#reproductive work

[iliiuan]

One question that interests me, with respect to household and reproductive labor, is how can society writ large appropriately compensate the people doing this work (who are, by vast majority, women)?

When women were farm partners, they ostensibly shared in the economic gains from the farm they worked, but I have a hard time seeing them as full and fair partners when the laws didn't allow them to own land or manage money. Even an aristocrat running the keeping of a large household didn't actually own any of it. Her access to the material benefits of her labor were at the sufferance of her husband. What did she actually own? Her jewelry, if I understand correctly.

Even the way we have things now, domestic labor is considered private and is not granted economic value, even though without it workers would be considerably less productive. In fact, most of the excuses for paying women lower wages boil down to the fact that women are reliably taking care of things at home, while men can be depended upon to leave their family in the drift while they work extra hours. So women are not only uncompensated for the work they do in the private sphere, they are not compensated equally for the work they do in the public sphere. It's a horrible double bind, with no clear way out.

What would be a reasonable way to compensate domestic work?

Should husbands be required to pay for a clean house and well-cared-for children? How would such a system be monitored? Would it help women who need to escape abuse? Would it reduce abuse? I don't think there are satisfactory answers to any of these questions.

Should companies pay women extra? (This is usually framed as paid maternity leave, extra sick time, things like that.) Is it reasonable to ask companies to absorb the expense of compensating work that doesn't increase their profits? Is the amount of compensation the women receive a match for their society level economic contribution? Do such policies limit the job and advancement opportunities for women? Again, I don't find the answers to these questions to be very satisfactory.

Should the government pay women? All workers pay taxes, all companies pay taxes, and then from that big collected pot, the unpaid wages of domestic labor get paid to the people doing the work. How can the system deal with free riders? How can the system ensure that all domestic work is compensated fairly? Do women with more children receive more money? Is there a method for measuring number of hours worked, or does everyone just get paid the same amount? I think that satisfactory answers could be found to these questions, but that the discussion would be plagued by voices who do not trust financial exchanges outside of a marketplace. (As in, people who think that the government does not exist to help even out economic disparity, who think that individuals are 100% responsible for themselves.) What's more, such a system is vulnerable to shifting political ideas. So even with satisfactory answers to the pressing policy questions, this solution is fragile at best.

The final solution is to get men to do their fair share. This is not so easy. The women I know who hold a hard line about household equality aren't married. Men facing a dating market full of women who won't put up with their shit have doubled down on how "valuable" they are, while continuing to refuse to be "emasculated." Are men really so intractable that they can't just get off their lazy fucking asses and do some fucking housework? It's unreal to witness, in both my personal life and in the emerging data showing how wide the gap is in the vast majority of households. I legitimately thought that my experience was uncommon, but I was Wrong. If men won't do what is necessary, where does that leave us? Sadly, it would appear to leave us empty handed.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Reproductive work is the basis of every human society, including capitalist society. Reproductive or care work is understood to mean all those activities that directly serve the maintenance and well-being of people, ranging from accompanying children and the elderly to cooking, housework, caring activities, and, in some definitions, gardening or repair work for personal needs, caring for nature, or subsistence farming. These activities comprise between 30 and 70 per cent of the economic output of a country, depending on the method of calculation. In a patriarchal economic system, reproductive work is in a permanent crisis because it is structurally devalued and poorly or not at all remunerated. This crisis is necessarily linked to the crisis-like development of the human–nature relationship. The permanent crisis of reproductive work can only be overcome by a different economic system that values, centres, and promotes care work. This is the prerequisite and goal of gender justice – and centring care has become a key cornerstone of degrowth.

The Future Is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism  

[bhushita]

हाउसवाइफ हामीहरू

भाद्र ९, २०७५

भूषिता वशिष्ठ

काठमाडौँ — केही दिनअघि मात्रैको कुरा हो— मेरो एक परिचितले घरमा खाना खान बोलाउनुभयो । त्यसो त मलाई खासै यस्ता जमघटमा जान मन लाग्दैन तर फोनमा उहाँको आवाजमा नजानिदो किसिमको थकान थियो । स्पष्ट आग्रह खानाको भए पनि कताकता ‘गुहार खोजे’ जस्तो गरेर उहाँले भन्नुभयो, ‘आऊ है । धेरै कुरा भन्नु छ ।’

निश्चित दिनमा म उहाँको आलिसान बंगला पुगें । बगैंचामा पंक्तिबद्ध लाममा जिरेनियम फूल फुलेका थिए । भर्खरै झरी थामिएको थियो, सिनित्त परेको अग्लो शिरीषको बोट अझ कल्कलाउँदो देखिएको थियो । घरभित्र छिरेर कोरिडोरमा राखिएको ठूलो भेनेसियन ऐना हेरेपछि यो थाहा पाएँ, हिलोका वाछिटा मेरो सेतो सुरुवालमा बिफर दागझैं खोपिएका रहेछन् । यसो नियालेर चारैतिर हेरें— मैले फोनमा जुन अव्यक्त त्रासको कल्पना गरेकी थिएँ, घरभित्र पस्दा त्यसको कुनै भानसम्म पनि थिएन । सामान्य शिष्टाचार गफ सकिएपछि उहाँले अलि हिच्किचाउँदै भन्नुभयो, ‘मलाई साह्रै आपत् छ, बुझ्यौ ? उसले फेरि मलाई पिट्न सुरु गर्‍यो ।’ उहाँले यसो भनिरहँदा मेरो आँखा हठात उहाँको देब्रे आँखामाथिको सानो खतमा अल्झियो । आलो घाउ थियो, भर्खर खत निस्किएर कलिलो मासु पलाउँदै थियो । त्यो घाउ कसरी भयो भनेर सोध्न मन थियो तर प्रश्न गलामै रोकियो ।

‘यस्तो कतिन्जेल सहने ?’ मैले मनभरि उठेका प्रश्नहरूको थानबाट सबैभन्दा कम व्यक्तिगत प्रश्न छानें । ‘उसले भनेको छ पारपाचुके गरे मलाई केही सम्पत्ति पनि दिँदैन रे । छोराहरू पढाउनु छ । त्यसै पनि मैले काम गर्न छाडेको धेरै भइसक्यो ।’

यसो भनिरहँदा उनका श्रीमान् बैठकमा बसेर टीभी हेर्दै दिए र, उनी धमाधम बोडी केलाउँदै थिइन् । बोडी धोईपखाली ओइरिंदै उनले थपिन्, ‘अब त केही गर्न सकुँला भन्ने आत्मविश्वास पनि छैन ।’

केही वर्षअघि प्रधानाध्यापक भइसकेकी मान्छेको यस्तो निराश कुरा सुनेर मलाई आफ्नै आमाको झल्को आइरहयो । बिहान पाँचै बजे उठेर रात ११ बजेसम्म एकोहोरो घरधन्दा गर्ने महिलाका बारेमा भन्नुपर्दा लोग्नेहरू भन्ने गर्छन्, ‘मेरी श्रीमती केही काम गर्दिनन्, उनी हाउसवाइफ हुन् ।’

अनायासै मेरो मनमा अर्को प्रश्न आयो, ‘काम के हो ?’ माध्यमिक तहको भौतिक विज्ञानमा पढाइन्छ, ‘कुनै ठोस वस्तुलाई कुनै निश्चित दूरीमा सार्न प्रयोग हुने बललाई काम भनिन्छ ।’ यो परिभाषाअन्तर्गत त पक्कै पनि टेबुल–कुर्सीमा बसेर काम गर्ने जागिरेभन्दा एक औसत गृहिणीले एक दिनमा बढी नै काम गर्छिन् । तर हाम्रो समाजमा कामको परिभाषा वैज्ञानिक वा प्रायोगिकभन्दा बढी आर्थिक छ ।

अहिले विश्व अर्थव्यवस्था पुँजीवादी व्यवस्था हो । यहाँ हरेक वस्तुको आर्थिक मूल्यांकन हुन्छ । लत्ताकपडा, तरकारी, चामल वा अन्य उपभोग्य वस्तुको निर्धारित मूल्य हुनु स्वाभाविकै भयो, हिजोआज त मानवीय भावनामा पनि ‘प्राइस–टयाग’ लाग्न थालेको छ । तपाईं कुनै तारे होटल जानुभयो भने अनेकन प्रकारले होटलका कर्मचारीले तपाईंको स्वागत गर्लान् । तर, भोलिपल्ट तपाईंसँग रुपैयाँ नभए तिनै कर्मचारीले तपाईंको कठालो समातेर निकालिदिनेछन् । सम्मान, सेवा, सत्कार यावत् सबैको हिजोआज मोल निर्धारित छ । तर, यस्तो चर्को मोलमलाईको युगमा पनि दासत्वको एउटा यस्तो परम्परा जीवित छ जहाँ आज पनि लाखौंलाख हामीहरू कुनै पारिश्रमिकबिना काम गरिरहेका छौं ।

कार्ल माक्र्सले भनेका थिए— पुँजीवादी व्यवस्थामा आर्थिक मुनाफा मजदुरको ज्यालाबाट काटिन्छ । एउटा मजदुरले कुनै सय रुपैयाँ मूल्य पर्ने जुत्ता बनायो भने उसलाई पचास रुपैयाँ मात्र ज्याला दिइन्छ र, बाँकी रकम पुँजीपतिको मुनाफा बन्छ । यसरी ज्याला र मूल्यबीचको विभेदले नै मुनाफा पैदा हुन्छ । तर, आफ्नो विवेचनामा उनले समाजमा विद्यमान स्थितिलाई तटस्थ नियामक माने— तीमध्ये एक नियामक थियो, ‘घरायसी काम’ । उनका अनन्य मित्र फ्रेडरिक ऐंगल्सले बरु व्यक्तिगत सम्पत्तिको अवधारणा विकाससँगै महिलाको उत्पीडन र निजीकरणको सुरुआत भएको उल्लेख गरेका छन् । औद्योगिकीकरणसँगै मनुष्यको कामको परिभाषा र बाँडफाँड अलग हुँदै गयो । औद्योगिकीकरण अगाडि महिला र पुरुषको कामको बाँडफाँड घरभित्र र घरबाहिर निर्धारित थियो ।

औद्योगिकीकरणपछि पनि यो बाँडफाँड यथावत् रहयो तर के फरक भयो भने एकथरी कामको पारिश्रमिक तोकियो, अर्कोथरी काम (घरायसी काम) लाई भने पारिश्रमिकको लायक ठानिएन । कालान्तरमा उत्तिकै काम गरेर पुरुषहरू आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक हरेक दृष्टिले सबल भए तर महिलाहरू भने पिछडिँदै गए ।

वर्गसंघर्षको मिहिन विमर्श गर्दा पनि माक्र्सले महिला र पुरुषबीचको वर्ग संघर्षलाई सही तरिकाले विश्लेषण गर्न सकेनन् । पछि गेल रुबिनजस्ता महिलावादी चिन्तकले माक्र्सको यो दृष्टिभ्रमको बारम्बार आलोचना गरेका छन् । रुबिन भन्छिन्—‘पुँजीवादी व्यवस्थाको मुनाफा ज्याला र मूल्यको असमानताले हैन, महिलाको घरायसी कामको शोषणमा आधारित छ ।’ प्राक्टिकल एक्सनको एक अध्यनअनुसार औसत नेपाली महिला दिनको ११ घण्टा काम गर्छन् जुन औसत पुरुषको दाँजोमा तीन घण्टा बढी हुन्छ । तर यसका बाबजुद उनको घरायसी कामको कुनै आर्थिक मूल्यांकन नभएका कारण मरेर काम गरे तापनि आफ्नो जीविकोपार्जन निम्ति आफ्ना पिता, पति वा पुत्रमै आश्रित हुन्छिन् । यो त भयो गृहिणी पीडा ।

अझ अफिसमा काम गर्ने महिलाहरूको दु:ख भीमकाय छ । ती महिलाले एक दिनमा ‘डबल सिफ्ट’ वा दुई दिनको काम गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यता छ । धेरैजसो महिला सशक्तिकरणका कार्यक्रम पनि यो तथ्यलाई मनन नगरी सिलाइ–बुनाइ आदि गराई महिलाको चर्को कामको भारलाई अझ लागीपरेका छन् । महिलालाई सशक्तीकरणको आवश्यकता छैन भनेर हामीले कहिल्यै बुझेनौं । महिला आफैंमा सबल, सक्षम छिन्, परिश्रमी छन् । बरु खाँचो छ— यो परिश्रमको मूल्य तिर्ने पारिश्रमिकको । जबसम्म दिनको ११ घण्टा काम गरेर पनि एक महिलाले ‘मैले केही काम गर्दिनँ’ भन्न अभिशप्त छन्, तबसम्म चैते विकासका अनेक मोडल ल्याए पनि संस्थागत पितृसत्तात्मक विभेदको अन्त्य हुन सक्दैन ।

घरायसी कामलाई आर्थिक रूपमा मूल्यांकन गर्ने हो भने मात्रै समानता वा असमानताको यो हिसाब स्पष्ट हुन सक्छ । एक गृहिणीले भार्या, सुसारे, जाया, भान्से, माली, खजान्ची, धोबी इत्यादि भूमिका निर्वाह गरिरहेकी हुन्छिन् । सिर्जनात्मक दृष्टिकोणबाट मात्रै हेर्दा पनि घरायसी धन्दा भनेको आफैंमा एउटा विराट–कला हो । चिटिक्क पारेर कोठा सजाउनु, मीठो पकवान बनाउनु, तरकारी पकाउनु, छोराछोरी हुर्काउनु, कपडा धुनु...† लौ मानिलिनुस्, यदि यी सबै कामका लागि तपाईंले छुट्टै कोही राख्नुपर्ने भए कति तलबमा त्यस्तो श्रम किन्न सकिन्थ्यो होला ? फेरि कार्यकुशलताको कुरो त आफ्नै ठाउँमा रह्यो, जो ‘ममत्व र अपनत्व’को भावसहित एक माता र भार्याले गृहस्थी सम्हाल्छिन्, त्यो ममत्वको मोल कति राख्नुपर्ला ? हो, ममत्व अमूल्य छ । यसको कुनै मोल तोक्न सकिँदैन । यद्यपि आमाको माया वा श्रीमतीको माया अमूल्य छ, मूल्यहीन हैन । हामीले भावनात्मक रूपमै पनि घरायसी कामलाई न गरिमा दिन सकेका छौं, न हाम्रा आमा–दिदीबहिनीले आफ्नो काममा आत्मगौरव महसुस गरेका छन् । यो काम केवल पुस्तैनी विरासत मात्रै हो, आर्थिक परनिर्भरता जोडिएको बिरासत । मलाई खानपिनको निम्तो दिने मेरी परिचित यदि कुनै सरकारी कार्यालयमा पियनकै रूपमा मात्र पनि दिनको ११ घण्टा खटेकी भए २४ वर्ष (उहाँको विवाह भएको २५ वर्ष भयो) मा जागिर छोड्दा पेन्सन, उपदान इत्यादि आउँथ्यो होला । तर आज पनि ‘लोग्नेले घरबाट निकालिदिए सडकमा पुगौंला’ भन्ने भय उनका मनमा छदैछ । जीवनभरको घरायसी कामले सधैं बेफुर्सद उनी ‘दास’ मात्रै बनिन्, स्वाभिमानी बन्न सकिनन् । २५ वर्ष बैंकमा काम गरेर उनका श्रीमान्ले घर कमाए, गाडी कमाए, इज्जत कमाए । तर उनले भने घरको चारचौकोसमा व्यस्ततम दैनिकी गुजारेर ‘मैले काम गरेकी छु’ भन्ने आत्मविश्वाससम्म कमाउन सकेकी छैनन् । कत्रो विडम्वना!

प्रकाशित : भाद्र ९, २०७५ ०८:३६

https://www.kantipurdaily.com/koseli/2018/08/25/153516548165028130.html

[feelingpolitical]

Perhaps its most significant contribution to the critical theory of work in the 1970s was the expansion of the category. Feminists insisted that the largely unwaged ‘reproductive’ work that made waged ‘productive’ work possible on a daily and generational basis was socially necessary labor, and tits relations were thus part and parcel of the capitalist mode of production. What had been coded as leisure was in fact work [...] Marxist feminists in the 1970s explored the means by which gender hierarchies deliver unwaged women workers to the domestic mode of reproduction while also ensuring a cheaper and more flexible secondary or tertiary waged labor force

Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries (2011), pp. 24-25

[womanontheedgeoftyne-blog]

... many of the issues that were at the origins of the women’s movement have not been resolved. In some respects the position of women has worsened. Despite the fact that more women have access to paid employment, the root causes of sexism are still in place. We still have an unequal sexual division of labor, as reproductive work remains primarily a woman’s responsibility, even when she works also outside the home, and reproductive work is still devalued in this society. Though we are less dependent on individual men, we are still subject to a patriarchal organization of work and social relations that degrades women. In fact, we have seen a re-masculinization of society with the glorification of war and the increasing militarization of everyday life. Statistics speak clearly: women have the longest work-week and do most of the world’s unpaid labor, they are the bulk of the poor, both in the US and around the world, and many are practically sterilized because they cannot afford to have children. Meanwhile, male violence against women has intensified rather than diminishing, not only at the individual level but also at the level of institutions: in the US, for instance, the number of women in jail has increased fivefold since the ‘80s.

Silvia Federici: Feminism, Finance and the Future of #Occupy - an interview with Silvia Federici by Max Haiven

[womanontheedgeoftyne-blog]

you cannot separate political militancy from the reproduction of your everyday life, in fact you must often revolutionize your reproduction relations in order to engage in the struggle

Silvia Federici: Feminism, Finance and the Future of #Occupy - an interview with Silvia Federici by Max Haiven

[womanontheedgeoftyne-blog]

How do you struggle over/against reproductive work? It is not the same as struggling in the traditional factory setting, against for instance the speed of an assembly line, because at the other end of your struggle there are people not things. Once we say that reproductive work is a terrain of struggle, we have to first immediately confront the question of how we struggle on this terrain without destroying the people you care for. This is a problem mothers as well as teachers and nurses, know very well. This is why it is crucial to be able to make a separation between the creation of human beings and our reproduction of them as labor-power, as future workers, who therefore have to be trained, not necessarily according to their needs and desires, to be disciplined and regimented in a particular fashion. It was important for feminists to see, for example, that much housework and child rearing is work of policing our children, so that they will conform to a particular work discipline. We thus began to see that by refusing broad areas of work, we not only could liberate ourselves but could also liberate our children. We saw that our struggle was not at the expense of the people we cared for, though we may skip preparing some meals or cleaning the floor. Actually our refusal opened the way for their refusal and the process of their liberation.

Silvia Federici - Precarious Labor: A Feminist Viewpoint

[womanontheedgeoftyne-blog]

Feminists in the seventies tried to understand the roots of women’s oppression, of women’s exploitation and gender hierarchies. They describe them as stemming from a unequal division of labor forcing women to work for the reproduction of the working class. This analysis was basis of a radical social critique, the implications of which still have to be understood and developed to their full potential. When we said that housework is actually work for capital, that although it is unpaid work it contributes to the accumulation of capital, we established something extremely important about the nature of capitalism as a system of production. We established that capitalism is built on an immense amount of unpaid labor, that it not built exclusively or primarily on contractual relations; that the wage relation hides the unpaid, slave -like nature of so much of the work upon which capital accumulation is premised. Also, when we said that housework is the work that reproduces not just "life," but "labor-power," we began to separate two different spheres of our lives and work that seemed inextricably connected. We became able to conceive of a fight against housework now understood as the reproduction of labor-power, the reproduction of the most important commodity capital has: the worker's "capacity to work," the worker's capacity to be exploited. In other words, by recognizing that what we call "reproductive labor" is a terrain of accumulation and therefore a terrain of exploitation, we were able to also see reproduction as a terrain of struggle, and, very important, conceive of an anti-capitalist struggle against reproductive labor that would not destroy ourselves or our communities.

Silvia Federici - Precarious Labor: A Feminist Viewpoint