather than human beings at the service of the economy".

Men in Britain have the longest working week in Europe. This is no basis for fathers' liberation. We must stop glorifying the work men do and invite them to take part in caring. If we're not segregated, demeaned, discriminated and impoverished by it, as is true with women now, caring is the most civilising work of all.
Selma

Read the full exchange at www.guardian.co.uk/comment
or on this website at www.globalwomenstrike.net/English2004/HomeTruthsfull.htm

Home