>indeed, suggested that women's standards are a
>little too high in that regard.
Alas, Ehrenreich has changed her tune: "A little 'low-quality time' spent washing dishes or folding clothes together can provide a comfortable space for confidences -- and give a child the dignity of knowing that he or she is a participant in, and not just the product of, the work of the home" ("Maid to Order"). It seems that she has begun to think that the only circumstances that morally justify the socialization of household labor are those of people who are in "true" needs, as opposed to mere "desires" (which are perhaps "false" in the eyes of Ehrenreich): "Individual situations vary, of course, in ways that elude blanket judgment. Some people -- the elderly and disabled, parents of new babies, asthmatics who require an allergen-free environment -- may well need help performing what nursing-home staff call the "ADLs," or activities of daily living, and no shame should be attached to their dependency. In a more generous social order, housekeeping services would be subsidized for those who have health-related reasons to need them..." ("Maid to Order"). Her argument "means-tests" the socialization of household labor. Not a good idea, in my view. Also, her distinction between "true needs" and "frivolous desires" is unnecessarily anti-hedonistic.
>what she suggested recently is that we 1] stop glorifying consumerism {in
>the name of our good taste and/or pretense that we can can emblazon our
>dissent in the commodities we buy
Consumerism can't become a mode of dissent, but moralistic condemnations of consumerism make for a bad politics.
>AND 2] engage in political practices
>that might actually make some people's lives better since no one in govt
>gives a flying fuck given the dismantling of the very meager welfare state
>we once had.
In what sense is it a good political practice to argue that able-bodied adults who have no special baby- or health-related needs should be ashamed to hire commercialized household cleaning service???
>as for the b.s. comments about moralism, that's not what ehrenreich is up
>to. sure, she stings you if you at all partake in the activities she
>mentions --admiring your purchases from pottery barn or sniffing about the
>uncouth apparel worn by those who have the indignity to shop at walmart
>rather than spend their time scouring the racks of the thrift shop. but if
>that's all you see in ehrenreich and that's all you can manage to wrap
>you're head around then get over it. she's not moralizing.
It seems moralistic to me to argue against the commodification of cleanig houses, while we have already accepted the commodification of sewing, bread-making, laundry, eating at restaurants, child care, geriatric care, etc. Why say the former is bad while the latter is OK? What's next? Shaming feminists who trust their old parents with a nursing home?
I prefer Engels, Oscar Wilde, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, etc. to Ehrenreich on the socialization of household labor.
Yoshie