>"They ", the Marxist/Feminists and pwoggies, I believe you mean ? Yes.
No, I meant women wouldn't be working for pay in large numbers if it weren't for the feminist movement. Or would be less likely to be.
>Well, there might be a certain irony in this result, but I don't think
>feminism or their feminism or their getting into the field of "social labor"
>should be targetted for change back to the old ways as a solution to
>whatever problems there are with feminists employing nannies and
>housekeepers.
The last thing I want to do is reverse the gains of feminism. It's one of the most successful social/political movements of all time, and thanks for that.
An angle that Ehrenreich highlights is that nannies and housekeepers are forms that imperialism take in everyday life. Their badly paid labor has replaced some of the unpaid labor by middle- and upper-income women. Bourgeois feminists like Bergmann don't like to talk about that (becuase they're bourgeois, not because they're feminists, of course).
Doug