Economic Patriarchy with a side of Heteronormativity
Sociological Meanderings Towards Collective Well-Being
When the Industrial Revolution started and the Northern economy began to be a mass production economy, there was still “finishing” labor that was done in the home. This is economic labor, in that it contributes to the creation of a good, and yet it isn’t “counted” as productive labor since it is done in the domestic sphere and not the paid-labor economy. I’m talking about things like: buying fabric and having to make clothes (in the 1800s) and buying fresh fruits and vegetables and grains and having to turn it into a meal (1800s-present day). Now, you can purchase already prepared foods, but meal planning, shopping, and serving is still predominantly done by women, never mind that it is most often women who are hired to do the fast-food, food-prep labor (from grocery stores to restaurants).
The legacy of this devaluation of women’s labor is in the wage gap, where female dominated occupations earn less wages than male dominated occupations. In addition, the historical homemaker also does the work of making more workers, and of caring for those workers, including socializing them into valuing work so that they become future workers. Historically this labor was supplemented by the “breadwinner” wage, but since the 1970’s and the decline of men’s wages, this labor is no longer supplemented, leading most often to women working a “second shift.”
This is all a way of saying that women’s unpaid labor functions to benefit the capitalist economy, because all of this unpaid labor frees up more money to be directed to profits rather than wages.
One thing that’s important to remember, too, is that inequality must be socially constructed and organized, since it’s not an essential phenomenon. The way that this works is through the reciprocal relationship between culture and structure. That is, we establish policies (such as the wage gap, or excluding certain people from certain jobs) and then we also establish a belief system that functions to justify and support that unequal policy. This is what sociologists refer to as hegemony: when we use culture to maintain a system of domination and inequality (rather than solely relying on violence, for example).
So, how does hegemony play a role in women’s labor in capitalism? Well, we construct a culture around the notion of “women’s work” and in particular, ideas about “maternal instinct,” that we are socialized into like “traffic systems” (Ahmed), which has us believing that “women” are naturally “better” at certain tasks (housework, child care, kin work, emotional labor, consumption work). When “women” then do this labor, it’s often not even seen as work, but as “what women do” or “labors of love.” If this isn’t really seen as work, but is instead believed to be an outcome of women’s “nature,” then there’s no reason to pay them for their time. It’s not work, it’s love, remember? Further, women are socialized into this ideology — and thus continue to do the bulk of the household labor — and come to feel that this labor is required in order to be a “good wife” or a “good Mom,” thus driving many stressed out women to the terrain of self-help, which further fuels corporate profits. This is especially the case for women who are breadwinners. So this belief functions to justify and maintain the continued exploitation of women’s labor in capitalism.
Patriarchy in capitalism is complicated. Men are exploited. Women are exploited. But, men earn (more, higher) wages and thus earn more value (financial and symbolic, psychological value) in capitalism, making it patriarchal. Having dependents — men’s job as the providers in (assumed to be heterosexual) families — renders them more easily exploitable. The provider will be less likely to critique his working conditions when he has others who are dependent upon him, and when his value is tied to his ability to provide. His exploitation is real, but he still carries privilege. This privilege will shift across race, class, sexuality, etc…
Women are exploited and also oppressed by capitalism through the denial of value as well as through the wage gap and sexual harassment (and other examples). That is, while both women and men are exploited in capitalism (which often feels bad), many men (e.g. white, straight, cisgendered, documented) experience privilege while being exploited, whereas women — especially trans*women, women of color, poor women, lesbian/bisexual women, undocumented women — experience oppression while being exploited.
Solidarity is prerequisite to a healthy society, and required to address both exploitation and oppression. In this way Marx’s ideas that gender, race, and sexuality (to name a few) serve to divide the proletariat is poignant. We must see racism and sexism and transphobia as central to the labor movement, and solidarity a must:
Workers have been forming unions in a historic wave of labor organizing over the past year. Much of this activity has been in retail stores, cafes and museums, where most front-line employees are women. Indeed, women and nonbinary people have been playing a key role in these efforts.
Often, those with the most privilege (white people, male identified people, white male identified people) deny their privilege because they confuse their exploitation with oppression. Acknowledging — and differentiating between — the role that both exploitation and oppression play in relation to the capitalist patriarchy is a necessary step for solidarity building.
Happy learning,
Dr. Monica
