>>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Kelley wrote:
>>
>>> >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.
>
>
>
>I don't think that the argument is that the cash nexus is inherently
>corrosive. I think that the argument is that the cash nexus combined
>with tenfold differences in wealth is inherently corrosive.
>
>I'm not sure whether or not the argument makes sense, myself...
no, she is specifically speaking to feminists. she's specifically pointing out that hiring domestics _as their direct employer_ is a problem because--march, march, march to the beat of capital--you'll find it pretty hard not to do what folks here do: pat themselves on the back for providing jobs to people they believe couldn't get a job otherwise; pat themselves on the back for being a benevolent employer (which depends on the existence of not so benevolent employers); and otherwise justify paying them less than they earn by insisting that the value of the labor domestics do is either worth less or that the domestics have a special talent for it (or some combination).
now, personally, i don't think it matters all that much. there are feminists who employ other sorts of help, have their own businesses, are managers, and quite a few are academics who are in superordinate relations with administrative assistants, secretaries, word processors, and so forth. those women find themselves in similar sorts of relations because they occupy a position in the division of labor that also encourages them to take on/support/defend capital.
nonetheless, Ehrenreich's argument isn't about some people having far more wealth. otherwise, she would have said that feminists should _never_ hire domestics. she doesn't say that.
as for the cash nexus, MP, that's not it, either. obviously it is not it, since she never says to feminists, "don't ever hire domestics." she's talking about putting yourself in the position of _boss_ where you justify paying someone less than you earn for labor you _could_ do yourself. this is a concern for feminists who, at one time, were solidified around a common fight against men who used the exact same arguments to justify why women should do the housework (they're better at it), why it should be a labor of love and a special obligation to the dictates of womanhood, and why occupations that are "women's work" are, now, systematically paid less or, at least, have been.
kelley