> >This is also IMHO the main problem with Ehrenreich's argument: it's
> >unrepresentative.
>
> how could you possibly know?
I'm using her own figures.
> aside from that, your response illustrates exactly Ehrenreich's point as
> to why _feminists_ shouldn't hire domestics. You've taken on the
> position of "benevolent boss". That isn't exactly the best position to
> be in if you want to foster feminist solidarity.
If you think the cash nexus is inherently corrosive, then sure, it's impossible to conceive of mutual benefit and personal friendliness. If not, not. I can think of lots of cases where hiring domestic help would express more solidarity with women both in and out of my family than the non-cash alternatives.
Personally I've always thought of myself as a feminist. So you think if I fired her, and encouraged everyone else to fire people like her, that would improve our solidarity?
And you think this job is worse in both income and working condition terms than the other ones that are available to her?
I don't agree with either point. But since you've already written extensively and eloquently and not persuaded me, we should probably agree to disagree.
Michael