Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 19 Nov 2015 04:34 AM PST
By Selma James. Women face a dilemma. If we do the caring, men do not become carers with us but consumers of the care we provide. And if we refuse to care, those who need care suffer neglect and worse. [The recent] Global Women’s Strike’s international women's conference in London made visible a growing women's movement, of those who do most of this reproductive, caring work. Women do two thirds of the world’s work, and most of it is unwaged. The experiences shared with others from many parts of the world, including Canada, Greece, Haiti, India, Ireland, Palestine, Peru, Romania, New Zealand, Norway, Thailand and the US, included the ways they fight for the right to be carers, but at the same time not to be impoverished, overworked, isolated, exploited and even demeaned for doing this work. Our central demand is for a living wage for all workers, including mothers and other carers. Marxists may have incorporated into their thinking some of the considerations of the unwaged work of reproduction almost always done by women, but they have not often understood all the implications, and are weakest in appreciating the struggle over this work in a political, that is, an anti-capitalist way. In fact, the struggle by women – as mothers, as nurses, and other care workers – is based on challenging the uncaring market. We struggle against the market fetishism that governments ask us to worship: the idea that the uncaring market is central to survival. This is the exact opposite of the truth. Marx did not forget the crucial process: the production of labour power. In ‘Capital Volume One’ he described "the production and reproduction of that means of production so indispensible to the capitalist: the labourer himself". But he didn't know so early in industrial capitalism's history that capitalism would not always be able to take the reproduction of labour power for granted. One reason he didn't see this reproductive work as part of the struggle was that so little of it was being done when the whole family was in the factory working 12 or 14 hours a day from an early age. That is why working class life expectancy was so tragically short in 19th century England. At the time, there was not yet a powerful women's movement, which could for example, organise a Birth Strike, as happened in the early 20th century. The invisibility of women's care hides the impact on the whole society when women are driven out to work with the ethos that stacking shelves in a supermarket is work but that those caring for the new-born are (in Tony Blair's word) "workless". But why should waged work for capital by anyone be the priority, especially for those of us who are anti-capitalist? It is at this moment, when millions of women in industrial countries are exhausted by the double day and many more millions of subsistence farmers find it even harder with climate change to feed their families, that payment for caring work is forcing its way onto the agenda. Justice work is an even more hidden extension of caring work. ‘Mothers, daughters, sisters, wives fighting for our loved ones' lives’ reads the slogan, held on banners at protests against deaths in custody, stop-and-search, detention and deportation of immigrants and refugees. Women everywhere are doing justice work against every discrimination and in situations of occupation and war. We cannot avoid addressing the growing split in feminism. The 13 per cent of women for whom the movement is primarily a career ladder for their ambition have defined anti-sexism as their struggle to rise in the class hierarchy. And when they do rise, little or nothing changes for those of us who are left at the bottom. Our conference heard about new important research on the "golden skirts", in the professions, the boardrooms and government. As with every movement, some from the sectors the movement form to liberate have risen. But all this means is that the well paid ruling stratum is slightly more diverse. Recent figures show that boardrooms in top FTSE companies have 26 per cent women. A recent report is pressing for 30 per cent in the next 10 years. This is liberation for the few and sexism (and racism) for the many. Carers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose. You have a living wage and a caring world to win. Selma James is founder of the International Wages for Housework Campaign and the co-ordinator of Global Women’s Strike. A version of this article appeared in OpenDemocracy on 17 November 2015.  |
| Posted: 19 Nov 2015 03:21 AM PST
By Maya Goodfellow. When a tragedy strikes, the people convinced they know the solution to the situation are the ones who shout the loudest. They have a clear idea of the right approach and the wrong one. They don't hesitate, they know. Friday's horrific attacks in Paris have produced this reaction: Britain should bomb ISIS in Syria. Words of caution are branded as radical. It's no surprise that Jeremy Corbyn's different approach to the dark situation has prompted a strong backlash. The Labour leader has suggested that taking part in an already sizeable bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria could make the horrendous situation in the region even worse. Corbyn isn't suggesting inaction. He isn't saying he wouldn't support military intervention under any circumstances. What he is saying is that this is an incredibly complicated situation that needs a thoughtful response. In doing so, he's attempting to bring nuance to an area of policy that has long been dominated by pro interventionists. Challenging that well-entrenched militaristic argument is an attempt to shift the wider debate, it's not an easy feat and judging by reactions to his comments it's not a welcome one within the political sphere. But it matters, and it should be heard. Last week Sky News made the lazy choice to hang a story on unnamed critics giving Corbyn the moniker 'Jihadi Jez' for questioning conventional wisdom on the extrajudicial killing of Mohammed Emwazi and pointed out that shoot to kill poses 'clear danger to us all'. That doesn't put Corbyn among the ranks of the terrorists, nor does it imply that he doesn't want to deal with terrorism, as the much-needed clarification he gave to Labour's National Executive Committee indicated yesterday. He's bringing complexity to the conversation. After all, shoot to kill is a policy that resulted in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, arguing for it to be used with caution shouldn't be seen as a foray into the political wilderness. Plans to contribute to the bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria aren't a question of crude binaries. A knee-jerk military response won't stop the civil war in Syria and ignores the safety of the 500,000 civilians in Raqqa. Corbyn's opposition to a non-UN sanctioned bombing campaign isn't that of a fringe "hard left" politician; numerous others – including the Foreign Affairs Committee – have warned against airstrikes Syria, which could play into Isis's hands by fuelling radicalisation. The West's bloody and largely unsuccessful history of intervention should send a message of caution. What should be galling to us all is that the government turns a blind eye to regional players, like their ally, the Saudi Arabian regime, which have played a poisonous role in the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. This is an issue that Corbyn and others have raised time and again but one that has been pushed to the side-lines of the debate so that the British arms industry can continue to profit from one of their biggest clients. To imply that people sceptical about contributing to airstrikes in Syria don't care about combating terrorism or that they live in a fantasy land is a bad way of forming foreign policy; insult and disengagement doesn't help to achieve the most robust response to a crisis. British foreign policy is full of contradictions that are wilfully ignored in favour of a slick soundbite; Corbyn is offering another side to this politics. If we're all in agreement over just how serious a threat ISIS is, then surely it warrants a nuanced response. So far, bombing has had limited success, so why not at least listen to other ways of approaching this horrific situation without screaming that people like Jeremy Corbyn are a threat to national security. A version of this article appeared on the LabourList website on 18 November 2015.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |