needs comparable objective conditions of being before a subjective unity is
likely. Traditionally (under capitalism) working class men depend directly
on the bourgeoisie, while working class women depend directly on those
working class men for their bread and status.>> Maggie: Historically, this is rather simplistic. I have gone back over nineteenth century labor records in the USA, and in reality the first waged labor force in the USA was the vast majority FEMALE, both married and unmarried. Young women worked in the factories, while 45-75% of New England households engaged in outwork, with almost 100% if those outworkers being women who engaged in both their family duties and waged work simultaneously within the home. So, yes, the male breadwinner earned most of the income, but women have always been significant contributors to household incomes. Historically in the USA, this was hidden by the fact that prior to the Civil War, married women were not LEGALLY ENTITLED TO COLLECT THEIR OWN WAGES -- THESE WAGES WERE PAID HUSBANDS. Further, the high rate of heterosexual marriage in this country was a pattern which only began in the 1950s. F'rinstance, 13% of all women born in massachusetts 1820-30 never married, and there was a very, very high rate of widowhood and abandonment. By the 1840s, it could be postulated that over a third of all adult women were not receiving income from a paternal home!!! By 1830, 1/3 of all freed black households in Philadelphia were headed by women. (I can supply references for all this if anyone is interested).
I think rather than say women relied on working class men, it is safer to say that working class men and the upper classes of capitalism SHARED women's labor and they both received surplus from that labor.
Rob:
>>This strikes me as a
significantly different locale in the relations of production. This helps
explain socialism's less than auspicious record on gender issues (we don't
even remember Clara Zetkin) and I'd like to posit the theory that working
class solidarity, the logical guts of Marxian change, won't come about
until women fight the same battle as men.>>>
Maggie: I realize you don't mean this to be insulting, but your ignorance of history is showing. NONE of the earliest walkouts, strikes, and labor unions in the United States involved men. Early labor history in the USA is one of women and children striking and forming unions. Granted, none of these unions survived very long, and the longer standing ones were destroyed by the Civil War, but in fact women workers in the US have a longer history of struggle against capital than men. Norman Ware in the Industrial Worker hypothesises that this is because women were wage workers with no aspirations due to the legal and social limits on women's rights to own property or run businesses. The few men who did work for wages, did so seasonally as an adjunct to agricultural labor, or were crafts with aspirations to small shop ownership. Men do not begin striking and walking out until 20 years after women. Historys about this can be found in some of Thomas Dublin's work, Mary Blewett, Mary Ryan, Norman Ware, etc.
In short, women have a very long and honorable history as labor fighters, men and leftists just don't recognize it.
maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com
p.s. if you integrate race analysis with the role of women in the labor market, women's permanent involvement in wage labor becomes even more striking. F'rinstance, in the 20th century black women's labor force participation has never officially fallen below 40% AND THOSE STATISTICS DO NOT INCLUDE DOMESTIC LABOR.