[lbo-talk] Servant culture

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

Yoshie wrote:
>If it is poverty that mainly induces women to become economically 
>dependent on their husbands, we may expect the poorest women to be 
>the most dependent on men, but women's economic dependence on men is 
>the least common among the poorest and the most common among the 
>bourgeoisie in rich modern nations.  That is because poor men whom 
>poor women tend to encounter, sexually or otherwise, are the least 
>capable of supporting dependents, especially as employment patterns 
>have changed proportionally from manufacturing-centered to 
>service-centered ones, with union density going down, too.  In 
>contrast, the richest men can afford to have women become totally 
>economically dependent on them, so they often acquire "trophy wives" 
>who do neither wage labor nor unpaid "household labor."

This is a narrow definition of economic dependence.  If I can 90% pay my 
bills without another person in the household,  that's not good enough for the 
landlord.

Bill Bartlett wrote:
>The systematic dependence of women on their husbands
>has been officially replaced with a system of women having to be dependent
>on the capitalist class. A victory for feminism. But hardly a victory for
>working class women, rather a change in the nature of their dependence.

Progress, though, as it cuts out one middleman and could therefore increase 
class solidarity.  Because in reality, working class women were always 
dependent on both--the husband _and_ her husband's employer.

Jenny Brown