>Why do folks get all up in arms about such minor things? This article
>picks out one aspect of Ehrenreich's article and heaps abuse upon her for
>it, while conveniently disregarding the body of her work (a tactic which is
>depressingly common). I've read enough Ehrenreich to know that she is
>definitely in favor of unionization. She's not an Enemy of Labor, as this
>piece tries to proclaim.
[...]
>In fact, from what I remember of her article, her conclusion was that
>feminists are guilty of not attacking the problem of class head on, instead
>being content to worry about breast cancer or sexual harrassment or other
>issues. Not that these aren't worthy issues, just that the problem of
>class should have received more attention. And this lack of attention has
>contributed to the widening class divide which now undermines solidarity
>among women.
She sure struck a nerve, or several nerves, with this piece. You should see the feminist economists list going nuts over this. The "dean of feminist economists," the thoroughly bourgeois Barbara Bergmann, said:
>Somehow, nobody ever talks of exploitation of ethnics by
>"professional white couples" when the husband's mowing is replaced
>by a Hispanic gardener, or when they eat in a restaurant and are
>served by a Hispanic waiter. But when the wife's housecleaning is
>replaced a Hispanic or African American cleaner, that is for some
>reason considered a terrible
>sin. The professional wife is passing on "her" shitwork to a
>minority person, and gets hell for it. And this goes on among people
>who consider themselves feminists!
>The people who are sinning are those who refuse to hire qualified
>minority (and female) labor for the better-paying jobs, which
>requires them to accept low-paid work, not those who hire them for
>the latter.
Apparently the existence of low-paid work doesn't trouble her, just its raced and gendered slotting.
Doug