Men as a group don't benefit from having full-time unpaid housekeepers, etc?
Sure, capitalists benefit too, but why more than if men and women shared
equally? In any case, why not both? The situation is exactly the same as
wage labor: there is a transfer of labor from women to men due to coercive
circumstances. It's exploitation. --jks
>
>On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> > No, I think the thought experiment would be: keep wage labor, etc., >
>everything else the same, just eliminate the white workers from the
>picture; > what if there were none. > > Btw, with respect to Kelly's idea
>that exploitation is never of women by > men, etc. the figures on domestic
>labor, e.g., suggest otherwise. I am > thinking, for eaxmple, of the Arlie
>Hochschild stuff on The Second Shift. > --jks >
>
>To conceptualize the second shift as men exploiting women encourages us to
>overlook what is to me the important economic arrangement here: the more
>valuable labor done in the household, the lower the wages on which workers
>can survive. In the end, who really benefits from the second shift? It is
>not men as a group; rather, it is the capitalist class that can shunt the
>costs of reproducing the labor force back onto the workers' households.
>
>Miles
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com