Commoner Issue 15

The Commoner
Care Work And The Commons

Issue 15
Winter 2012
www.thecommoner.org
www.commoner.org.uk
In the beginning there is the doing, the

social flow of human interaction and
creativity, and the doing is imprisoned
by the deed, and the deed wants to
dominate the doing and life, and the
doing is turned into work, and people
into things. Thus the world is crazy,
and revolts are also practices of hope.
This journal is about living in a world
in which the doing is separated from
the deed, in which this separation is
extended in an increasing numbers of
spheres of life, in which the revolt about
this separation is ubiquitous.
The Commoner
Issue 15
Winter 2012
Credits
Managing Editor: Massimo De Angelis
Editors: Camille Barbagallo and Silvia Federici
Book and Cover Design: James Lindenschmidt
www.thecommoner.org
www.commoner.org.uk
Acknowledgements & Credits
We would like to thank:
Laura Agustn for her essay Sex as Work and Sex
Work. Laura Maria Agustn is an internationally known
sociologist and anthropologist who studies undocumented
migration, informal labor markets, and the sex industry.
She is the author of many essays and books on sex work
and migration, including Sex at the Margins : Migration, Labour Markets, and the Rescue Industry (Zed Books
2007).
Kolya Abramsky for his essay Energy and Social Reproduction. Abramsky is a long-time activist in the antiglobalization/alternative energy movement and the author
of Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petroleum World, AK Press,
2010.
iii
Nicholas Beuret for the essay "Starting from the social

wage". After being part of the failure to close all refugee
detention centres in Australia, 6 years ago Nicholas moved
to London. He is a long-term activist, who is currently
involved in labour struggles and and social movements
against austerity in the UK. He has a young daughter and
is a regular contributor to The Paper (wearethepaper.org).
Liliana Caballero Velasquez, of the Association
Madres Comunitarias in Bogota (Colombia) for the
interview she has given us.
Mariarosa Dalla Costa for the essays she has made
available to us and allowing us to use her Women and the
Subversion of the Community, originally published in Italian in 1971, later published in England, in M. Dalla Costa
and Selma James, The Power of Women and the Subversion
of the Community (1975). Dalla Costa, Reproduction and
Emigration an outstanding contribution to theory and
politics of social reproduction is published here for the
first time in English. It was originally published in A. Serafini ed., Loperaio multinazionale in Europa (1974). Dalla
Costas A General Strike was originally published in E.
B. Freedman ed., The Essential Feminist Reader. (2007).
Internationally known for her path-breaking contributions
to feminist theory and long time contributor to The Commoner, Dalla Costa is a professor of Political Science at
the University of Padova (Italy). Her latest works include
Our Mother Ocean (co-authored) (Forthcoming, PM Press,
Fall 2012).
Matthijs deBruijne for making available to us two
of the pictures that we have used for our cover: On the
top, left side: The (Dutch) Cleaners Union Parliament
(2011), originally published in the journal De Volkskrant.
iv
On the top at the center is a painting with small notes

about the labour conditions of the Domestic Workers in the
Netherlands. deBruijne is an Dutch artist who has worked
with several workers organization, including domestic
workers and has collaborated in the production of videos
on immigrant domestic workers in the Netherlands and in
the production of the painting at the center of our cover.
Viviane Gonik for her essay Is Work Soluble in Love.
A long time feminist activist based in Geneva, Gonik has
worked at the Institute of Occupational Health Sciences
in Lausanne, and contributed to studies on work related
mental health problems. She is co-author of HommesFemmes: metamorphoses dun rapport social. Geneve,
Georg, 1998.
Priscilla Gonzalez for the interview she has given us
and the information concerning the campaign by DWU.
Priscilla Gonzalez is the Director of the New York Domestic Workers United. As she stated in a Testimony before
the New York State Assembly Committee on Labor on
November 21, 2008, she is the proud daughter of one
of the 200,000 workers who make all other work possible in New York and a fulltime organizer with Domestic
Workers United since 2003.
RJ Maccani works, as described in his blog, as the
Community Programs Producer for The Foundry Theatre
in NY. He organizes with Regeneracin Childcare NYC
and the Challenging Male Supremacy Project. He is also
on the Board of Directors of the Brecht Forum and a member of Another Politics is Possible. He is training as an
herbalist at Third Root Community Health Center and as
a generative somatics practitioner.
Victoria Mamani of the La Paz based feminist organization Mujeres Creando. Victoria Mamani has been a
protagonist of the struggle of domestic workers that led
to the passing of a legislation in 2003 specifying these
workers rights and entitlements.
Pascale Molinier for her essay: Of Feminists and
their Cleaning Ladies: caught between the reciprocity of
care and the desire for depersonalization. The essay was
originally published in Multitudes 2009/3-4, no. 37-38, p.
113-121. Pascale Molinier is a French psychologist whose
field of research is the psychodynamic of work.
Ariel Salleh for her essay: Fukushima: A Call For
Womens Leadership. An internationally known Australian feminist writer and activist, Salleh is one the
leading theorists in the social ecology and eco-feminist
movements. Transdisciplinary in her approach, she has
written extensively on the question of reproductive labor
from a perspective she defines as embodied materialism.
She is the co-editor of the international ecology journal
Capitalism, Nature and Socialism, and author of many
essays on the relations between Marxism and Feminism,
eco-socialism, deep ecology. Her best know work is Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern. (Zed
Books, 1997).
Konstanze Schmitt for the pictures of the street performance by the domestic workers of Territorio Domestico
which we have included in the cover. On the background of
one of the pictures is the Triumph of the Domestic Workers, a painted canvass on bicycle wheels with gearwheels
on its front, that Schmitt and Territorio Domestico created
on the model of the Triumph of the name of Jesus, a
vi
colonial painting by Juan Ramos from 1703. As Schmitt

writes:
One of the slogans of Territorio Domestico is:
Without us, the world doesnt revolve.... In
order to visualize this principle and domestic
work in the society, the group Territorio Domestico has developed its own symbol: a system of gearwheels set in motion by a female
domestic worker.... These gearwheels who are
very present in the painting, are the link between the colonial painting/situation and the
actual system of colonialism, and it focuses
on the power of the persons under the wheels
answering the question of Who moves the
wagon/world?
We also thank Konstanze Schmitt for the interviews with
Rafaela, Marlene and Mary. Konstanze Schmitt is a Berlin
based artist.
The Socialist Feminist Collective (Turkey). Based
in Istanbul, the Collective is campaigning in several Turkish cities calling on women to stop their domestic work
until they are paid for the work they do and men begin to
share the work. http://www.sosyalistfeministkolektif.org/
Todos Somos Japon for allowing us to use Nuclear
Housework and The Enraged Mothers and Farmers of
Japan. Todos Somos Japon is a New York based group
originally formed to publicize the consequences of the
Fukushima disasters. It aims to create a network of activists in and out of Japan organizing not only around
nuclear issues but against the capitalist politics of permanent crisis and displacement. Its website is: jfissures.org
vii
Ana Rosario Adrin Vargas of the La Paz based, feminist Bolivian feminist organization, Mujeres Creando.
Ana Rosario Adrian Vargas is one of the main organizers
of the of the daycare center that Mujeres Creando has set
up since 2007.
viii
Contents
Preface: Care Work and the Commons
1. Introduction
I.
xii
1
Archive
22
2. Women and the Subversion of the Community
23
3. On The General Strike
70
4. Wages Against Housework
74
5. On Sexuality as Work
88
6. Reproduction and Emigration
95
II. Articles
158
7. Starting From the Social Wage
159
8. The Unfinished Feminist Revolution
185
ix
Contents
9. Womens Autonomy & Renumeration of Care
Work
198
10. On Elder Care
235
11. Sex as Work & Sex Work
262
12. Is Housework Soluble in Love?
278
13. Of Feminists and Their Cleaning Ladies
287
14. Nuclear Housework
307
15. Fukushima: A Call for Womens Leadership
315
16. Energy and Social Reproduction
337
III. Documents/Interviews
353
17. Domestic Workers United
354
18. Interview with Priscilla Gonzalez
360
19. A Male Domestic Worker
386
20. The Regeneration Manifesto
396
21. The Triumph of the Domestic Workers
401
22. Servicio Domestco Activo
405
23. Interview with Liliana Caballero Velasquez
413
Contents
24. Interview with Victoria Mamani
417
25. Socialist Feminist Collective
421
26. Interview with Ana Rosario Adrin Vargas
426
xi
Preface: Care Work and

the Commons
Massimo De Angelis
It is becoming increasingly clear that the current economic, social and environmental crises are degrading the
conditions of everyday life for a vast range of people in
many parts of the world, and are even posing apocalyptic threats to our social and ecological reproduction. It is
also clear that the global elites answers to these crises
cannot provide any solutions to these problems. Indeed,
short of a dramatic paradigmatic change in their strategic horizons, we find no hope on this front. It is not just
that governments continue to cut social spending and entitlements to bail out the banks. As the struggles against
the policies employed to deal with the crisis of neoliberalism intensify, we witness the rise of a post-modern form
of fascism. The brutal attacks by militarized riot police
against the occupy movements of the US and Europe, the
endless butchering of civilians whose bodies now pile up
in morgues throughout the Middle East, are all different
modulations of this trend. Yet, new social movements are
mushrooming everywhere with renewed creativity in their
organisational forms. Even the moderate media, despite
xii

its cynicism towards the constituent powers expressed by
these movements, is beginning to acknowledge the rationality of these popular revolts, now circulating from New
York to Athens, from Cairo to Madrid, often drawing parallels between diverse instances, highlighting unfamiliar
alliances (such as that between army veterans, workers
and students), and beginning to acknowledge the outrage
of the mainstream.
In this context, there is an urgent need to construct
non-capitalistic ways to reproduce our life, other than
those provided by states and markets. From the beginning of the history of this journal, we have referred to
these alternative as the commons. We were not alone in
this endeavour. Many today think of the commons as the
seeds of a radically new social system in which reproduction stems from the direct participation of communities
of producers reclaiming, sharing, and pooling resources
of various types, driven by values fundamentally opposed
to those embedded in the capital circuits: solidarity, mutual aid, cooperation, respect for human being and the
environment, horizontalism and direct democracy. But
what has distinguished this journal is the recognition that
the commons must exist today in a world in which the
social and ecological metabolism is dominated by capitals
priorities and the threat they pose to social reproduction.
Thus the commons their development, their networking,
their survival must be conceived within fields of power
relations, and viewed not only as sites of alternative ways
of reproducing life, but as sites of struggle, as well as
potential targets of cooptation and enclosure.
This implies two things. First, the present global crisis
urges us to engage in the constitution of alternatives to
xiii

life under capitalism, and the construction of more autonomous forms of social reproduction. As neither the
state nor the market can guarantee our survival, we need
to embark in a journey of transformation built on the
power of the commons. For this, however, we need to
go beyond the logic of "survival" ours and that of the
ecosystem as the social relations that we construct to
reproduce ourselves are the true source of our power vis-vis capital. Ultimately this journey implies a commoning
transforming our subjectivities.
Second, as the commons develop within a field of power
relations, the character and social space of their autonomy
are necessarily negotiated with capital. But negotiation
can only occur on the basis of of the commons constituted
power, which is the power of reproducing with dignity and
freedom the life and bodies of all involved in a process of
reproduction. Here is the crucial importance of this issue
of The Commoner, edited by Camille Barbagallo and Silvia
Federici. The analyses and stories it weaves together force
us to look at the power of the commons power from the
perspective of the labour required to reproduce human
beings as well as labour power: child-care, housework,
sex work and elder care, both in the form of waged and
unwaged labour. Its objective is not only to examine how
the neo-liberal restructuring of the global economy, over
the last three decades, has reshaped the organization of
this work transforming our bodies and desires and reconfiguring our homes, our families and social relations.
Most importantly, this issue wants to highlight the struggles that domestic-care workers (mostly women, but also
men) are making in response to the new conditions of reproductive labour. For these struggles pose the need for
xiv

and invent new forms of commoning, building bridges between and beyond roles, such as employees and employers,
clients and service providers, parents and nannies. These
forms of commoning are vital for us, not only in order to
overcome the crisis of reproduction we face, and refuse to
have those most socially vulnerable women, children,
the elders, immigrant workers pay the price for it, but
also to begin to mold a new society and reconstitute the
common/s. For the articles in this issue demonstrate that
the power of the common/s begins with the social powers
we deploy to materially reproduce and affectively care for
ourselves.
xv
1. Introduction
Camille Barbagallo and Silvia
Federici
In this issue of The Commoner we begin a discussion of
care work and more broadly reproductive work, by which
we refer to the complex of activities and services that reproduce human beings as well as the commodity labor
power, starting with child-care, housework, sex work and
elder care, both in the form of waged and unwaged labour.
Our objective is to examine how the neo-liberal restructuring of the global economy, over the last three decades,
has reshaped the organization of this work. In particular, we examine how it has transformed our bodies and
desires, reconfigured our homes, our families and social
relations and, most importantly, what are the struggles
that women are making in response to the new conditions
of reproductive labor and the new forms of cooperation
that are emerging in this context. While focussing on
reproductive work and care work in particular, we also
revisit the feminist and Marxist body of knowledge that
we have produced or inherited on this subject, testing its
utility against the developments that have occurred in the
field of reproduction with the increased mobility of women
across borders, into cities, out of marriages, into paid work,
1. Introduction
out of traditional gender roles, into old age and in and out
of motherhood. We also examine the intersection of reproduction/care work and migration, gender, race, labour
relations; and the changing nature of both the work that
is performed in the private sphere and the subjects who
perform such work.
We believe that it is important to engage in this analysis because the struggle over reproduction is central
to every other struggle and to the development of selfreproducing movements, that is movements that do not
separate political work from the activities necessary to
the reproduction of our life, for no struggle is sustainable
that ignores the needs, experiences, and practices that reproducing ourselves entails. Moreover, the intensification
and institutionalization of the global economic crisis poses
with new urgency the necessity to construct an alternative
to life under capitalism, beginning with the construction
of more autonomous forms of social reproduction, for every day it becomes evident that neither the state nor the
market can guarantee our survival. Thus, as people who
are implicated in reproductive work (which we all are) we
are eager to share ideas, questions and research with all
those who are involved in social movements seeking to
transform not only reproductive labour but also work in
general and the home.
With this purpose in mind, we have selected a number of
documents, interviews and articles that in no way pretend
to give an exhaustive analysis of the re-organization of
reproduction internationally, but help us investigate some
of the questions most crucial for this task.
We begin by noticing that the concept of care work
which highlights the relational character of reproductive
1. Introduction
activities is to a great extent artificial, for all care work
requires domestic work and all domestic work requires, to
lesser or greater degrees, some care work. However, this
distinction, which originated with the marketization of
many reproductive tasks, has a practical purpose. It helps
domestic workers in their negotiations with employers, to
reach agreement on the tasks and activities for which they
are employed and to enforce limits to what can be asked of
them as part of their jobs. For instance, if I am employed to
clean your house, it would be outside of my job description
as a cleaner to look after your six year old who happens
to be at home sick from school on the day that I clean.
The articulation of care work as distinct from domestic
work also highlights the various skills required for the
different jobs of reproduction, presumably enhancing the
social value of reproductive activities.
But the distinction should not be understood in exclusionary terms, as it is often done in current sociological literature. For it makes no sense empirically or theoretically
to discuss the care, affection and relationality required
to look after a child or sick person without also thinking
about the tasks of washing, hanging up and folding away
their clothes or vacuuming and mopping the floor on which
they play or rest. Indeed, care work is an outstanding
example of the impossibility to separate material from
immaterial labor, whether it is done for pay or no pay.
That care work cannot be separated from domestic work
is most evident when this work is done by family members, who cannot limit their work to the communicative,
affective aspects of reproduction and delegate to others
the more material ones. Indeed, the case of parents who
have only quality time with their children, that is time
1. Introduction
free from any material tasks, is a rarity found only in the
upper classes. By privileging care work as the only focus
of analysis we also risk contributing to the devaluation
of domestic work and material activity, and making the
unpaid domestic labor done in the home invisible again.
We treat care work therefore, as a particular aspect of
reproductive work by which we refer to: household cleaning, shopping, preparing food, doing the laundry, paying
the bills, providing intimacy and emotional support, such
as listening and consoling; bearing children, teaching and
disciplining them are also an important part of reproductive work. We must add the un-named, unnamable labor
required to anticipate, prevent or resolve crises, keep up
good relations with kin and neighbours, coping with the
growing threats to our health through the food we eat,
the water we drink. This description still does not account
for the work of millions of women and children across
the planet who, in addition to the tasks outlined, must
spend long hours fetching water, wood for fuel, making
fire on open stoves. As Laura Agustns article highlights,
a key component of care work is also sex work, an activity, she points out, that reproduces social life in the
same way that other bodily services do, often including
company, self-esteem boosting conversation, and as essential to our reproduction as eating food or keeping a healthy
environment.
It was one of the theoretical and political revolutions
brought about by the feminist movement of the 1970s to
bring this work traditionally invisible, taken for granted,
performed for no pay outside of any social contract to the
foreground of political theory and organizing. Ironically, at
the very moment in which they refused a destiny dedicated
1. Introduction
to housework, many feminists discovered the crucial social
function of this work, redefining it as work that produces
labor-power and, as such, a precondition for every other
forms of capitalist production. In our A RCHIVE S ECTION
we present some of the texts in which this analysis was
first elaborated, as we believe that its significance cannot
be overestimated.
This new feminist perspective rejected the common assumptions that domestic/care work is a personal service
or a pre-capitalist form of labor, redefining it, instead,
as a key aspect of social reproduction in capitalist society and value-creation. To posit housework as work that
re/produces the workforce revealed the immense amount
of unpaid labor at the heart of the wage relation and had a
liberating effect especially for women. By unmasking the
capitalist function of this work, by showing that domestic
work reproduces us, but for the most part is performed under conditions not set by us, it helped dissipate the sense
of guilt that women have so often experienced whenever
they have wanted to refuse this work. Equally important, it uncovered a whole field of struggles, relations and
connections previously unrecognized, like the relation between womens refusal of procreation in Europe after
the Second World War and emigration, which is the theme
of Dalla Costas insightful essay in our A RCHIVE. For
these reasons, despite the initial opposition it was met
with, coming from different quarters (feminists, leftists,
liberals), this Feminist Marxist approach has had such a
profound influence on the radical and even academic political discourse that its main tenets have become common
notions. Also the demand for Wages For Housework continues to have an appeal, as shown by the recent campaign
1. Introduction
manifesto of the Socialist Feminist Collective (Turkey) included in the last section of this issue. Today, however, it is
often asked if this perspective still holds given the changes
that have taken place in the organization of reproductive
labor over the last decades, with the massive entrance of
women in the waged labor market, the ethnicization and
marketization of many domestic tasks, and the feminist
renegotiation of every aspect of family life.
Can we, it is asked, hold on to a perspective that looks
at the world, capital, and male-female relations, from the
viewpoint of womens unpaid domestic labor when so many
women are now working for a wage, and so much reproductive work is performed outside the home on a commercial
basis or in the home but by domestic helpers for pay?
Isnt domestic work being already valorized? Further,
how can we continue to claim that unpaid reproductive
labor is a ground of commonality for women when the
globalization and ethnicization of care have instituted
between many of them a madam-maid relation? Hasnt the
time come to go beyond gender distinctions and even the
distinctions between production and reproduction, waged
and unwaged labor?
Several of the articles that we have chosen touch on
these questions, mostly arguing in support of the continuing validity of this perspective. Silvia Federicis The
Unfinished Feminist Revolution points out that, even
today, it is women, worldwide, who perform most of the
unpaid work of reproduction, and as much reproductive
labor has come back to the home (through the restructuring of health care and the spread of informal labor)
as it has been expelled from it with its reorganization on
a commercial basis. She returns to this theme also in
1. Introduction
her analysis of the crisis of elder care, which, in her view,
poses with urgency the need for the creation of cooperative/collective forms of reproduction. Similarly, Mariarosa
Dalla Costa Womens Autonomy and Remuneration for
Care Work in the New Emergencies warns that, while the
feminist analyses of housework in the 1970s ignored paid
domestic work, the danger today is that the unpaid work
women do in the home becomes invisible again. In turn,
Viviane Goniks Is Housework Soluble in Love? argues
that that while the sexual division of labor has become
more complex, there has not been any significant change
in the relation between women and men.
There is no doubt, however, that we face a very different
situation from the one feminists in the 1970s confronted
and rebelled against. One crucial area of change has been
the crisis of the welfare state, that is, the drastic reduction of every form of investment in the reproduction of the
work-force that, combined with womens massive migration to waged labor, has generated a reproductive as well
as a political crisis. The dilemma as often posed by social
justice/anti-capitalist movements has been whether to
struggle to reconstitute welfare as we have known it, or
to accept its crisis as irreversible, and even welcome it, as
the ground on which to construct more independent forms
of social reproduction, not tied to any productivity deal or
the mediating representation of unions and parties.
This, however, as Camille Barbagallo and Nicholas
Beuret point out, in Starting From the Social Wage, may
not be a practical alternative, in a context in which much
of the wealth we have produced remains hostage in the
hands of the state. The question, in their view, is not
whether we should or not defend the social wage, but
1. Introduction
how to access and appropriate the resources held by the
state moneys, assets, services- without subordinating
their acquisition and use to the states control over our
lives.
The article raises this question while examining the
struggles that parents and childcare workers have organized in response to the British governments cut of funds
for community-run nurseries, a first step towards the privatization of child-care. It argues that community controlled nurseries cannot be defended or expanded, without
a broad mobilization involving different social groups, and
without the articulation of a collective vision of the society
we want to create, so that the struggle over childcare can
become a public force for social change.
Exemplary in this context is the work of the Regeneracin Childcare Collective of New York, an organization
that since 2005 has provided child-care to low-income parents of color and queer parents in order to facilitate their
participation in social movements groups. As they write
in their manifesto, Regeneracin members see their ally
role as part of a broader project: demonstrating that interacting with children can be a creative activity enriching
our life, producing a new kind of politics, and contributing to create a new generation of human beings who view
cooperation as an essential part of our reproduction.
The same objectives structure the activities of the autonomous day-care center organized by Mujeres Creando,
a feminist organization in La Paz, as described in an interview with Ana Rosario Adrin Vargas, one of the centers
leading operators. The Mujeres Creando daycare center is
sustained by contributions by the mothers themselves and
by women who pay for the mothers who cannot pay. In this
1. Introduction
way it can operate with a great degree of autonomy and
can concentrate not only on liberating womens time but
also on catering to the childrens psychological, emotional,
and physical development. As Vargas points out, this has
required an intense process of consciousness raising, circulation of information, and production of knowledge, in
which the mothers, and increasingly the fathers, of the
children have been involved, defining the values and goals
according to which the centre should be organized.
The experiences of the Regeneracin Collective and the
Mujeres Creandos center contrasts positively with the
testimony of Liliana Caballero from the Madres Comunitarias in Colombia, that typifies the predicament of family
care providers and paid care/domestic workers in almost
every country. Caballero denounces that the Madres in
Colombia have been practically abandoned by the employers and the state and are so under-funded that they must
even pay for the materials necessary for the care of the
children they attend to out of their own meagre wages,
while their licenses can be at any time terminated if their
care is judged to be substandard.
Caballeros testimony is important because on one side
it confirms that any initiative aiming to transform daycare into a creative activity and a children/adult common
must be premised on a valorisation of care / reproductive
work, in terms of remuneration and social recognition; on
the other, it demonstrates that by itself the commercialization of domestic work, i.e., its organization as waged
labour the other major innovation in the organization of
care/reproductive work is not sufficient to put an end to
the devaluation of this work.
1. Introduction
The fact that this work has been for centuries and still
is, considered as non-work, that it has been done for no
pay and naturalized as womens labor, added to its association with the history of slavery, colonialism, migration,
weigh heavily on its social status.
But while the conditions of domestic workers remain
abysmally poor, worldwide domestic/care workers movements are growing to such an extent that today they are
one of the leading forces in international feminism and
the struggle against the devaluation of reproductive work.
We turn to these movements with several interviews
with domestic workers in the USA, Bolivia, and Spain.
The women who speak come from different regions but
the problems they face are the fundamentally the same.
For a start the individualised nature of care/reproductive
work, and the isolation in which it is performed, create an
emotionally charged, potentially explosive situation that
especially in the case of live-ins easily turns into abuse.
It is also very difficult for domestic/care workers to draw
a clear-cut line between work and personal relations, as
they work in their employers homes and their work conditions include the caring of children and other people. Take
the case in which the employer likely another woman
comes home at night and treats the domestic worker as
a surrogate partner, talking to her about her problems at
work, while the live-in domestic might wish to go to sleep.
Think also of what it means to work at a job that requires
that you to become attached to the children you care for,
while not having the power to intervene if their parents
make mistakes, and knowing all along that your relationship with these children can be severed at any moment.
As RJ Maccani reports, with an uptight family the stress
10
1. Introduction
can become high. As a male day-care worker, Maccani enjoyed a somewhat special treatment, like not being asked
to perform task routinely expected of female workers. He
too, however, describes the experience as potentially nerve
wracking. As a nanny you have to make unanticipated
decisions, but have to imagine what the parents would do
in the situation, for if you choose something other than
what the parents would have done you can get in quite a
bit of trouble.
How difficult it is for domestic workers to establish satisfactory work relations, as long at they must negotiate them
on an individual basis, is illustrated by Pascale Molinier
in Of Feminists and Their Cleaning Ladies, which describes the manoeuvres some Parisian feminists employ
to limit their interactions with the domestic workers they
hire. Though presumably committed to social justice and
solidarity with other women, all the interviewed acknowledge being ill at ease in their relations with these workers
and wishing them to be as invisible as possible. Part of
the strain is that they clearly consider domestic work a
dead end job and feel guilty delegating it to other women.
But the outstanding reason is that they fear developing
obligations and simply having to make space in their lives
for women from whom they expect only work, and yet
share their homes and inevitably develop personal relations with them. The result is a micro warfare to mark
territorial limits, pre-empt possible emotional claims, preclude remonstrations all the more destructive as they
are carried under the pretence of friendship and concern.
This is where a broadening of the stage and the subjects involved in the domestic workers labour contract
11
1. Introduction
becomes crucial. This process is now well underway, as
the interviews we present demonstrate.
This is especially true of domestic workers in Latin
America where, in the words of Victoria Mamani of Mujeres Creando and activists in the national Domestic Workers Movement, the new generations are more combative,
know their rights and if they are abused they denounce it
immediately. An expression of the new power domestic
workers have built in this region has been their increasing tendency to become external workers rather than
live-in maids. This move has enabled them to have an autonomous space, to become part of broader social networks
(of neighbours, friends, political groups), and participate
in social debates and struggles. However, the more evident
sign of the new social power domestic workers in Latin
America have gained is the legal recognition they have
won in several countries (like Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia),
which varies from inclusion within current labour legislations to the recognition of specific rights, like a minimum
wage, paid vacations, pension, maternity leave and severance pay. In Bolivia, for instance, as we learn from the
interview with Victoria Mamani, the domestic workers
mobilization has led to the passing of a Bill in 2003 that
recognized their right to 15 days of vacation, some severance pay, and an eight hours workday, something which
domestic workers in the United States are still struggling
for.
The same political transformation is visible among immigrant domestic workers across the globe. Wherever they
have travelled, migrant domestic workers have formed
transnational communities and associations providing
new arrivals with different forms of assistance; they have
12
1. Introduction
also fought to obtain the same rights as other workers and
created social spaces where to meet, exchange information,
break their isolation, and discuss demands. An example is
SEDOAC (Active Domestic Work), an association of domestic workers mostly from Latin America but now working
in Madrid that was formed in 2006. With other domestic
workers groups, SEDOAC has formed Territorio Domstico, a social space, located in the self-organized feminist
center Eskalera Karakola, where womens collectives and
activists of various nationalities who work as domestic
workers or are otherwise connected with the issue meet
once a month. Together with Konstanze Schmitt a German feminist artist who has conducted the interviews with
Rafaela, Marlene, and Mary which we include several
SEDOAC members have also collaborated to an artistic
project: the construction of The Triumph of Domestic
Work, a cardboard chariot on wheels, to be brought to
demonstrations, exemplifying the principle that domestic
work moves the world.
Meanwhile, in New York, Domestic Workers United is
setting up community structures that are laying the foundations for new forms of collective bargaining, in a way
constituting new social commons. In November 2010,
after years of mobilization, DWU was able to obtain the
passing of a Bill of Rights extending to domestic workers
the same right as other workers. But as Priscilla Gonzalez points out, the problem at present is its implementation. For this purpose DWU is attempting to construct
neighbourhood-based networks of contacts and groups,
capable of acting as reference points and intermediaries
between domestic workers and the employers, providing
information about the domestic workers rights, ensuring
13
1. Introduction
that agreements are fair and respected, and acting as a
place where a common interest can be articulated. DWU
also seeks the support of employers for its campaigns, convinced, as Gonzales argues, that it is in the latters interest
that the care workers they hire work under satisfactory
conditions.
Dalla Costa as well (in the article previously mentioned)
sees the possibility of a collaboration between employers
and employees arguing that if properly remunerated and
de-linked from the devastating economic policies now motivating female migration, paid care-work could be an
acceptable job option, in the context of the alternatives
currently available to women. While feminists at times
have criticized women who hire domestic and care workers,
Dalla Costa, like Gonzales, lays the ground for a politicization of the relation between domestic workers and their
employers and a political recomposition among women,
rooted in the realization that the devaluation of reproductive work is a common problem for women, and the shared
need to force the state to place a broad range of resources
at the disposal of this work.
No less than housework and other forms of domestic and
care work, sex work has undergone a major restructuring
since the 1970s, which feminists and sex workers movements are only beginning to analyse and mobilize around.
We can safely say, however, that an aspect of this restructuring has been a significant expansion in the numbers of
sex workers and the diversification of the types of commercial services available for purchase, as well as the internationalisation of the sex-workforce. There are several reasons for these developments, not least the reorganisation
of work, gender relations and sexuality that neo-liberal
14
1. Introduction
policies have produced. Clearly further research needs
to be undertaken on such developments. What is certain
is that the majority of sex workers today are immigrant
women and also men and trans-gender people coming from
Africa, South America and Eastern Europe.
Statistics concerning the number of sex workers in any
one country or region are notoriously disputed, due to the
clandestine and stigmatised nature of sex work. However
if the sex industry is understood to include not only those
who work as prostitutes but also dancers, porn models and
actors, peep show and nudie bars workers, phone sex
operators, and internet webcam workers, reception staff,
security guards, drivers the number of female, trans
and male workers in the worldwide adult entertainment
business is staggering.
With the expansion and diversification of the sex industry there has also been a change in the figure of the sex
worker as a social subject. Both because of the increases in
global migration, widespread worldwide impoverishment,
and the weakening of the stigma attached to sexualised
work and in particular prostitution, sex workers today,
especially among migrants, include workers from diverse
social and economic backgrounds. Migrant sex workers
today are former teachers, factory workers, nurses, students, they are shop-keepers who cannot keep up with
skyrocketing prices due to monetary devaluation, mothers
who can no longer pay the school fees for their children
or the high cost of health care now privatized. Many sex
workers see their work as a temporary job, accepted or
chosen to achieve specific goals: pay school fees, buy a
house, open a beauty shop or some other businesses at
home (Carchedi 2004), often added to other forms of em-
15
1. Introduction
ployment, preferable in any case to working as domestic
or care workers or in industrial sweat shops.
Thus, even within prostitution, the workforce is extremely differentiated ranging from fairly well-paid freelancing, self-employed workers, working in private apartments, with a high degree of control over their work, and
providing a complex of services beyond intercourse (the
girl friend experience, companionship, attending events,
conversation) to the much broader category of prostitute,
often migrant women, working in the streets or brothels,
in assembly line conditions, tightly supervised and often in
fairly risky situations. Keeping these differences in mind,
it can be argued that the conditions of sex work have
generally deteriorated in comparison to the late 1970s
when the sex workers movement took off. Worsening economic conditions and increasing competition within the
sex industry have made it more difficult for sex workers
to exercise the type of control that prostitutes had previously established over the conditions of their work. Many
migrant sex workers are undocumented and due to tightening border regimes and immigration policies in Europe,
they have had to rely on criminalised intermediaries to
finance and organise their travel abroad and as a result,
the violence and coercion that sex workers experience has
escalated. In fact, sex workers and particularly those who
work in prostitution are today penalized on three counts:
as sex workers, as undocumented workers, and as victims
of debt-bondage and exploitation.
Since the 1980s, a key fault line of conflict among feminists has been the question of sex trafficking which has
divided feminist analysis of prostitution into two opposite
camps. On one side, those convinced that prostitution
16
1. Introduction
is a non-voluntary activity, one that no woman can ever
make a free choice to do, propose to define all instances
of prostitution as violence against women. On the other,
there are those who argue that a position that constructs
all prostitution as always-already violence jeopardises the
safety of sex workers, in addition to being infantilising,
moralistic and blind to the violence inherent in the alternative work options open to sex workers and generally to
women, especially coming from countries that have been
subjected to drastic forms of economic liberalization.
An extensive literature exists covering the various positions in the debate and in many ways there is little left
to be said about trafficking in the sex industry. Instead
of weighing in on a somewhat saturated debate we have
included the article by Laura Agustins1 Sex as Work
and Sex Work, which argues that when we discuss sex
work nowadays the focus is immediately on commercial
exchanges, whereas we should give it a broader definition
enabling us to realize that non commercial sex as well
involves work (as well as other things).
To this day the controversy continues and has in fact
reached a stalemate, partly because both sides mostly base
their arguments on the motivations and responsibilities of
individual prostitutes, debating whether prostitution is a
result of coercion or spontaneous choices. The global sex
industry, however, is not the result of millions of individual
choices; it is a highly structured intervention by corporations (both legal and illegal) and international financial
organizations. Thus, we cannot look at prostitution as
presently organized as a set of individual transactions be1
http://www.lauraagustin.com/
17
1. Introduction
tween prostitutes and their bosses or between prostitutes
and their clients. It is this broader context in which prostitution operates that decides the possibilities which sex
workers have to gain more social power and the possibility
for self-determination. From this viewpoint, sex-workers
organizations are correct when they argue that prostitution is work; prohibition and criminalization can only
worsens work conditions, making sex workers more vulnerable to police harassment and exposing them and indeed
all migrants to the risk of deportation; commercial sexual
work is not more violent or enslaving than many other
jobs available in todays global labour market. Indeed, the
increased incidence of slavery and indentured servitude
is not unique to prostitution and cannot be eliminated by
criminalizing sex work any more than chattel slavery in
the 19th could have been abolished by prohibiting cotton
picking.
It is also true, however, that the decriminalization of the
sex industry will not be sufficient to improve the status
of sex-workers, as in a world of increasing competition
for survival the market itself becomes an instrument of
violence. Nevertheless the argument that prostitutes are
workers is more relevant now than ever; since increasingly
the exploitation and abuse they suffer is on a continuum
with that of other workers migrant or not internationally. Coercion, in fact, has become a key aspect of work in
the present phase of globalization, that is reminiscent in
many ways of the period of primitive accumulation when
an ex-lege proletariat was formed (Federici 2004). This
implies that the situation of sex workers cannot be transformed by an exclusive focus on sexual domination and
sexual slavery, and by differentiating sex workers from
18
1. Introduction
other workers, in the same way as we cannot address the
question of reproductive work by focussing exclusively on
care work. Precisely to the extent that sex work is often
non-free labour, the sex worker is becoming the paradigm
worker in the global economy, in the same way as underpaid, precarious, informal female labour is becoming the
paradigm for all forms of exploitation. As in the 70s, today as well, the question is whether this realization will
become the ground for a recomposition among different
sectors of the female work force. Indeed, sex work, like
domestic and care work, poses one of the most significant
challenge to the currently existing feminisms.
A different question is on what grounds a recomposition
can occur today between women and men. It is often argued that the commercialization of domestic/care work has
in many cases been the solution to mens avoidance of
housework, which remains the sore spot in many relations.
It is also true, however, that the relation between men and
women has to some extent been reconfigured or there is
at least an expectation that it will be. While the structure
of the nuclear family has been put into crisis by womens
struggles and entrance in the waged labor market, and
while the bulk of reproductive work is still done by women,
it is true that mens relation today to reproductive activities is different from their fathers who used to come home,
open the paper and expect that dinner would be served.
With respect to their fathers, many men live a contradictory situation, being expected to do their share at home
and at the same time face more precarious but nevertheless more demanding jobs. This identity crisis has been
the subject of much psychological analysis, but whether
the change will foster a politics of resentment or contribute
19
1. Introduction
to undermine gender based labor hierarchies remains to
be seen. In this context, Goniks Is Housework Soluble
in Love? calls for the socialization of housework through
the creation of associative, cooperative, self-managed networks and for its politicization, i.e. its placement at the
center stage of political debates as the alternative to becoming exhausted in the fight for the sharing of task at
the couples level.
Last, our discussion of care work looks at it from the
viewpoint of the energy question and environmental crisis, which is every day more dramatic with the accelerating global warming, the proliferation of oil spills and other
ecological disaster, wars included, and now the spreading
of radioactivity through our skies and waters in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. The testimonies by
the enraged mothers of Japan are eloquent on this point,
showing what a nightmare life becomes when radioactivity
is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, the food we
eat, the ground on which children play and no moment
of care work is possible without a daily struggle. Not
surprisingly, then, we find in Ariel Sallehs impressive
account, Fukushima: A Call for Womens Leadership
that it is women, eco-feminists in particular, who have
most staunchly organized against the nuclear and chemical industrys assault on our environment. There is, obviously, nothing biological in this phenomenon. It is that
women are the ones who do most of the housework and
child-raising in the world, and face most directly the cost
of the destruction of our environment for our reproduction.
Appropriately then, Kolya Abramsky Energy and Social
Reproduction reminds us that the most important form of
energy is work, in particular womens reproductive labor
20
1. Introduction
which, indeed, more than coal or wind-power, is to this day
the energy that keeps the world moving.
21
Part I.
Archive
22
2. Women and the

Subversion of the
Community
Mariarosa Dalla Costa
1972
These observations are an attempt to define and analyze
the Woman Question, and to locate this question in the
entire female role as it has been created by the capitalist
division of labour.
We place foremost in these pages the housewife as the
central figure in this female role. We assume that all
women are housewives and even those who work outside
the home continue to be housewives. That is, on a world
level, it is precisely what is particular to domestic work,
not only measured as number of hours and nature of work,
but as quality of life and quality of relationships which it
generates, that determines a womans place wherever she
is and to whichever class she belongs. We concentrate here
on the position of the working-class woman, but this is
not to imply that only working-class women are exploited.
Rather it is to confirm that the role of the working-class
housewife, which we believe has been indispensable to
23

capitalist production is the determinant for the position
of all other women. Every analysis of women as a caste,
then, must proceed from the analysis of the position of
working-class housewives.
In order to see the housewife as central, it was first of
all necessary to analyze briefly how capitalism has created the modern family and the housewifes role in it, by
destroying the types of family group or community which
previously existed. This process is by no means complete.
While we are speaking of the Western world and Italy in
particular, we wish to make clear that to the extent that
the capitalist mode of production also brings the Third
World under its command, the same process of destruction
must be and is taking place there. Nor should we take for
granted that the family as we know it today in the most
technically advanced Western countries is the final form
the family can assume under capitalism. But the analysis
of new tendencies can only be the product of an analysis
of how capitalism created this family and what womans
role is today, each as a moment in a process.
We propose to complete these observations on the female role by analyzing as well the position of the woman
who works outside the home, but this is for a later date.
We wish merely to indicated here the link between two
apparently separate experiences: that of housewife and
that of working woman.
The day-to-day struggles that women have developed
since the Second World War run directly against the organization of the factory and of the home. The unreliability
of women in the home and out of it has grown rapidly since
then, and runs directly against the factory as regimentation organized in time and space, and against the social
24

factory as organization of the reproduction of labor power.
This trend to more absenteeism, to less respect for timetables, to higher job mobility, is shared by young men and
women workers. But where the man for crucial periods of
his youth will be the sole support of a new family, women
who on the whole are not restrained in this way and who
must always consider the job at home, are bound to be
even more disengaged from work discipline, forcing disruption of the productive flow and therefore higher costs
to capital. (This is one excuse for the discriminatory wages
which many times over make up for capitals loss.) It is
this same trend of disengagement that groups of housewives express when they leave their children with their
husbands at work.1 This trend is and will increasingly be
one of the decisive forms of the crisis in the systems of the
factory and of the social factory.
***
In recent years, especially in the advanced capitalist countries, there have developed a number of womens movements of different orientations and range, from those
which believe the fundamental conflict in society is between men and women to those focusing on the position of
women as a specific manifestation of class exploitation.
If at first sight the position and attitudes of the former are perplexing, especially to women who have had
previous experience of militant participation in political
struggles, it is, we think, worth pointing out that women
1
This happened as part of the massive demonstration of women

celebrating International Womens Day in the US, August 1970.
25

for whom sexual exploitation is the basic social contradiction provide an extremely important index of the degree
of our own frustration, experienced by millions of women
both inside and outside the movement. There are those
who define their own lesbianism in these terms (we refer
to views expressed by a section of the movement in the
US in particular): Our associations with women began
when, because we were together, we could acknowledge
that we could no longer tolerate relationships with men,
that we could not prevent these from becoming power relationships in which we were inevitably subjected. Our
attentions and energies were diverted, our power was diffused and its objectives delimited. From this rejection
has developed a movement of gay women which asserts
the possibilities of a relationship free of a sexual power
struggle, free of the biological social unit, and asserts at
the same time our need to open ourselves to a wider social
and therefore sexual potential.
Now in order to understand the frustrations of women
expressing themselves in ever-increasing forms, we must
be clear what in the nature of the family under capitalism precipitates a crisis on this scale. The oppression of
women, after all, did not begin with capitalism. What
began with capitalism was the more intense exploitation
of women as women and the possibility at last of their
liberation.
The Origins of the Capitalist Family

In pre-capitalist patriarchal society the home and the family were central to agricultural and artisan production.
26

With the advent of capitalism the socialization of production was organized with the factory as its centre. Those
who worked in the new productive centre, the factory, received a wage. Those who were excluded did not. Women,
children and the aged lost the relative power that derived
from the familys dependence on their labour, which was
seen to be social and necessary. Capital, destroying the
family and the community and production as one whole, on
the one hand has concentrated basic social production in
the factory and the office, and on the other has in essence
detached the man from the family and turned him into a
wage labourer. It has put on the mans shoulders the burden of financial responsibility for women, children, the old
and the ill, in a word, all those who do not receive wages.
From that moment began the expulsion from the home
of all those who did not procreate and service those who
worked for wages. The first to be excluded from the home,
after men, were children; they sent children to school. The
family ceased to be not only the productive, but also the
educational centre.2
2
This is to assume a whole new meaning for education, and the

work now being done on the history of compulsory education
forced learning proves this. In England teachers were conceived
of as moral police who could (1) condition children against crime
curb working-class reappropriation in the community; (2) destroy
the mob, working-class organization based on a family which was
still either a productive unit or at least a viable organizational unit;
(3) make habitual regular attendance and good timekeeping so
necessary to childrens later employment; and (4) stratify the class
by grading and selection. As with the family itself, the transition
to this new form of social control was not smooth and direct, and
was the result of contradictory forces both within the class and
within capital, as with every phase of the history of capitalism.
27

To the extent that men had been the despotic heads of
the patriarchal family, based on a strict division of labour,
the experience of women, children and men was a contradictory experience which we inherit. But in pre-capitalist
society the work of each member of the community of
serfs was seen to be directed to a purpose: either to the
prosperity of the feudal lord or to our survival. To this
extent the whole community of serfs was compelled to
be co-operative in a unity of unfreedom that involved to
the same degree women, children and men, which capitalism had to break.3 In this sense the unfree individual,
the democracy of unfreedom4 entered into a crisis. The
passage from serfdom to free labour power separated the
male from the female proletarian and both of them from
their children. The unfree patriarch was transformed into
the free wage earner, and upon the contradictory experience of the sexes and the generations was built a more
profound estrangement and therefore a more subversive
relation.
We must stress that this separation of children from
adults is essential to an understanding of the full significance of the separation of women from men, to grasp fully
how the organization of the struggle on the part of the
womens movement, even when it takes the form of a violent rejection of any possibility of relations with men, can
Wage labour is based on the subordination of all relationships to

the wage relation. The worker must enter as an individual into
a contract with capital stripped of the protection of kinships.
4
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegels Philosophy of the State, Writings
of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, ed. and trans. Loyd
D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat, N.Y., 1967, p. 176.
28

only aim to overcome the separation which is based on the
freedom of wage labour.
The Class Struggle in Education

The analysis of the school which has emerged during recent years particularly with the advent of the students
movement-has clearly identified the school as a centre of
ideological discipline and of the shaping of the labour force
and its masters. What has perhaps never emerged, or
at least not in its profundity, is precisely what precedes
all this; and that is the usual desperation of children on
their first day of nursery school, when they see themselves
dumped into a class and their parents suddenly desert
them. But it is precisely at this point that the whole story
of school begins.5
Seen in this way, the elementary school children are
not those appendages who, merely by the demands free
lunches, free fares, free books, learnt from the older ones,
can in some way be united with the students of the higher
schools.6 In elementary school children, in those who are
5
We are not dealing here with the narrowness of the nuclear family
that prevents children from having an easy transition to forming
relations with other people; nor with what follows from this, the
argument of psychologists that proper conditioning would have
avoided such a crisis. We are dealing with the entire organization
of the society, of which family, school and factory are each one
ghettoized compartment. So every kind of passage from one to
another of these compartments is a painful passage. The pain
cannot be eliminated by tinkering with the relations between one
ghetto and another but only by the destruction of every ghetto.
6
Free fares, free lunches, free books was one of the slogans of a
section of the Italian students movement which aimed to connect
29

the sons and daughters of workers, there is always an
awareness that school is in some way setting them against
their parents and their peers, and consequently there is
an instinctive resistance to studying and to being educated. This is the resistance for which Black children are
confined to educationally subnormal schools in Britain.7
The European working-class child, like the Block workingclass child, sees in the teacher somebody who is teaching
him or her something against her mother and father, not
as a defense of the child but as an attack on the class. Capitalism is the first productive system where the children of
the exploited are disciplined and educated in institutions
organized and controlled by the ruling class.8
the struggle of younger students with workers and university
students.
7
In Britain and the US the psychologists Eysenck and Jensen, who
are convinced scientifically that Blacks have a lower intelligence
than whites, and the progressive educators like Ivan Illich seem
diametrically opposed. What they aim to achieve links them. They
are divided by method. In any case the psychologists are not
more racist than the rest, only more direct. Intelligence is the
ability to assume your enemys case as wisdom and to shape your
own logic on the basis of this. Where the whole society operates
institutionally on the assumption of white racial superiority, these
psychologists propose more conscious and thorough conditioning
so that children who do not learn to read do not learn instead to
make molotov cocktails. A sensible view with which Illich, who
is concerned with the underachievement of children (that is,
rejection by them of intelligence), can agree.
8
In spite of the fact that capital manages the schools, control is never
given once and for all. The working class continually and increasingly challenges the content and refuses the costs of capitalist
schooling. The response of the capitalist system is to re-establish
its own control, and this control tends to be more and more regimented on factory-like lines. The new policies on education which
30

The final proof that this alien indoctrination which begins in nursery school is based on the splitting of the family is that those working-class children who arrive (those
few who do arrive) at university are so brainwashed that
they are unable any longer to talk to their community.
Working-class children then are the first who instinctively rebel against schools and the education provided in
schools. But their parents carry them to schools and confine them to schools because they are concerned that their
are being hammered out even as we write, however, are more
complex than this. We can only indicate here the impetus for
these new policies: (a) Working-class youth rejects that education prepares them for anything but a factory, even if they will
wear white collars there and use typewriters and drawing-boards
instead of riveting machines. (b) Middle-class youth rejects the
role of mediator between the classes and the repressed personality
this mediating role demands. (c) A new labour power more wage
and status differentiated is called for. The present egalitarian
trend must be reversed. (d) A new type of labour process may be
created which will attempt to interest the worker in participating instead of refusing the monotony and fragmentation of the
present assembly-line. If the traditional road to success and even
success itself are rejected by the young, new goals will have to
be found to which they can aspire, that is, for which they will go
to school and go to work. New experiments in free education,
where the children are encouraged to participate in planning their
own education and there is greater democracy between teacher
and taught are springing up daily. It is an illusion to believe that
this is a defeat for capital any more than regimentation will be
a victory. For in the creation of a labour power more creatively
manipulated, capital will not in the process lose 0.1 per cent of
profit. As a matter of fact, they are in effect saying, you can be
far more efficient for us if you take your own road, so long as it
is through our territory. In some parts of the factory and in the
social factory, capitals slogan will increasingly be: Liberty and
fraternity to guarantee and even extend equality.
31

children should have an education, that is, be equipped
to escape the assembly line or the kitchen to which they,
the parents, are confined. If a working-class child shows
particular aptitudes, the whole family immediately concentrates on this child, gives him the best conditions, often
sacrificing the others, hoping and gambling that he will
carry them all out of the working class. This in effect
becomes the way capital moves through the aspirations of
the parents to enlist their help in disciplining fresh labour
power.
In Italy parents less and less succeed in sending their
children to school. Childrens resistance to school is always
increasing even when this resistance is not yet organized.
At the same time that the resistance of children grows
to being educated in schools, so does their refusal to accept
the definition that capital has given of their age. Children
want everything they see; they do not yet understand that
in order to have things one must pay for them, and in
order to pay for them one must have a wage, and therefore
one must also be an adult. No wonder it is not easy to
explain to children why they cannot have what television
has told them they cannot live without.
But something is happening among the new generation
of children and youth which is making it steadily more
difficult to explain to them the arbitrary point at which
they reach adulthood. Rather the younger generation is
demonstrating their age to us: in the sixties six-year-olds
have already come up against police dogs in the South of
the United States. Today we find the same phenomenon in
Southern Italy and Northern Ireland, where children have
been as active in the revolt as adults. When children (and
women) are recognized as integral to history, no doubt
32

other examples will come to light of very young peoples
participation (and of womens) in revolutionary struggles.
What is new is the autonomy of their participation in spite
of and because of their exclusion from direct production.
In the factories youths refuse the leadership of older workers, and in the revolts in the cities they are the diamond
point. In the metropolis generations of the nuclear family
have produced youth and student movements that have
initiated the process of shaking the framework of constituted power; in the Third World the unemployed youth is
often in the streets before the working class organized in
trade unions.
It is worth recording what The Times of London (1 June
1971) reported concerning a head-teachers meeting called
because one of them was admonished for hitting a pupil:
Disruptive and irresponsible elements lurk around every
corner with the seemingly planned intention of eroding all
forces of authority. This is a plot to destroy the values on
which our civilization is built and of which our schools are
some of the finest bastions.
The Exploitation of the Wageless

We wanted to make these few comments on the attitude
of revolt that is steadily spreading among children and
youth, especially from the working class and particularly
Black people, because we believe this to be intimately connected with the explosion of the womens movement and
something which the womens movement itself must take
into account. We are dealing here with the revolt of those
who have been excluded, who have been separated by the
33

system of production, and who express in action their need
to destroy the forces that stand in the way of their social
existence, but who this time are coming together as individuals. Women and children have been excluded. The
revolt of the one against exploitation through exclusion is
an index of the revolt of the other.
To the extent to which capital has recruited the man and
turned him into a wage labourer, it has created a fracture
between him and all the other proletarians without a wage
who, not participating directly in social production, were
thus presumed incapable of being the subjects of social
revolt.
Since Marx, it has been clear that capital rules and
develops through the wage, that is, that the foundation
of capitalist society was the wage labourer and his or
her direct exploitation. What has been neither clear nor
assumed by the organizations of the working-class movement is that precisely through the wage has the exploitation of the non-wage labourer been organized. This exploitation has been even more effective because the lack
of a wage hid it. That is, the wage commanded a larger
amount of labour than appeared in factory bargaining.
Where women are concerned, their labour appears to be
a personal service outside of capital. The woman seemed
only to be suffering from male chauvinism, being pushed
around because capitalism meant general injustice and
bad and unreasonable behaviour, the few (men) who
noticed convinced us that this was oppression but not
exploitation. But oppression hid another and more pervasive aspect of capitalist society. Capital excluded children
from the home and sent them to school not only because
they are in the way of others more productive labour
34

or only to indoctrinate them. The rule of capital through
the wage compels every able-bodied person to function,
under the law of division of labour, and to function in ways
that are if not immediately, then ultimately profitable to
the expansion and extension of the rule of capital. That,
fundamentally, is the meaning of school. Where children
are concerned, their labour appears to be learning for their
own benefit.
Proletarian children have been forced to undergo the
same education in the schools: this is capitalist leveling
against the infinite possibilities of learning. Woman on
the other hand has been isolated in the home, forced to
carry out work that is considered unskilled, the work of
giving birth to, raising, disciplining, and servicing the
worker for production. Her role in the cycle of social production remained invisible because only the product of her
labour, the labourer, was visible there. She herself was
thereby trapped within pre-capitalist working conditions
and never paid a wage.
And when we say pre-capitalist working conditions we
do not refer only to women who have to use brooms to
sweep. Even the best equipped American kitchens do not
reflect the present level of technological development; at
most they reflect the technology of the nineteenth century.
If you are not paid by the hour, within certain limits,
nobody cares how long it takes you to do your work.
This is not only a quantitative but a qualitative difference from other work, and it stems precisely from the
kind of commodity that this work is destined to produce.
Within the capitalist system generally, the productivity
of labour doesnt increase unless there is a confrontation
between capital and class: technological innovations and
35

co-operation are at the same time moments of attack for
the working class and moments of capitalistic response.
But if this is true for the production of commodities generally, this has not been true for the production of that
special kind of commodity, labour power. If technological
innovation can lower the limit of necessary work, and if
the working-class struggle in industry can use that innovation for gaining free hours, the same cannot be said
of housework; to the extent that she must in isolation
procreate, raise and be responsible for children, a high
mechanization of domestic chores doesnt free any time for
the woman. She is always on duty, for the machine doesnt
exist that makes and minds children.9 A higher productivity of domestic work through mechanization, then, can
be related only to specific services, for example, cooking,
washing, cleaning. Her workday is unending not because
she has not machines, but because she is isolated.10
9
We are not at all ignoring the attempts at this moment to make

test-tube babies. But today such mechanisms belong completely
to capitalist science and control. The use would be completely
against us and against the class. It is not in our interest to abdicate
procreation, to consign it to the hands of the enemy. It is in our
interest to conquer the freedom to procreate for which we will pay
neither the price of the wage nor the price of social exclusion.
10
To the extent that not technological innovation but only human
care can raise children, the effective liberation from domestic
work time, the qualitative change of domestic work, can derive
only from a movement of women, from a struggle of women: the
more the movement grows, the less men-and first of all political
militants can count on female baby minding. And at the same time
the new social ambience that the movement constructs offers to
children social space, with both men and women, that has nothing
to do with the day care centers organized by the state. These are
already victories of struggle. Precisely because they are the results
36
Confirming the Myth of Female Incapacity

With the advent of the capitalist mode of production, then,
women were relegated to a condition of isolation, enclosed
within the family cell, dependent in every aspect on men.
The new autonomy of the free wage slave was denied her,
and she remained in a pre-capitalist stage of personal
dependence, but this time more brutalized because in contrast to the large-scale highly socialized production which
now prevails. Womans apparent incapacity to do certain
things, to understand certain things, originated in her history, which is a history very similar in certain respects to
that of backward children in special ESN classes. To the
extent that women were cut off from direct socialized production and isolated in the home, all possibilities of social
life outside the neighborhood were denied them, and hence
they were deprived of social knowledge and social education. When women are deprived of wide experience of
organizing and planning collectively industrial and other
mass struggles, they are denied a basic source of education, the experience of social revolt. And this experience is
primarily the experience of learning your own capacities,
that is, your power, and the capacities, the power, of your
class. Thus the isolation from which women have suffered
has confirmed to society and to themselves the myth of
female incapacity.
It is this myth which has hidden, firstly, that to the
degree that the working class has been able to organize
mass struggles in the community, rent strikes, struggles
against inflation generally, the basis has always been the
of a movement that is by its nature a struggle, they do not aim to
substitute any kind of co-operation for the struggle itself.
37

unceasing informal organization of women there; secondly,
that in struggles in the cycle of direct production womens
support and organization, formal and informal, has been
decisive. At critical moments this unceasing network of
women surfaces and develops through the talents, energies and strength of the incapable female. But the myth
does not die. Where women could together with men claim
the victory to survive (during unemployment) or to survive and win (during strikes) the spoils of the victor
belonged to the class in general. Women rarely if ever
got anything specifically for themselves; rarely if ever did
the struggle have as an objective in any way altering the
power structure of the home and its relation to the factory.
Strike or unemployment, a womans work is never done.
The Capitalist Function of the Uterus

Never as with the advent of capitalism has the destruction
of woman as a person meant also the immediate diminution of her physical integrity. Feminine and masculine
sexuality had already before capitalism undergone a series of regimes and forms of conditioning. But they had
also undergone efficient methods of birth control, which
have unaccountably disappeared. Capital established the
family as the nuclear family and subordinated within it
the woman to the man, as the person who, not directly
participating in social production, does not present herself
independently on the labour market. As it cuts off all her
possibilities of creativity and of the development of her
working activity, so it cuts off the expression of her sexual,
psychological and emotional autonomy. We repeat: never
had such a stunting of the physical integrity of woman
38

taken place, affecting everything from the brain to the
uterus. Participating with others in the production of a
train, a car or an aeroplane is not the same thing as using
in isolation the same broom in the same few square feet of
kitchen for centuries.
This is not a call for equality of men and women in the
construction of airplanes, but it is merely to assume that
the difference between the two histories not only determines the differences in the actual forms of struggle but
brings also finally to light what has been invisible for so
long: the different forms womens struggles have assumed
in the past. In the same way as women are robbed of the
possibility of developing their creative capacity, they are
robbed of their sexual life which has been transformed
into a function for reproducing labour power: the same
observations which we made on the technological level of
domestic services apply to birth control (and, by the way,
to the whole field of gynaecology), research into which until recently has been continually neglected, while women
have been forced to have children and were forbidden the
right to have abortions when, as was to be expected, the
most primitive techniques of birth control failed.
From this complete diminution of woman, capital constructed the female role, and has made the man in the
family the instrument of this reduction. The man as wage
worker and head of the family was the specific instrument
of this specific exploitation which is the exploitation of
women.
39
The Homosexuality of the Division of Labour

In this sense we can explain to what extent the degraded
relationships between men and women are determined by
the fracturing that society has imposed between man and
woman, subordinating woman as object, the complement
to man. And in this sense we can see the validity of the
explosion of tendencies within the womens movement in
which women want to conduct the struggle against men
as such11 and no longer wish to use their strength to sustain even sexual relationships with them, since each of
these relationships is always frustrating. A power relation
precludes any possibility of affection and intimacy. Yet
between men and women power as its right commands
sexual affection and intimacy. In this sense, the gay movement is the most massive attempt to disengage sexuality
and power.
But homosexuality generally is at the same time rooted
in the framework of capitalist society itself: women at
home and men in factories and offices, separated one from
the other for the whole day; or a typical factory of 1,000
women with 10 foremen; or a typing pool (of women, of
course) which works for 50 professional men. All these
situations are already a homosexual framework of living.
Capital, while it elevates heterosexuality to a religion,
at the same time in practice makes it impossible for men
and women to be in touch with each other, physically or
emotionally-it undermines heterosexuality except as a sexual, economic and social discipline. We believe that this is
11
It is impossible to say for how long these tendencies will continue

to drive the movement forward and when they will turn into their
opposite.
40

a reality from which we must begin. The explosion of the
gay tendencies have been and are important for the movement precisely because they pose the urgency to claim for
itself the specificity of womens struggle and above all to
clarify in all their depths all facets and connections of the
exploitation of women.
Surplus Value and the Social Factory

At this point then we would like to begin to clear the
ground of a certain point of view which orthodox Marxism, especially in the ideology and practice of so-called
Marxist parties, has always taken for granted. And this is:
when women remain outside social production, that is, outside the socially organized productive cycle, they are also
outside social productivity. The role of women, in other
words, has always been seen as that of a psychologically
subordinated person who, except where she is marginally
employed outside the home, is outside production; essentially a supplier of a series of use values in the home. This
basically was the viewpoint of Marx who, observing what
happened to women working in the factories, concluded
that it would have been better for them to be at home,
where resided a morally higher form of life. But the true
nature of the role of housewife never emerges clearly in
Marx. Yet observers have noted that Lancashire women,
cotton workers for over a century, are more sexually free
and helped by men in domestic chores. On the other hand,
in the Yorkshire coal-mining districts where a low percentage of women worked outside the home, women are
more dominated by the figure of the husband. Even those
41

who have been able to define the exploitation of women in
socialized production could not then go on to understand
the exploited position of women in the home; men are too
compromised in their relationship with women. For that
reason only women can define themselves and move on
the woman question.
We have to make clear that, within the wage, domestic
work produces not merely use values, but is essential to
the production of surplus value.12 This is true of the entire
female role as a personality which is subordinated at all
levels, physical, psychological and occupational, which has
had and continues to have a precise and vital place in the
capitalist division of labour, in the pursuit of productivity
at the social level. Let us examine more specifically the
role of women as a source of social productivity, that is, of
surplus value making. Firstly within the family.
A. The Productivity of Wage Slavery based on

Unwaged Slavery
It is often asserted that, within the definition of wage
labour, women in domestic labour are not productive. In
12
Some first readers in English have found that this definition of

womens work should be precise. What we meant precisely is that
housework as work is productive in the Marxian sense, that is,
is producing surplus value. We speak immediately after about
the productivity of the entire female role. To make clearer the
productivity of the woman both as related to her work and as
related to her entire role must wait for a later text on which we
are now at work. In this the womans place is explained in a more
articulated way from the point of view of the entire capitalistic
circuit.
42

fact precisely the opposite is true if one thinks of the enormous quantity of social services which capitalist organization transforms into privatized activity, putting them
on the backs of housewives. Domestic labour is not essentially feminine work; a woman doesnt fulfill herself
more or get less exhausted than a man from washing and
cleaning. These are social services inasmuch as they serve
the reproduction of labour power. And capital, precisely by
instituting its family structure, has liberated the man
from these functions so that he is completely free for
direct exploitation; so that he is free to earn enough for
a woman to reproduce him as labour power.13 It has made
men wage slaves, then, to the degree that it has succeeded
in allocating these services to women in the family, and
by the same process controlled the flow of women onto the
labour market. In Italy women are still necessary in the
home and capital still needs this form of the family. At
the present level of development in Europe generally, in
Italy in particular, capital still prefers to import its labour
power-in the form of millions of men from underdeveloped
areas-while at the same time consigning women to the
home.14
13
Labour power is a strange commodity for this is not a thing. The

ability to labour resides only in a human being whose life is consumed in the process of producing. . . To describe its basic production and reproduction is to describe womens work (From Selma
James introduction).
14
This, however, is being countered by an opposite tendency, to bring
women into industry in certain particular sectors. Differing needs
of capital within the same geographical sector have produced differing and even opposing propaganda and policies. Where in the
past family stability has been based on a relatively standardized
mythology (policy and propaganda being uniform and officially
43

And women are of service not only because they carry
out domestic labour without a wage and without going on
strike, but also because they always receive back into the
home all those who are periodically expelled from their
jobs by economic crisis. The family, this maternal cradle
always ready to help and protect in time of need, has been
in fact the best guarantee that the unemployed do not
immediately become a horde of disruptive outsiders.
The organized parties of the working-class movement
have been careful not to raise the question of domestic
work. Aside from the fact that they have always treated
women as a lower form of life, even in factories, to raise
this question would be to challenge the whole basis of
the trade unions as organizations that deal (a) only with
the factory; (b) only with a measured and paid work
day; (c) only with that side of wages which is given to
us and not with the side of wages which is taken back,
that is, inflation. Women have always been forced by the
working-class parties to put off their liberation to some
hypothetical future, making it dependent on the gains
that men, limited in the scope of their struggles by these
parties, win for themselves.
uncontested), today various sectors of capital contradict each other
and undermine the very definition of family as a stable, unchanging, natural unit. The classic example of this is the variety of
views and financial policies on birth control. The British government has recently doubled its allocation of funds for this purpose.
We must examine to what extent this policy is connected with
a racist immigration policy, that is, manipulation of the sources
of mature labour power; and with the increasing erosion of the
work ethic which results in movements of the unemployed and
unsupported mothers, that is, controlling births which pollute the
purity of capital with revolutionary children.
44

In reality, every phase of working-class struggle has
fixed the subordination and exploitation of women at a
higher level. The proposal of pensions for housewives15
(and this makes us wonder why not a wage) serves only
to show the complete willingness of these parties further
to institutionalize women as housewives and men (and
women) as wage slaves.
Now it is clear that not one of us believes that emancipation, liberation, can be achieved through work. Work
is still work, whether inside or outside the home. The
independence of the wage earner means only being a free
individual for capital, no less for women than for men.
Those who advocate that the liberation of the workingclass woman lies in her getting a job outside the home
are part of the problem, not the solution. Slavery to an
assembly line is not a liberation from slavery to a kitchen
sink. To deny this is also to deny the slavery of the assembly line itself, proving again that if you dont know how
women are exploited, you can never really know how men
are. But this question is so crucial that we deal with it
separately. What we wish to make clear here is that by
the non-payment of a wage when we are producing in a
world capitalistically organized, the figure of the boss is
concealed behind that of the husband. He appears to be
the sole recipient of domestic services, and this gives an
ambiguous and slavelike character to housework. The husband and children, through their loving involvement, their
15
Which is the policy, among others, of the Communist Party in Italy

who for some years proposed a bill to the Italian parliament which
would have given a pension to women at home, both housewives
and single women, when they reached 55 years of age. This bill
was never passed.
45

loving blackmail, become the first foremen, the immediate
controllers of this labour.
The husband tends to read the paper and wait for his
dinner to be cooked and served, even when his wife goes
out to work as he does and comes home with him. Clearly,
the specific form of exploitation represented by domestic
work demands a corresponding, specific form of struggle,
namely the womens struggle, within the family.
If we fail to grasp completely that precisely this family is
the very pillar of the capitalist organization of work, if we
make the mistake of regarding it only as a superstructure,
dependent for change only on the stages of the struggle in
the factories, then we will be moving in a limping revolution that will always perpetuate and aggravate a basic contradiction in the class struggle, and a contradiction which
is functional to capitalist development. We would, in other
words, be perpetuating the error of considering ourselves
as producers of use values only, of considering housewives
external to the working class. As long as housewives are
considered external to the class, the class struggle at every
moment and any point is impeded, frustrated, and unable
to find full scope for its action. To elaborate this further is
not our task here. To expose and condemn domestic work
as a masked form of productive labour, however, raises a
series of questions concerning both the aims and the forms
of struggle of women.
Socializing the Struggle of the Isolated Labourer
In fact, the demand that would follow, namely pay us
wages for housework, would run the risk of looking, in the
light of the present relationship of forces in Italy, as though
46

we wanted further to entrench the condition of institutionalized slavery which is produced with the condition
of housework therefore such a demand could scarcely
operate in practice as a mobilizing goal.16
The question is, therefore, to develop forms of struggle which do not leave the housewife peacefully at home,
at most ready to take part in occasional demonstrations
through the streets, waiting for a wage that would never
pay for anything; rather we must discover forms of struggle which immediately break the whole structure of domestic work, rejecting it absolutely, rejecting our role as
housewives and the home as the ghetto of our existence,
since the problem is not only to stop doing this work, but
to smash the entire role of housewife. The starting point is
not how to do housework more efficiently, but how to find a
place as protagonist in the struggle: that is, not a higher
productivity of domestic labour but a higher subversiveness
in the struggle.
To immediately overthrow the relation between timegiven-to-housework and time-not-given-to-housework: it
16
Today the demand of wages for housework is put forward increasingly and with less opposition in the womens movement in Italy
and elsewhere. Since this document was first drafted (June 71),
the debate has become more profound and many uncertainties
that were due to the relative newness of the discussion have been
dispelled. But above all, the weight of the needs of proletarian
women has not only radicalized the demands of the movement. It
has also given us greater strength and confidence to advance them.
A year ago, at the beginning of the movement in Italy, there were
those who still thought that the state could easily suffocate the
female rebellion against housework by paying it with a monthly
allowance of 7-8 as they had already done especially with those
wretched of the earth who were dependent on pensions.
47

is not necessary to spend time each day ironing sheets and
curtains, cleaning the floor until it sparkles or to dust every day. And yet many women still do that. Obviously it is
not because they are stupid: once again we are reminded
of the parallel we made earlier with the ESN school. In
reality, it is only in this work that they can realize an identity precisely because, as we said before, capital has cut
them off from the process of socially organized production.
But it does not automatically follow that to be cut off
from socialized production is to be cut off from socialized
struggle: struggle, however, demands time away from
housework, and at the same time it offers an alternative
identity to the woman who before found it only at the level
of the domestic ghetto. In the sociality of struggle women
discover and exercise a power that effectively gives them
a new identity. The new identity is and can only be a new
degree of social power.
The possibility of social struggle arises out of the socially
productive character of womens work in the home. It is
not only or mainly the social services provided in the home
that make womens role socially productive, even though
in fact at this moment these services are identified with
womens role. But capital can technologically improve
the conditions of this work. What capital does not want
to do for the time being, in Italy at least, is to destroy
the position of the housewife as the pivot of the nuclear
family. For this reason there is no point in our waiting
for the automation of domestic work, because this will
never happen: the maintenance of the nuclear family is
incompatible with the automation of these services. To
really automate them, capital would have to destroy the
48

family as we know it; that is, it would be driven to socialize
in order to automate fully.
But we know all too well what their socialization means:
it is always at the very least the opposite of the Paris
Commune!
The new leap that capitalist reorganization could make
and that we can already smell in the U. S. and in the more
advanced capitalist countries generally is to destroy the
pre-capitalist isolation of production in the home by constructing a family which more nearly reflects capitalist
equality and its domination through co-operative labour;
to transcend the incompleteness of capitalist development in the home, with the pre-capitalist, unfree woman
as its pivot, and make the family more nearly reflect in its
form its capitalist productive function, the reproduction of
labour power.
To return then to what we said above: women, housewives, identifying themselves with the home, tend to a
compulsive perfection in their work. We all know the
saying too well; you can always find work to do in a house.
They dont see beyond their own four walls. The housewifes situation as a pre-capitalist mode of labour and
consequently this femininity imposed upon her, makes
her see the world, the others and the entire organization
of work as a something which is obscure, essentially unknown and unknowable; not lived; perceived only as a
shadow behind the shoulders of the husband who goes out
each day and meets this something.
So when we say that women must overthrow the relation of domestic-work-time to non-domestic-time and must
begin to move out of the home, we mean their point of
departure must be precisely this willingness to destroy
49

the role of housewife, in order to begin to come together
with other women, not only as neighbours and friends
but as workmates and anti-workmates; thus breaking the
tradition of privatized female, with all its rivalry, and reconstructing a real solidarity among women: not solidarity
for defense but solidarity for attack, for the organization
of the struggle.
A common solidarity against a common form of labour.
In the same way, women must stop meeting their husbands and children only as wife and mother, that is, at
mealtimes after they have come home from the outside
world.
Every place of struggle outside the home, precisely because every sphere of capitalist organization presupposes
the home, offers a chance for attack by women; factory
meetings, neighbourhood meetings, student assemblies,
each of them are legitimate places for womens struggle,
where women can encounter and confront men women
versus men, if you like, but as individuals, rather than
mother-father, son-daughter, with all the possibilities this
offers to explode outside of the house the contradictions,
the frustrations, that capital has wanted to implode within
the family
A New Compass for Class Struggle
If women demand in workers assemblies that the nightshift be abolished because at night, besides sleeping, one
wants to make love-and its not the same as making love
during the day if the women work during the day-that
would be advancing their own independent interests as
50

women against the social organization of work, refusing
to be unsatisfied mothers for their husbands and children.
But in this new intervention and confrontation women
are also expressing that their interests as women are not,
as they have been told, separate and alien from the interests of the class. For too long political parties, especially of
the left, and trade unions have determined and confined
the areas of working class struggle. To make love and to
refuse night work to make love, is in the interest of the
class. To explore why it is women and not men who raise
the question is to shed new light on the whole history of
the class.
To meet your sons and daughters at a student assembly
is to discover them as individuals who speak among other
individuals; it is to present yourself to them as an individual. Many women have had abortions and very many have
given birth. We cant see why they should not express
their point of view as women first, whether or not they are
students, in an assembly of medical students: (We do not
give the medical faculty as an example by accident. In the
lecture hall and in the clinic, we can see once more the
exploitation of the working class not only when third class
patients exclusively are made the guinea pigs for research.
Women especially are the prime objects of experimentation
and also of the sexual contempt, sadism, and professional
arrogance of doctors.)
To sum up: the most important thing becomes precisely
this explosion of the womens movement as an expression
of the specificity of female interests hitherto castrated
from all its connections by the capitalist organization of
the family. This has to be waged in every quarter of this
society, each of which is founded precisely on the suppres-
51

sion of such interests, since the entire class exploitation
has been built upon the specific mediation of womens
exploitation.
And so as a womens movement we must pinpoint every
single area in which this exploitation is located, that is,
we must regain the whole specificity of the female interest
in the course of waging the struggle.
Every opportunity is a good one: housewives of families
threatened with eviction can object that their housework
has more than covered the rent of the months they didnt
pay. On the out-skirts of Milan, many families have already taken up this form of struggle.
Electric appliances in the home are lovely things to have,
but for the workers who make them, to make many is to
spend time and to exhaust yourself. That every wage
has to buy all of them is tough, and presumes that every
wife must run all these appliances alone; and this only
means that she is frozen in the home, but now on a more
mechanized level. Lucky worker, lucky wife!
The question is not to have communal canteens. We
must remember that capital makes Fiat for the workers
first, then their canteen.
For this reason to demand a communal canteen in the
neighborhood without integrating this demand into a practice of struggle against the organization of labor, against
labor time, risks giving the impetus for a new leap that,
on the community level, would regiment none other than
women in some alluring work so that we will then have
the possibility at lunchtime of eating shit collectively in
the canteen.
We want them to know that this is not the canteen we
want, nor do we want play centers or nurseries of the same
52

order.17 We want canteens too, and nurseries and washing
machines and dishwashers, but we also want choices: to
eat in privacy with few people when we want, to have time
to be with children, to be with old people, with the sick,
when and where we choose. To have time means to work
less. To have time to be with children, the old and the sick
does not mean running to pay a quick visit to the garages
where you park children or old people or invalids. It means
that we, the first to be excluded, are taking the initiative
in this struggle so that all those other excluded people, the
children, the old and the ill, can re-appropriate the social
wealth; to be re-integrated with us and all of us with men,
not as dependents but autonomously, as we women want
for ourselves; since their exclusion, like ours, from the
directly productive social process, from social existence,
has been created by capitalist organization.
17
There has been some confusion over what we have said about canteens. A similar confusion expressed itself in the discussions in
other countries as well as Italy about wages for housework. As we
explained earlier, housework is as institutionalized as factory work
and our ultimate goal is to destroy both institutions. But aside
from which demand we are speaking about, there is a misunderstanding of what a demand is. It is a goal which is not only a thing
but, like capital at any moment, essentially a stage of antagonism
of a social relation. Whether the canteen or the wages we win will
be a victory or a defeat depends on the force of our struggle. On
that force depends whether the goal is an occasion for capital to
more rationally command our labor or an occasion for us to weaken
their hold on that command. What form the goal takes when we
achieve it, whether it is wages or canteens or free birth control,
emerges and is in fact created in the struggle, and registers the
degree of power that we reached in that struggle.
53

The Refusal of Work
Hence we must refuse housework as womens work, as
work imposed upon us, which we never invented, which
has never been paid for, in which they have forced us to
cope with absurd hours, 12 and 13 a day, in order to force
us to stay at home. We must get out of the house; we
must reject the home, because we want to unite with other
women, to struggle against all situations which presume
that women will stay at home, to link ourselves to the
struggles of all those who are in ghettos, whether that
ghetto is a nursery, a school, a hospital, an old-age home,
or a slum. To abandon the home is already a form of
struggle, since the social services we perform there would
then cease to be carried out in those conditions, and so all
those who work out of the home would then demand that
the burden carried by us until now be thrown squarely
where it belongs onto the shoulders of capital. This
alteration in the terms of struggle will be all the more
violent the more the refusal of domestic labour on the part
of women will be violent, determined and on a mass scale.
The working-class family is the more difficult point to
break because it is the support of the worker, but as worker,
and for that reason the support of capital. On this family
depends the support of the class, the survival of the class
but at the womans expense against the class itself. The
woman is the slave of a wage slave, and her slavery ensures the slavery of her man. Like the trade union, the
family protects the worker, but also ensures that he and
she will never be anything but workers. And that is why
the struggle of the woman of the working class against the
family is crucial.
54

To meet other women who work inside and outside their
homes allows us to possess other chances of struggle. To
the extent that our struggle is a struggle against work,
it is inscribed in the struggle which the working class
wages against capitalist work. But to the extent that
the exploitation of women through domestic work has
had its own specific history, tied to the survival of the
nuclear family, the specific course of this struggle which
must pass through the destruction of the nuclear family
as established by the capitalist social order, adds a new
dimension to the class struggle.
B. The Productivity of Passivity

However, the womans role in the family is not only that
of hidden supplier of social services who does not receive
a wage. As we said at the beginning, to imprison women
in purely complementary functions and subordinate them
to men within the nuclear family has as its premise the
stunting of their physical integrity. In Italy, with the
successful help of the Catholic Church which has always
defined her as an inferior being, a woman is compelled
before marriage into sexual abstinence and after marriage
into a repressed sexuality destined only to bear children,
obliging her to bear children. It has created a female
image of heroic mother and happy wife whose sexual
identity is pure sublimation, whose function is essentially
that of receptacle for other peoples emotional expression,
who is the cushion of the familial antagonism. What has
been defined, then, as female frigidity has to be redefined
as an imposed passive receptivity in the sexual function
as well.
55

Now this passivity of the woman in the family is itself
productive. First it makes her the outlet for all the oppressions that men suffer in the world outside the home
and at the same time the object on whom the man can
exercise a hunger for power that the domination of the
capitalist organization of work implants. In this sense,
the woman becomes productive for capitalist organization;
she acts as a safety valve for the social tensions caused
by it. Secondly, the woman becomes productive inasmuch
as the complete denial of her personal autonomy forces
her to sublimate her frustration in a series of continuous
needs that are always centered in the home, a kind of
consumption which is the exact parallel of her compulsive
perfectionism in her housework. Clearly, it is not our job
to tell women what they should have in their homes. Nobody can define the needs of others. Our interest is to
organize the struggle through which this sublimation will
be unnecessary.
Dead Labour & the Agony of Sexuality
We use the word sublimation advisedly. The frustrations
of monotonous and trivial chores and of sexual passivity are only separable in words. Sexual creativity and
creativity in labour are both areas where human need
demands we give free scope to our interplaying natural
and acquired activities.18 For women (and therefore men)
18
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Okonomie, Band 1,

Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1962, p. 512. Large-scale industry makes it
a question of life and death to replace that monstrosity which is
a miserable available working population, kept in reserve for the
changing needs of exploitation by capital, to replace this with the
56

natural and acquired powers are repressed simultaneously. The passive sexual receptivity of women creates the
compulsively tidy housewife and can make a monotonous
assembly line therapeutic. The trivia of most of housework
and the discipline which is required to perform the same
work over every day, every week, every year, double on
holidays, destroys the possibilities of uninhibited sexuality. Our childhood is a preparation for martyrdom: we
are taught to derive happiness from clean sex on whiter
than white sheets; to sacrifice sexuality and other creative
activity at one and the same time.
So far the womens movement, most notably by destroying the myth of the vaginal orgasm, has exposed the physical mechanism which allowed womens sexual potential
to be strictly defined and limited by men. Now we can
begin to reintegrate sexuality with other aspects of creativity, to see how sexuality will always be constrained
unless the work we do does not mutilate us and our individual capacities, and unless the persons with whom we
have sexual relations are not our masters and are not also
mutilated by their work. To explode the vaginal myth is
to demand female autonomy as opposed to subordination
and sublimation. But it is not only the clitoris versus the
vagina. It is both versus the uterus. Either the vagina is
primarily the passage to the reproduction of labour power
sold as a commodity, the capitalist function of the uterus,
or it is part of our natural powers, our social equipment.
absolute availability of the individual for changing requisites of
work; to replace the partial individual, a mere bearer of a social
detail function, with the fully developed individual for whom varied
social functions are modes of interplaying natural and acquired
activities.
57

Sexuality after all is the most social of expressions, the
deepest human communication. It is in that sense the
dissolution of autonomy. The working class organizes as
a class to transcend itself as a class; within that class we
organize autonomously to create the basis to transcend
autonomy.
The Political Attack Against Women
But while we are finding our way of being and of organizing ourselves in struggle, we discover we are confronted
by those who are only too eager to attack women, even as
we form a movement. In defending herself against obliteration, through work and through consumption, they say,
the woman is responsible for the lack of unity of the class.
Let us make a partial list of the sins of which she stands
accused. They say:
1. She wants more of her husbands wage to buy for
example clothes for herself and her children, not
based on what he thinks she needs but on what she
thinks she and her children should have. He works
hard for the money. She only demands another kind
of distribution of their lack of wealth, rather than
assisting his struggle for more wealth, more wages.
2. She is in rivalry with other women to be more attractive than they, to have more things than they
do, and to have a cleaner and tidier house than her
neighbors. She doesnt ally with them as she should
on a class basis.
58

3. She buries herself in her home and refuses to understand the struggle of her husband on the production
line. She may even complain when he goes out on
strike rather than backing him up. She votes Conservative.
These are some of the reasons given by those who consider
her reactionary or at best backward, even by men who take
leading roles in factory struggles and who seem most able
to understand the nature of the social boss because of their
militant action. It comes easy to them to condemn women
for what they consider to be backwardness because that is
the prevailing ideology of the society. They do not add that
they have benefited from womens subordinate position by
being waited on hand and foot from the moment of their
birth. Some do not even know that they have been waited
on, so natural is it to them for mothers and sisters and
daughters to serve their men. It is very difficult for us,
on the other hand, to separate inbred male supremacy
from mens attack, which appears to be strictly political,
launched only for the benefit of the class.
Let us look at the matter more closely.
1. Women as Consumers
Women do not make the home the center of consumption.
The process of consumption is integral to the production
of labor power, and if women refused to do the shopping
(that is, to spend), this would be strike action. Having said
that, however, we must add that those social relationships
which women are denied because they are cut off from
socially organized labor, they often try to compensate for
59

by buying things. Whether it is adjudged trivial depends
on the viewpoint and sex of the judge. Intellectuals buy
books, but no one calls this consumption trivial. Independent of the validity of the contents, the book in this society
still represents, through a tradition older than capitalism,
a male value.
We have already said that women buy things for their
home because that home is the only proof that they exist. But the idea that frugal consumption is in any way
a liberation is as old as capitalism, and comes from the
capitalists who always blame the workers situation on the
worker. For years Harlem was told by head-shaking liberals that if Black men would only stop driving Cadillacs
(until the finance company took them back), the problem
of color would be solved. Until the violence of the strugglethe only fitting reply-provided a measure of social power,
that Cadillac was one of the few ways to display the potential for power. This and not practical economics caused
the liberals pain.
In any case, nothing any of us buys would we need if
we were free. Not the food they poison for us, nor the
clothes that identify us by class, sex and generation, nor
the houses in which they imprison us.
In any case, too, our problem is that we never have
enough, not that we have too much. And that pressure
which women place on men is a defense of the wage, not an
attack. Precisely because women are the slaves of wage
slaves, men divide the wage between themselves and the
general family expense. If women did not make demands,
the general family standard of living could drop to absorb
the inflation the woman of course is the first to do without. Thus unless the woman makes demands, the family
60

is functional to capital in an additional sense to the ones
we have listed: it can absorb the fall in the price of labor
power.19 This, therefore, is the most ongoing material way
in which women can defend the living standards of the
class. And when they go out to political meetings, they
will need even more money!
2. Women as Rivals
As for womens rivalry, Frantz Fanon has clarified for
the Third World what only racism prevents from being
generally applied to the class. The colonized, he says,
when they do not organize against their oppressors, attack
each other. The womans pressure for greater consumption
may at times express itself in the form of rivalry, but
nevertheless as we have said protects the living standards
of the class. Which is unlike womens sexual rivalry; that
rivalry is rooted in their economic and social dependence
on men. To the degree that they live for men, dress for
19
But the other, more fundamental, objection, which we shall develop

in the ensuing chapters, flows from our disputing the assumption
that the general level of real wages is directly determined by the
character of the wage bargain . . . We shall endeavor to show that
primarily it is certain other forces which determine the general
level of real wages. . . We shall argue that there has been a
fundamental misunderstanding of how in this respect the economy
in which we live actually works." (Emphasis added.) The General
Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard Keynes,
N.Y., Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964, p.13. "Certain other forces",
in our view, are first of all women.
61

men, work for men, they are manipulated by men through
this rivalry.20
20
It has been noticed that many of the Bolsheviks after 1917 found
female partners among the dispossessed aristocracy. When power
continues to reside in men both at the level of the State and in
individual relations, women continue to be "the spoil and handmaid of communal lust" (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1959, p.94).
The breed of "the new tsars" goes back a long way.
Already in 1921 from "Decisions of the Third Congress of the
Communist International", one can read in Part I of "Work Among
Women": "The Third Congress of the Comintern confirms the
basic proposition of revolutionary Marxism, that is, that there is
no specific woman question and no specific womens movement,
and that every sort of alliance of working women with bourgeois
feminism, as well as any support by the women workers of the
treacherous tactics of the social compromisers and opportunists,
leads to the undermining of the forces of the proletariat . . . In
order to put an end to womens slavery it is necessary to inaugurate
the new Communist organization of society."
The theory being male, the practice was to "neutralize." Let
us quote from one of the founding fathers. At the first National
Conference of Communist Women of the Communist Party of Italy
on March 26, 1922, "Comrade Gramsci pointed out that special
action must be organized among housewives, who constitute the
large majority of the proletarian women. He said that they should
be related in some way to our movement by our setting up special
organizations. Housewives, as far as the quality of their work is
concerned, can be considered similar to the artisans and therefore
they will hardly be communists; however, because they are the
workers mates, and because they share in some way the workers
life, they are attracted toward communism. Our propaganda can
therefore have an influence over [sic] these housewives; it can be
instrumental, if not to officer them into our organization, to neutralize them; so that they do not stand in the way of the possible
struggles by the workers. (From Compagna, the Italian Commu-
62

As for rivalry about their homes, women are trained
from birth to be obsessive and possessive about clean and
tidy homes. But men cannot have it both ways; they cannot continue to enjoy the privilege of having a private
servant and then complain about the effects of privatization. If they continue to complain, we must conclude
that their attack on us for rivalry is really an apology
for our servitude. If Fanon was not right, that the strife
among the colonized is an expression of their low level
of organization, then the antagonism is a sign of natural
incapacity. When we call a home a ghetto, we could call
it a colony governed by indirect rule and be as accurate.
The resolution of the antagonism of the colonized to each
other lies in autonomous struggle. Women have overcome
greater obstacles than rivalry to unite in supporting men
in struggles. Where women have been less successful is
in transforming and deepening moments of struggle by
making of them opportunities to raise their own demands.
Autonomous struggle turns the question on its head: not
will women unite to support men, but will men unite to
support women.
3. Women as Divisive
What has prevented previous political intervention by
women? Why can they be used in certain circumstances
against strikes? Why, in other words, is the class not
united? From the beginning of this document we have
made central the exclusion of women from socialized pronist Party organ for work among women, Year I, No.3 (April 2,
1922] , p.2.)
63

duction. That is an objective character of capitalist organization: co-operative labor in the factory and office, isolated
labor in the home. This is mirrored subjectively by the
way workers in industry organize separately from the community. What is the community to do? What are women
to do? Support, be appendages to men in the home and
in the struggle, even form a womens auxiliary to unions?
This division, and this kind of division is the history of the
class. At every stage of the struggle the most peripheral to
the productive cycle are used against those at the center,
so long as the latter ignore the former. This is the history
of trade unions, for example, in the United States, when
Black workers were used as strikebreakers never, by the
way, as often as white workers were led to believe Blacks
like women are immediately identifiable and reports of
strikebreaking reinforce prejudices which arise from objective divisions: the white on the assembly line, the Black
sweeping round his feet; or the man on the assembly line,
the woman sweeping round his feet when he gets home.
Men when they reject work consider themselves militant, and when we reject our work, these same men
consider us nagging wives. When some of us vote Conservative because we have been excluded from political
struggle, they think we are backward, while they have
voted for parties which didnt even consider that we existed as anything but ballast, and in the process sold them
(and us all) down the river.
C. The Productivity of Discipline

The third aspect of womens role in the family is that, because of the special brand of stunting of the personality
64

already discussed, the woman becomes a repressive figure,
disciplinarian of all the members of the family, ideologically and psychologically. She may live under the tyranny
of her husband, of her home, the tyranny of striving to
be heroic mother and happy wife when her whole existence repudiates this ideal. Those who are tyrannized and
lack power are with the new generation for the first years
of their lives producing docile workers and little tyrants,
in the same way the teacher does at school. (In this the
woman is joined by her husband: not by chance do parent
teacher associations exist.) Women, responsible for the
reproduction of labor power, on the one hand discipline the
children who will be workers tomorrow and on the other
hand discipline the husband to work today, for only his
wage can pay for labor power to be reproduced.
Here we have only attempted to consider female domestic productivity without going into detail about the
psychological implications. At least we have located and
essentially outlined this female domestic productivity as
it passes through the complexities of the role that the
woman plays (in addition, that is, to the actual domestic
work the burden of which she assumes without pay). We
pose, then, as foremost the need to break this role that
wants women divided from each other, from men and from
children, each locked in her family as the chrysalis in the
cocoon that imprisons itself by its own work, to die and
leave silk for capital. To reject all this, as we have already
said, means for housewives to recognize themselves also
as a section of the class, the most degraded because they
are not paid a wage.
The housewifes position in the overall struggle of
women is crucial, since it undermines the very pillar
65

supporting the capitalist organization of work, namely the
family.
So every goal that tends to affirm the individuality of
women against this figure complementary to everything
and everybody, that is, the housewife, is worth posing as
a goal subversive to the continuation, the productivity of
this role.
In this same sense all the demands that can serve to
restore to the woman the integrity of her basic physical
functions, starting with the sexual one which was the first
to be robbed along with productive creativity, have to be
posed with the greatest urgency.
It is not by chance that research in birth control has
developed so slowly, that abortion is forbidden almost the
world over or conceded finally only for therapeutic reasons.
To move first on these demands is not facile reformism.
Capitalist management of these matters poses over and
over discrimination of class and discrimination of women
specifically.
Why were proletarian women, Third World women, used
as guinea pigs in this research? Why does the question of
birth control continue to be posed as womens problem? To
begin to struggle to overthrow the capitalist management
over these matters is to move on a class basis, and on a
specifically female basis. To link these struggles with the
struggle against motherhood conceived as the responsibility of women exclusively, against domestic work conceived
as womens work, ultimately against the models that capitalism offers us as examples of womens emancipation
which are nothing more than ugly copies of the male role,
66

is to struggle against the division and organization of labor.
Women & the Struggle Not to Work

Let us sum up. The role of housewife, behind whose isolation is hidden social labour, must be destroyed. But
our alternatives are strictly defined. Up to now, the myth
of female incapacity, rooted in this isolated woman dependent on someone elses wage and therefore shaped by
someone elses consciousness, has been broken by only one
action: the woman getting her own wage, breaking the
back of personal economic dependence, making her own
independent experience with the world outside the home,
performing social labour in a socialized structure, whether
the factory or the office, and initiating there her own forms
of social rebellion along with the traditional forms of the
class. The advent of the womens movement is a rejection
of this alternative.
Capital itself is seizing upon the same impetus which
created a movement-the rejection by millions of women
of womens traditional place-to recompose the work force
with increasing numbers of women. The movement can
only develop in opposition to this. It poses by its very
existence and must pose with increasing articulation in
action that women refuse the myth of liberation through
work.
For we have worked enough. We have chopped billions of
tons of cotton, washed billions of dishes, scrubbed billions
of floors, typed billions of words, wired billions of radio
sets, washed billions of nappies, by hand and in machines.
67

Every time they have let us in to some traditionally male
enclave, it was to find for us a new level of exploitation.
Here again we must make a parallel, different as they are,
between underdevelopment in the Third World and underdevelopment in the metropolis to be more precise, in the
kitchens of the metropolis. Capitalist planning proposes
to the Third World that it develop; that in addition to
its present agonies, it too suffer the agony of an industrial
counter-revolution. Women in the metropolis have been
offered the same aid. But those of us who have gone out
of our homes to work because we had to or for extras or
for economic independence have warned the rest: inflation has riveted us to this bloody typing-pool or to this
assembly-line, and in that there is no salvation. We must
refuse the development they are offering us. But the struggle of the working woman is not to return to the isolation
of the home, appealing as this sometimes may be on Monday morning; any more than the housewifes struggle is to
exchange being imprisoned in a house for being clinched
to desks or machines, appealing as this sometimes may be
compared to the loneliness of the twelfth-storey flat.
Women must completely discover their own possibilitieswhich are neither mending socks nor becoming captains
of ocean-going ships. Better still, we may wish to do these
things, but these now cannot be located anywhere but in
the history of capital.
The challenge to the womens movement is to find modes
of struggle which, while they liberate women from the
home, at the same time avoid on the one hand a double
slavery and on the other prevent another degree of capitalistic control and regimentation. This ultimately is the
68

dividing line between reformism and revolutionary politics
within the womens movement.
It seems that there have been few women of genius.
There could not be since, cut off from the social process,
we cannot see on what matters they could exercise their
genius. Now there is a matter, the struggle itself.
Freud said also that every woman from birth suffers
from penis envy. He forgot to add that this feeling of envy
begins from the moment when she perceives that in some
way to have a penis means to have power. Even less did he
realize that the traditional power of the penis commenced
upon a whole new history at the very moment when the
separation of man from woman became a capitalistic division.
And this is where our struggle begins.
69

1974
Today the feminist movement in Italy is opening the campaign for WAGES FOR H OUSEWORK. As you have heard
from the songs, as you have seen from the photograph
exhibition, as you have read on the placards, the questions
we are raising today are many: the barbarous conditions
in which we have to face abortion, the sadism we are
subjected to in obstetric and gynaecological clinics, our
working conditions in jobs outside the home our conditions are always worse than mens, and at home we work
without wages the fact that social services either dont
exist or are so bad that we are afraid to let our children
use them, and so on.
Now at some point people might ask, what is the connection between the campaign we are opening today, the
campaign for WAGES FOR H OUSEWORK, and all these
things that we have raised today, that we have exposed
and are fighting against? All these things that we have
spoken about, that we have made songs about, that we
have shown in our exhibitions and films?
We believe that the weakness of all women that weakness thats behind our being crossed out of all history,
70

thats behind the fact that when we leave the home we
must face the most revolting, underpaid and insecure jobs
this weakness is based on the fact that all of us women,
whatever we do, are wearied and exhausted at the very
outset by the 13 hours of housework that no-one has ever
recognized, that no-one has ever paid for.
And this is the basic condition that forces women to be
satisfied with nurseries like the Pagliuca, Celestini,
OMNI. ["Pagliuca" and "Celestini" both notoriously
brutal nurseries. "OMNI" the State nurseries which are
poorly equipped and badly run.] This weakness forces us
to pay half a million lire for an abortion and this, lets spell
it out clearly, happens in every city and every country
and on top of that we risk death and imprisonment.
We all do housework; it is the only thing all women have
in common, it is the only base on which we can gather our
power, the power of millions of women.
It is no accident that reformists of every stripe have
always carefully avoided the idea of our organizing on the
basis of housework. They have always refused to recognize
housework as work, precisely because it is the only work
that we all have in common. It is one thing to confront
two or three hundred women workers in a shoe factory,
and quite another to confront millions of housewives. And
since all women factory workers are housewives, it is still
another matter to confront these two or three hundred
factory workers united with millions of housewives.
But this is what we are putting on the agenda today in
this square. This is the first moment of organization. We
have decided to organize ourselves around the work that
we all do, in order to have the power of millions of women.
71

For us, there, the demand for wages for housework is
a direct demand for power, because housework is what
millions of women have in common.
If we can organize ourselves in our millions on this
demand and already there are quite a lot of us in this
square we can get so much power that we need no longer
be in a position of weakness when we go out of the home.
We can bring about new working conditions in housework
itself if I have money of my own in my pocket I can
even buy a dishwasher without feeling guilty and without
having to beg my husband for it for months on end while
he, who doesnt do the washing-up, considers a dishwasher
unnecessary.
So if I have money of my own, paid into my own hands,
I can change the conditions of housework itself. And moreover I will be able to choose when I want to go out to work.
If I have 120,000 lire for housework Ill never again sell
myself for 60,000 lire in a textile factory, or as someones
secretary, or as a cashier or usherette at the cinema. In
the same way, if I already have a certain amount of money
in my own hands, if I already have with me the power of
millions of women, I will be able to dictate a completely
new quality of services, nurseries, canteens, and all those
facilities that are indispensible in reducing working hours
and in enabling us to have a social life.
We want to say something else. For a long time particularly strongly in the past 10 years, but lets say always
male workers have come out to struggle against their
hours of work and for more money, and have gathered in
this square.
In the factories of Porto Marghera there have been many
strikes, many struggles. We well remember the marches
72

of male workers who started in Porto Marghera, crossed
the Mestre Bridge and arrived here in this square.
But lets make this clear. No strike has ever been a
general strike. When half the working population is at
home in the kitchens, while the others are on strike, its
not a general strike.
Weve never seen a general strike. Weve only seen
men, generally men from the big factories, come out on
the streets, while their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers,
went on cooking in the kitchens.
Today in this square, with the opening of our mobilization for WAGES FOR H OUSEWORK, we put on the
agenda our working hours, our holidays, our strikes and
our money. When we win a level of power that enables
us to reduce our 13 or more working hours a day to eight
hours or even less than eight, when at the same time we
can put on the agenda our holidays because its no secret to anyone that on Sundays and during vacation time
women never have a holiday then, perhaps, well be able
to talk for the first time of a general strike of the working
class.1
Originally published in All Work and No Pay: Women, Housework

and the Wages Due. Falling Wall Press. [1975]. Dalla Costa gave
the above speech at a 1974 celebration of International Womens
Day in Mestre, Italy.
73
4. Wages Against
Housework
Silvia Federici
1974
They say it is love. We say it is unwaged work.
They call it frigidity. We call it absenteeism.
Every miscarriage is a work accident.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both
working conditions. . . but homosexuality is
workers control of production, not the end of
work.
More smiles? More money. Nothing will be so
powerful in destroying the healing virtues of a
smile.
Neuroses, suicides, desexualization: occupational diseases of the housewife.
Many times the difficulties and ambiguities which women
express in discussing wages for housework stem from the
fact that they reduce wages for housework to a thing, a
lump of money, instead of viewing it as a political perspective. The difference between these two standpoints is
74

enormous. To view wages for housework as a thing rather
than a perspective is to detach the end result of our struggle from the struggle itself and to miss its significance
in demystifying and subverting the role to which women
have been confined in capitalist society.
When we view wages for housework in this reductive
way we start asking ourselves: what difference could some
more money make to our lives? We might even agree that
for a lot of women who do not have any choice except for
housework and marriage, it would indeed make a lot of
difference. But for those of us who seem to have other
choices professional work, enlightened husband, communal way of life, gay relations or a combination of these
it would not make much of a difference at all. For us
there are supposedly other ways of achieving economic
independence, and the last thing we want is to get it by
identifying ourselves as housewives, a fate which we all
agree is, so to speak, worse than death. The problem with
this position is that in our imagination we usually add
a bit of money to the shitty lives we have now and then
ask, so what? on the false premise that we could ever
get that money without at the same time revolutionizing
in the process of struggling for it all our family and
social relations. But if we take wages for housework as
a political perspective, we can see that struggling for it
is going to produce a revolution in our lives and in our
social power as women. It is also clear that if we think we
do not need that money, it is because we have accepted
the particular forms of prostitution of body and mind by
which we get the money to hide that need. As I will try
to show, not only is wages for housework a revolutionary
perspective, but it is the only revolutionary perspective
75

from a feminist viewpoint and ultimately for the entire
working class.
A Labour of Love
It is important to recognize that when we speak of housework we are not speaking of a job as other jobs, but we
are speaking of one of the most pervasive manipulations,
most subtle and mystified forms of violence that capitalism has perpetrated against any section of the working
class. True, under capitalism every worker is manipulated
and exploited and his/her relation to capital is totally mystified. The wage gives the impression of a fair deal: you
work and you get paid, hence you and your boss are equal;
while in reality the wage, rather than paying for the work
you do, hides all the unpaid work that goes into profit.
But the wage at least recognizes that you are a worker,
and you can bargain and struggle around and against the
terms and the quantity of that wage, the terms and the
quantity of that work. To have a wage means to be part
of a social contract, and there is no doubt concerning its
meaning: you work, not because you like it, or because it
comes naturally to you, but because it is the only condition
under which you are allowed to live. But exploited as you
might be, you are not that work. Today you are a postman,
tomorrow a cabdriver. All that matters is how much of
that work you have to do and how much of that money you
can get.
But in the case of housework the situation is qualitatively different. The difference lies in the fact that not
only has housework been imposed on women, but it has
76

been transformed into a natural attribute of our female
physique and personality, an internal need, an aspiration,
supposedly coming from the depth of our female character.
Housework had to be transformed into a natural attribute
rather than be recognized as a social contract because
from the beginning of capitals scheme for women this
work was destined to be unwaged. Capital had to convince
us that it is a natural, unavoidable and even fulfilling
activity to make us accept our unwaged work. In its turn,
the unwaged condition of housework has been the most
powerful weapon in reinforcing the common assumption
that housework is not work, thus preventing women from
struggling against it, except in the privatized kitchen
bedroom quarrel that all society agrees to ridicule, thereby
further reducing the protagonist of a struggle. We are seen
as nagging bitches, not workers in struggle.
Yet just how natural it is to be a housewife is shown by
the fact that it takes at least twenty years of socialization
day-to-day training, performed by an unwaged mother
to prepare a woman for this role, to convince her that
children and husband are the best she can expect from life.
Even so, it hardly succeeds. No matter how well-trained
we are, few are the women who do not feel cheated when
the brides day is over and they find themselves in front
of a dirty sink. Many of us still have the illusion that we
marry for love. A lot of us recognize that we marry for
money and security; but it is time to make it clear that
while the love or money involved is very little, the work
which awaits us is enormous. This is why older women
always tell us Enjoy your freedom while you can, buy
whatever you want now. . . But unfortunately it is almost
impossible to enjoy any freedom if from the earliest days
77

of life you are trained to be docile, subservient, dependent
and most important to sacrifice yourself and even to get
pleasure from it. If you dont like it, it is your problem,
your failure, your guilt, your abnormality.
We must admit that capital has been very successful
in hiding our work. It has created a true masterpiece at
the expense of women. By denying housework a wage and
transforming it into an act of love, capital has killed many
birds with one stone. First of all, it has got a hell of a lot
of work almost for free, and it has made sure that women,
far from struggling against it, would seek that work as the
best thing in life (the magic words: Yes, darling, you are
a real woman). At the same time, it has disciplined the
male worker also, by making his woman dependent on
his work and his wage, and trapped him in this discipline
by giving him a servant after he himself has done so much
serving at the factory or the office. In fact, our role as
women is to be the unwaged but happy, and most of all
loving, servants of the working class, i.e. those strata of
the proletariat to which capital was forced to grant more
social power. In the same way as god created Eve to give
pleasure to Adam, so did capital create the housewife to
service the male worker physically, emotionally and sexually to raise his children, mend his socks, patch up his
ego when it is crushed by the work and the social relations (which are relations of loneliness) that capital has
reserved for him. It is precisely this peculiar combination of physical, emotional and sexual services that are
involved in the role women must perform for capital that
creates the specific character of that servant which is the
housewife, that makes her work so burdensome and at the
same time invisible. It is not an accident that most men
78

start thinking of getting married as soon as they get their
first job. This is not only because now they can afford it,
but because having somebody at home who takes care of
you is the only condition not to go crazy after a day spent
on an assembly line or at a desk. Every woman knows
that this is what she should be doing to be a true woman
and have a successful marriage. And in this case too,
the poorer the family the higher the enslavement of the
woman, and not simply because of the monetary situation.
In fact capital has a dual policy, one for the middle class
and one for the proletarian family. It is no accident that
we find the most unsophisticated machismo in the working class family: the more blows the man gets at work the
more his wife must be trained to absorb them, the more he
is allowed to recover his ego at her expense. You beat your
wife and vent your rage against her when you are frustrated or overtired by your work or when you are defeated
in a struggle (to go into a factory is itself a defeat). The
more the man serves and is bossed around, the more he
bosses around. A mans home is his castle . . . and his wife
has to learn to wait in silence when he is moody, to put
him back together when he is broken down and swears
at the world, to turn around in bed when he says Im too
tired tonight, or when he goes so fast at lovemaking that,
as one woman put it, he might as well make it with a
mayonnaise jar. (Women however have always found ways
of fighting back, or getting back at them, but always in an
isolated and privatized way. The problem, then, becomes
how to bring this struggle out of the kitchen and bedroom
and into the streets.)
This fraud that goes under the name of love and marriage affects all of us, even if we are not married, because
79

once housework was totally naturalized and sexualized,
once it became a feminine attribute, all of us as females
are characterized by it. If it is natural to do certain things,
then all women are expected to do them and even like
doing them even those women who, due to their social
position, could escape some of that work or most of it (their
husbands can afford maids and shrinks and other forms
of relaxation and amusement). We might not serve one
man, but we are all in a servant relation with respect to
the whole male world. This is why to be called a female is
such a putdown, such a degrading thing. (Smile, honey,
whats the matter with you? is something every man feels
entitled to ask you, whether he is your husband, or the
man who takes your ticket on a train, or your boss at
work.)
The Revolutionary Perspective

If we start from this analysis we can see the revolutionary
implications of the demand for wages for housework. It
is the demand by which our nature ends and our struggle
begins because just to want wages for housework means
to refuse that work as the expression of our nature, and
therefore to refuse precisely the female role that capital
has invented for us.
To ask for wages for housework will by itself undermine
the expectations society has of us, since these expectations
the essence of our socialization are all functional to
our wageless condition in the home. In this sense, it is
absurd to compare the struggle of women for wages to the
struggle of male workers in the factory for more wages.
80

The waged worker in struggling for more wages challenges
his social role but remains within it. When we struggle
for wages we struggle unambiguously and directly against
our social role. In the same way there is a qualitative
difference between the struggles of the waged worker and
the struggles of the slave for a wage against that slavery. It
should be clear, however, that when we struggle for a wage
we do not struggle to enter capitalist relations, because
we have never been out of them. We struggle to break
capitals plan for women, which is an essential moment
of the divisions within the working class, through which
capital has been able to maintain its power. Wages for
housework, then, is a revolutionary demand not because
by itself it destroys capital, but because it forces capital
to restructure social relations in terms more favourable
to us and consequently more favourable to the unity of
the class. In fact, to demand wages for housework does
not mean to say that if we are paid we will continue to do
it. It means precisely the opposite. To say that we want
money for housework is the first step towards refusing
to do it, because the demand for a wage makes our work
visible, which is the most indispensable condition to begin
to struggle against it, both in its immediate aspect as
housework and its more insidious character as femininity.
Against any accusation of economism we should remember that money is capital, i.e. it is the power to command
labour. Therefore to re-appropriate that money which is
the fruit of our labour of our mothers and grandmothers
labour means at the same time to undermine capitals
power to command forced labour from us. And we should
not distrust the power of the wage in demystifying our
femaleness and making visible our work our femaleness
81

as work since the lack of a. wage has been so powerful in
shaping this role and hiding our work. To demand wages
for housework is to make it visible that our minds, bodies
and emotions have all been distorted for a specific function,
in a specific function, and then have been thrown back at
us as a model to which we should all conform if we want
to be accepted as women in this society.
To say that we want wages for housework is to expose
the fact that housework is already money for capital, that
capital has made and makes money out of our cooking,
smiling, fucking. At the same time, it shows that we have
cooked, smiled, fucked throughout the years not because
it was easier for us than for anybody else, but because
we did not have any other choice. Our faces have become
distorted from so much smiling, our feelings have got lost
from so much loving, our over-sexualization has left us
completely desexualized.
Wages for housework is only the beginning, but its message is clear: from now on they have to pay us because
as females we do not guarantee anything any longer. We
want to call work what is work so that eventually we might
rediscover what is love and create what will be our sexuality which we have never known. And from the viewpoint
of work we can ask not one wage but many wages, because
we have been forced into many jobs at once. We are housemaids, prostitutes, nurses, shrinks; this is the essence of
the heroic spouse who is celebrated on Mothers Day.
We say: stop celebrating our exploitation, our supposed
heroism. From now on we want money for each moment of
it, so that we can refuse some of it and eventually all of it.
In this respect nothing can be more effective than to show
that our female virtues have a calculable money value,
82

until today only for capital, increased in the measure that
we were defeated; from now on against capital for us in
the measure we organize our power.
The Struggle for Social Services

This is the most radical perspective we can adopt because
although we can ask for everything, day care, equal pay,
free laundromats, we will never achieve any real change
unless we attack our female role at its roots. Our struggle
for social services, i.e. for better working conditions, will
always be frustrated if we do not first establish that our
work is work. Unless we struggle against the totality
of it we will never achieve victories with respect to any
of its moments. We will fail in the struggle for the free
laundromats unless we first struggle against the fact that
we cannot love except at the price of endless work, which
day after day cripples our bodies, our sexuality, our social
relations, unless we first escape the blackmail whereby
our need to give and receive affection is turned against
us as a work duty for which we constantly feel resentful
against our husbands, children and friends, and guilty for
that resentment. Getting a second job does not change
that role, as years and years of female work outside the
house still witness. The second job not only increases our
exploitation, but simply reproduces our role in different
forms. Wherever we tum we can see that the jobs women
perform are mere extensions of the housewife condition in
all its implications. That is, not only do we become nurses,
maids, teachers, secretaries all functions for which we
are well-trained in the home but we are in the same bind
83

that hinders our struggles in the home: isolation, the fact
that other peoples lives depend on us, or the impossibility
to see where our work begins and ends, where our work
ends and our desires begin. Is bringing coffee to your
boss and chatting with him about his marital problems
secretarial work or is it a personal favour? Is the fact that
we have to worry about our looks on the job a condition of
work or is it the result of female vanity? (Until recently
airline stewardesses in the United States were periodically
weighed and had to be constantly on a diet a torture that
all women know for fear of being laid off.) As is often said
when the needs of the waged labour market require her
presence there A woman can do any job without losing
her femininity, which simply means that no matter what
you do you are still a cunt.
As for the proposal of socialization and collectivization of
housework, a couple of examples will be sufficient to draw
a line between these alternatives and our perspective. It
is one thing to set up a day care centre the way we want it,
and demand that the State pay for it. It is quite another
thing to deliver our children to the State and ask the State
to control them, discipline them, teach them to honour the
American flag not for five hours, but for fifteen or twentyfour hours. It is one thing to organize communally the
way we want to eat (by ourselves, in groups, etc.) and then
ask the State to pay for it, and it is the opposite thing to
ask the State to organize our meals. In one case we regain
some control over our lives, in the other we extend the
States control over us.
84
The Struggle Against Housework

Some women say: how is wages for housework going to
change the attitudes of our husbands towards us? Wont
our husbands still expect the same duties as before and
even more than before once we are paid for them? But
these women do not see that they can expect so much
from us precisely because we are not paid for our work,
because they assume that it is a womans thing which
does not cost us much effort. Men are able to accept our
services and take pleasure in them because they presume
that housework is easy for us, that we enjoy it because
we do it for their love. They actually expect us to be
grateful because by marrying us or living with us they
have given us the opportunity to express ourselves as
women (i.e. to serve them), You are lucky you have found
a man like me. Only when men see our work as work
our love as work and most important our determination
to refuse both, will they change their attitude towards us.
When hundreds and thousands of women are in the streets
saying that endless cleaning, being always emotionally
available, fucking at command for fear of losing our jobs
is hard, hated work which wastes our lives, then they will
be scared and feel undermined as men.
But this is the best thing that can happen from their
own point of view, because by exposing the way capital has
kept us divided (capital has disciplined them through us
and us through them each other, against each other), we
their crutches, their slaves, their chains open the process
of their liberation. In this sense wages for housework will
be much more educational than trying to prove that we
can work as well as them, that we can do the same jobs.
85

We leave this worthwhile effort to the career woman, the
woman who escapes from her oppression not through the
power of unity and struggle, but through the power of
the master, the power to oppress usually other women.
And we dont have to prove that we can break the blue
collar barrier. A lot of us broke that barrier a long time
ago and have discovered that the overalls did not give us
more power than the apron; if possible even less, because
now we had to wear both and had less time and energy to
struggle against them. The things we have to prove are
our capacity to expose what we are already doing, what
capital is doing to us and our power in the struggle against
it.
Unfortunately, many women particularly single
women are afraid of the perspective of wages for housework because they are afraid of identifying even for a
second with the housewife. They know that this is the
most powerless position in society and so they do not want
to realize that they are housewives too. This is precisely
their weakness, a weakness which is maintained and
perpetuated through the lack of self-identification. We
want and have to say that we are all housewives, we
are all prostitutes and we are all gay, because until we
recognize our slavery we cannot recognize our struggle
against it, because as long as we think we are something
better, something different than a housewife, we accept
the logic of the master, which is a logic of division, and
for us the logic of slavery. We are all housewives because
no matter where we are they can always count on more
work from us, more fear on our side to put forward our
demands, and less pressure on them for money, since
86

hopefully our minds are directed elsewhere, to that man
in our present or our future who will take care of us.
And we also delude ourselves that we can escape housework. But how many of us, in spite of working outside
the house, have escaped it? And can we really so easily
disregard the idea of living with a man? What if we lose
our jobs? What about ageing and losing even the minimal
amount of power that youth (productivity) and attractiveness (female productivity) afford us today? And what
about children? Will we ever regret having chosen not to
have them, not even having been able to realistically ask
that question? And can we afford gay relations? Are we
willing to pay the possible price of isolation and exclusion?
But can we really afford relations with men?
The question is: why are these our only alternatives and
what kind of struggle will move us beyond them?
87
Silvia Federici
1975
Sexuality is the release we are given from the discipline
of the work process. It is the necessary complement to the
routine, regimentation of the work-week. It is a license to
go mad, to let go, so that we can return more refreshed
on Monday to our jobs.
Saturday is the irruption of the spontaneous, the irrational in the rationality of the capitalist disciplining of
our life. It is supposed to be the compensation for work
and is ideologically sold as the other from work, a field of
freedom in which we can presumably be our true selves,
have the possibility for intimate contacts in a universe of
social relations where we are constantly forced to repress,
defer, postpone, hide, even from ourselves, what we desire.
This being the promise, what we actually get is far from
our expectations. As we cannot go back to nature by simply taking off our clothes, so cannot become ourselves
simply because it is love-making time. Little spontaneity
is possible when the timing, conditions and the amount of
energy available for love are out of our control. Not only
after a week of work our bodies and feelings are numb and
we cannot turn them on like a machine. But what comes
88
out when we let go is more often our repressed violence
and frustration than our hidden self ready to be reborn in
bed.
Among other things, we are always aware of the falseness of this spontaneity. No matter how much we scream,
sigh, and how many erotic exercises we make in bed, we
know that it is a parenthesis and that tomorrow we both
will be back in our civilized clothes we will have coffee together preparing to go to work. The more we know
that it is a parenthesis which the rest of the day or the
week will deny, the more difficult it becomes for us to turn
into savages at the socially sanctioned sex-time and forget everything else. We cannot avoid feeling ill at ease.
It is the same embarrassment we experience when we
undress knowing that we will be making love, the embarrassment of the morning after, when we are already busy
re-establishing distances; the embarrassment (finally) of
pretending to be completely different from what we are
during the rest of the day.
This transition is particularly painful for women; men
seem to be experts at it, possibly because they have been
subjected to a more strict regimentation in their work.
Women have always wondered how it was possible that,
after a nightly display of passion, he could get up already
in a different world, so distant at times that it would be
difficult for her to re-establish even a physical contact with
him. In any case, it is always women who suffer most from
the schizophrenic character of sexual relations, not only
because we arrive at the end of the day with more work
and more worries on our shoulders, but because we also
have the responsibility of making the sexual experience
pleasurable for the man. This is why women are usually
89
less sexually responsive than men. Sex is work for us, it
is a duty. The duty to please is so built into our sexuality
that we have learned to get pleasure out of giving pleasure,
out of getting men excited.
Since we are expected to provide a release, we inevitably
become the object on which men discharge their repressed
violence. We are raped, both in our beds and in the streets,
precisely because we have been set up to be the providers
of sexual satisfaction, the safety valves for everything that
goes wrong, and men have always been allowed to turn
their anger against us, if we do not measure up to the role,
particularly when we refuse to perform.
Compartmentalization is only one aspect of the mutilation of our sexuality. The subordination of our sexuality
to the reproduction of labor power has meant that heterosexuality has been imposed on us as the only acceptable
sexual behavior. In reality, every genuine communication
has a sexual component, for our bodies and emotions are
indivisible and we communicate at all levels all the time.
Sexual contact with women is forbidden because in bourgeois morality anything that is unproductive is obscene,
unnatural, perverted. This has meant the imposition of
a schizophrenic condition on us, as early in our lives we
must learn to draw a line between the people we can love
and the people we just talk to, those to whom we can open
our body and those to whom we can only open our souls,
our friends and our lovers. The result is that we are bodiless souls for our female friends and soulless flesh for our
male lovers. And this division separates us not only from
other women but from ourselves as well, in the sense of
what we do or do not accept in our bodies and feelings the
clean parts that are there for open display, and the dirty,
90
secret parts that can only be disclosed in the conjugal bed,
at the point of production.
The same concern for production has demanded that
sexuality, especially in women, be confined to certain periods of our lives. Sexuality is repressed in children and
adolescent as well as in older women. Thus, the years in
which we are allowed to be sexually active are the years in
which we are most burdened with work, so that enjoying
our sexual encounters becomes a feat.
But the main reason why we cannot enjoy sex is that
for women sex is work; giving pleasure is part of what is
expected of every woman. Sexual freedom does not help.
Certainly it is important not to be stoned to death if we
are unfaithful or if it is found that we are not virgins. But
sexual freedom means more work. In the past we were just
expected to raise children. Now we are expected to have a
waged job, still clean the house and have children and, at
the end of a double work-day, be ready to hop in bed and be
sexually enticing. And we must enjoy it as well, something
which is not expected of most jobs for a bored performance
would be an insult to male virility, which is why there
have been so many investigations in recent years concerning which parts of our body whether the vagina or the
clitoris are more sexually productive. But whether in
its liberalized or more repressive form, our sexuality is
still under control. The law, medicine and our economic
dependence on men all guarantee that, although the rules
are loosened, spontaneity is still impossible in our sexual
life. Sexual repression in the family is a function of that
control. In this sense fathers, brothers, husbands, pimps
all act as agents of the state, supervising our sexual work,
91
ensuring that we provide sexual services according to the
established, socially sanctioned productivity norms.
Economic dependence is the ultimate means of control
over our sexuality. This is why sexual work is still one of
the main occupations for women and prostitution underlines every sexual encounter. Under these circumstances,
there cannot be any spontaneity in sex for us nor can
sexual pleasure be more than an ephemeral thing for us.
Because of the exchange involved and the duty to give
pleasure to men, sexuality for women is always accompanied by anxiety and it is the part of housework most
responsible for self-hatred. In addition, the commercialization of the female body makes it impossible for us to feel
comfortable with our body regardless of its shape or form.
Few women can happily undress in front of a man knowing that they will be ranked according to highly publicized
standards of beauty that everyone, male or female, is well
aware of, as they are splashed all around us on every wall
in our cities, and on every magazine or TV screen.
Knowing that our looks we will judged and that in some
way we are selling ourselves has destroyed our confidence
and our pleasure in our bodies. This is why, whether we
are skinny or plump, long or short nosed, tall or small, we
all hate our body. We hate it because we are accustomed
to look at it from the outside, with the eyes of the men
we meet, and with the bodies-market in mind. We hate
it because we are used to think of it as something to sell,
something that has become almost independent of us and
that is always on a counter. We hate it because we know
that so much depends on it. Depending on it, we can get a
good or bad job (in marriage or work outside the home), we
can gain a certain amount of social power, some company
92
to escape the loneliness that awaits us in this society. And
our body can turn against us, we may get fat, get wrinkles,
age fast, make people indifferent to us, loose our right to
intimacy, loose our chance to be touched or hugged.
In sum, we are too busy performing, too busy pleasing,
too afraid of failing, to enjoy making love. The sense of
our value is at stake in every sexual relation. It is always
a great pleasure if a man says that we are good in bed,
whether we have liked it or not; it boosts our sense of
power, even if we know that afterwards we still have to do
the dishes.
We are never allowed to forget the exchange involved,
because we never transcend the value-relation in our loverelation with a man. How much? is the question that
governs our experience of sexuality. Most of our sexual
encounters are spent in calculations. We sigh, sob, gasp,
pant, jump and down in bed, but in the meantime our
mind keeps calculating how much: how much of ourselves
we can give before we loose or undersell ourselves, how
much will we get in return. If it is our first date, it is how
much can we allow him to get: can he go up our skirt,
open our blouse, put his fingers under our brassier? At
what point should we tell him to stop, how strongly should
we refuse? How much can we tell him that we like him
before he starts thinking that we are cheap? Keep the
price up, thats the rule, at least the one we are taught.
If we are already in bed the calculations become even
more complicated, because we also have to calculate our
chances of getting pregnant, so that, through the sighing
and gasping and other shows of passion, we have to quickly
run down the schedule of our period. Faking pleasure in
the sexual act, in the absence of an orgasm, is extra work
93
and a hard one, because when you are faking it you never
know how far you should go, and you always end up doing
more for fear of not doing enough. It has taken a lot of
struggle and a leap in our collective social power to finally
being able to admit that nothing was happening.
94
6. Reproduction and
Emigration
19741
Introduction
1.
Since at least the end of the 19th century, under the guise
of a question of the optimal size of population, political
economy has actually been posing the problem of State
1
This article first appeared in the book edited by Alessandro Serafini,

Loperaio multinazionale in Europa, Milano: Feltrinelli, 1974. This
American translation, done by Silvia Federici and Harry Cleaver,
and revised by the author, is from the second Italian edition (1977).
The French translation appeared in Collectif LInsoumise (ed) Le
foyer de linsurrection, Textes sur le salaire pour le travail menager,
Le Mont-sur-Lausanne: Cooprative dImpressions Nouvelles and
Genve: Collective LInsoumise, 1977. The Spanish version was
published in Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Dinero, perlas y flores en la reproduccin feminista, Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 2009. The Japanese
translation appeared in the book Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Kajirodo
ni Chingin-o-feminizumu no aratana tenbo, Tokyo: Impact Shuppankai, October 1986, 2nd edition 1990.
95

control over birth and fertility rates with an eye to the
expansion or contraction of the labor market. The other
side of this question in fact was the optimal size of the
state and with it the associated problem of the availability
of cannon fodder for imperial wars.
It is hardly surprising that this question arose precisely
at this time as birth rates had begun falling in all European countries during the 19th century, with the exception
of France where it had begun to drop earlier, in the last
quarter of the 18th century.
The other side of the problem was that population was
growing in inverse proportion to its level of well-being, thus
a rise in the standard of living was leading to a drop in the
fertility rate2 allaying Malthusian fears of overpopulation
but at the same time undermining government hopes that
economic development would be made secure through the
adequate reproduction of labor power.
State control over birth and fertility rates means above
all State control over womens fate it means diminished
opportunities for them to be social individuals instead of
mere appendages to State economic planning for growth
or stagnation.
The State only becomes concerned about the gap between
fertility and birth rates when the latter is considered to
be too low, and it responds by abolishing all means of
contraception and abortion. Both Nazism and Fascism
2
See: Michael T. Sadler, The Law of Population, London 1830;

Thomas Doubleday, The True Law of Population, London 1842.
These two authors observed that population growth proceeds in
inverse proportion to its well-being and that a rise in the standard
of living causes a fall in the fertility rate removing the danger of
overpopulation feared by Malthus.
96

were typical in this respect although they enforced such
policies only within the national boundaries of Hitlers
Germany and Mussolinis Italy and not in the colonies.
However, as long as the birth rate is considered to be
adequate, the State ignores any disparity between fertility
and birth rates and remains indifferent to the fact that
women abort or to how they abort.
We are not concerned here with listing all the independent variables that may affect the States attitude, but it
is worth noting that the States interest in adjusting the
birth rate and to a lesser degree, the fertility rate, may
vary both in time and space and, most importantly, in the
span of the same regime.
For example, the demographic history of the USSR after 1917 (and of Eastern European countries after 1945)
shows a continuous oscillation between extreme permissiveness and rigid control.3 Despite the provision of material incentives the birth rate fell short of the planners
expectations particularly in key areas of the USSR. As will
be seen later, this was also the case in Western Europe
the main focus of this analysis.
3
In the USSR until 1936 there were no restrictions concerning abortion; from 1936 to 1955 abortion was strictly controlled. Starting in
1956 the state again allowed a certain degree of liberalization. The
popular democracies, after substantial incentives for population
growth in the postwar period, introduced a number of very permissive measures between 1956 and 1958, but they abolished them
in the Sixties: e.g., Rumania in 1966. Czechoslovakia, Hungary
and Bulgaria tried to stimulate population growth by means of
material incentives such as increases in the Family Allowances,
services for children and special maternity leave for waged and
salaried women.
97

How should one interpret womens resistance to complying with such planning? It seems to us that it can be
interpreted very simply, as womens lack of identification
with the so-called common good. Women could see that
the common good effectively meant a planned rate of economic growth that would keep them tied to long hours of
work either in the factories and offices of Eastern Europe
or at home and in the fields of some Western European
countries.
In his excellent book World Revolution and Family Patterns,4 the US sociologist William J. Goode argues that:
The important change is not, therefore, that
the birth rate has dropped in the last generation, for its decline had already begun in France
in the last quarter of the 18th century, in the
United States by the early 19th century and
in England and possibly Sweden and Belgium
before 1875. Rather, the change is in the general acceptance of the opinion that husband and
wife may control the number of their children
if they wish to do so; as a consequence, both
decline and rise may occur more quickly than
in the past, as rapid adjustment to alterations
in the life situation, such as prosperity or war,
or the particular experience of special segments
of the population.5
We can add that this control over the number of offspring
a greater burden for women than for the family as a whole
4
William J. Goode, World Revolution and Family Patterns, New York:

The Free Press, 1970.
5
Ibid., p. 53.
98

has been a growing tendency and not a particularly surprising one. In fact war after the war the State suffered
a loss of credibility in the eyes of the average man and
woman. If to this loss of credibility one adds the increasing
awareness of parents that they could offer little else to
their children than the prospect of a future in the factory,
it is clear why womens reactions to State demographic
policies were far from diffident. They and the State have
unrelated, completely diverging interests, a divergence
which is particularly visible in countries where the State
wants to maintain high fertility and birth rates. It is not
hard to see how the capitalist class in Italy found it had
won many advantages from population growth during the
years of Fascism. We can confirm as sure that women
had only managed to combat and evade Mussolinis demographic policies by contravening the laws of both the
Church and the State. Their success in evading those laws
can be measured in terms of the relatively low increase in
the number of births6 and the tens of millions of abortions
that were carried out during and after the regime.
In the Fifties, the children born in the Mussolini period came of age. But where was most of that generation
channeled? They went from the fields of the North and
from the entire South of Italy into the Italian industrial
triangle and to Central Europe. There is little doubt that
the provision of labor power by the Italian governments of
6
The Italian Statistical Yearbook, ISTAT, of 1943 gives the following

figures for the birth rate: 139.2 for the period 1920-22, 110.2 for
the period 1930-32, 104.8 for the period 1935-37, 106.0 for the
period 1939-40. As we can see, the period in which the index of
fertility rose but only from 104.8 to 106.0 coincided with the
provision of economic incentives.
99

the time, particularly in relation to the Swiss and German
governments, gave the Italian ruling class a powerful lever
in bargaining with its foreign partners.
But what conclusions should women, particularly
women of Southern Italy, draw about a State that
bargains on the basis of a flow of labor power abroad?
Was this situation any different from the flow of labor
power into Germany in the period between 1939 and 1942?
A flow which was organized by the Heads of States7 and
which people were forced to accept given the high level of
unemployment in Italy.
As one can see, womens NO, their refusal to accept
State coercion has, and had, well founded reasons reasons which lie both in the past, and in the future.
2.
But to make the argument more general, to go beyond
the Italian case, what we are trying to show here is that
the formation of a multinational working class has its
origins in the history of women as a section of the class.
Women began, particularly since the war, to take their own
direction in an increasingly homogeneous and diffuse way.
Hence, the emergence of a new quality of political power,
as expressed by this class, has to be attributed to, and
defined in terms of the new processes of autonomy opened
up within the class by its various sections and particularly
by woman.
Above all by womens refusal to procreate.
7
Edward L. Homze, Foreign Labor in Nazi Germany, Princeton:

University of Princeton Press, 1967.
100

During the second half of the Sixties, all European countries registered a dramatic fall in the birth rate8 that
cannot be wholly attributed to the increased availability
of contraceptives.9 The birth rate fell particularly steeply
among those sectors that formerly had proved to be less
successful in controlling their fertility10
Women were better able to reject State controls over
procreation the more they resisted pressure from within
the family, from the elderly, from husbands, from other
children.
Professor Roland Pressat, a well known expert in demography who

teaches at the National Institute for Demographic Studies in Paris
and is the author of an interesting work, Analyse demographique
in his work Population, London: Penguin Books, 1973, p. 96,
shows in a very clear graph the fall of the birth rate after 1964
in Holland, Italy, Great Britain, West Germany, France, Belgium
and Luxembourg. In any case this is a phenomenon that is widely
recognized by all demographers.
9
Further, the degree of diffusion of the latest contraceptives, at least
in Europe, has not been such as to account for the recent reduction
in the fertility rate. Ibid., p. 97. We add that in those European
countries dominated by the Catholic Church, up to this day it is
difficult for the overwhelming majority of women to gain access
not only to the latest contraceptives but to any contraceptives at
all. In this respect, Irish history has a new hero. Mrs. Mary
McGee, aged 28, the wife of a fisherman and already the mother
of four children, who had already cerebral thrombosis twice, was
arrested last year at the customs by an officer who, searching in the
womans handbag, discovered an intrauterine device. Exasperated,
Mary McGee appealed to the High Court which, in December
1973, issued the first liberalizing sentence on the matter: It does
not pertain to the State, the court decreed, to interfere in such
intimate and delicate matters. La Stampa, March 22, 1973, p. 3.
10
See again, Roland Pressat, op. cit.
101

This rejection and resistance can be found to a greater
or lesser degree in all countries irrespective of whether
the number of women in waged work is high or low,
whether the country is one of immigration or emigration
and whether the women are native or immigrants
themselves.
Thus the family, the centre of unpaid work and personal
dependence, has emerged as the primary terrain on which
women have managed to resist and to organize themselves
at a mass level.
The more women succeed in freeing themselves from
the constraints of the family the more they will be able to
succeed in emancipating themselves from conditions that
limit their ability to improve their lives.
First of all in the agricultural context:
a)
The process of emancipation from various family constraints within the passage from the patriarchal peasant
family to the urban nuclear family has been marked by
a change, a transformation, in the way in which women
manage the wage11 even though they have continued to
prioritize childrens needs and not their own.
11
This is one of the main theses developed by Leopoldina Fortunati

in Le donne contro la famiglia (Woman Against the Family) that
analyzes womens relation to capital over the last thirty years in
Italy. Some of her work which proposes an analysis relevant to the
war period and early postwar period can be found in Leopoldina
Fortunati, La famiglia verso la ricostruzione in Mariarosa Dalla
Costa e Leopoldina Fortunati, Brutto ciao. Direzioni di marcia
delle donne negli ultimi 30 anni, Roma: Edizioni delle donne, 1976,
pp. 71-147.
102

As the former authority and control of older relatives
diminished so women became freer to spend the wage and
not save it, which they had been under pressure to do
before. They mainly spent it in order to improve their
childrens situations. Children began to be raised on baby
food, and got used to having cigarettes, tape recorders and
record players.
All of this is common in areas of a certain level of industrialization. However, this is not true of areas such
as Southern Italy where women, left alone because of emigration, still have to struggle in their own interests, for
example, for improvement in material living conditions
in their neighborhoods, for water, for work, etc. But their
struggles catalyze the struggles of their children, who use
any means possible to obtain a better standard of life and
it is in this context that the higher rates of juvenile delinquency and analogous phenomena found in the South
should be understood.
In both instances, industrial and Southern, the course of
womens autonomous struggles for better conditions of life
for both themselves and their children has created a new
generation, a new working class, a new level of struggle.
The fact that women are less and less inclined to or
interested in getting married, that they have fewer children, and are willing to use any means possible to improve
theirs and their childrens life, all this is reflected in the
struggles in the factory. Young workers, immigrant or not,
are less concerned about whether they marry (because
women are less concerned about getting married);12 they
12
Bennett Kremen, Lordstown Searching for a Better Way of

Work, New York Times, September 9, 1973. Joseph Goodfreys,
103

are less likely to be the fathers of large families and are
already used to struggling at any cost when the family
wage fails to provide a certain standard of living.
Clearly womens refusal to procreate and their attempts
to improve their childrens situation have met with more
success in some countries than in others. In countries such
as France, Germany and Switzerland where there tends to
be a shortage of labor power and workers have higher expectations, the working class is able to earn better wages.
In other areas, for example Southern Italy, the Iberian
Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), the Maghreb, Turkey etc.,
women are less able to restrict the number of births and
have less chance of raising their childrens standards of
living. But when European capital attempts to buy the
children of underdevelopment and use them against the
children of development, it finds itself increasingly faced
with womens resistance, their struggle and with the value
of their work.
b)
Thus emigration is the States policy response to womens
refusal to comply and procreate. It represents an attempt
to recuperate the working class both qualitatively and
quantitatively, i.e., to restore adequate discipline and to
achieve a size that is functional for capital. It is also the
General Manager of General Motors Assembly Line Division said:
Yes, our workers are less keen than they used to be to commit
themselves. . . . There is a lot of restlessness and we feel this on
the assembly line war, youth, rebellion, drugs, race, inflation,
moral crisis. Marriage is no longer what it used to be. We feel that.
their minds are elsewhere! (translated from the Italian)
104

response both to what the refusal represents as a process of
struggle and to the new relationships it establishes. The
new multinational working class is the direct expression
of the process.
Earlier we said that for women in Europe, the postwar
years were years of struggle when they began to reject
the agricultural life style with its long hours of work in
the house and the fields, to reject the patriarchal peasant
family with its hierarchical power structure dominated by
men and elder relatives, and to reject the isolation of the
small village and the power and influence of the Church.
The many differences in levels of industrialization, in the
proportion of women in waged work, in outmigration from
the countryside, in immigration and emigration and so
on, that one finds in various countries make no difference, however, to the general tenor of womens struggles;
everywhere they were seeking to free themselves from
personal and economic dependence and from interminable
work schedules. And it is not difficult to draw a parallel
here between the insubordination of mothers, wives and
daughters in the unwaged workplace the family and
the insubordination of both men and women in the waged
workplace the factory.
In Western Europe, emigration was seen as the answer
to struggles in both of these areas, family and factory, an
arc of struggles which had begun to take on new qualities
and which were more subversive than their predecessors.
Emigration is therefore the States counteroffensive
launched against womens refusal to procreate in line with
State policy, and against the new relationships between
men and women and between the waged and unwaged
workplaces. Emigration not only seeks to restore the birth
105

rate, or rather to restore the class to the required size and
to the required discipline, it also seeks to break up the
process of struggle that lies behind the refusal to procreate
on demand.
a) Emigration hits not only at the individual who is
separated and isolated from his/her community and its
network of organization, it also hits at the community
itself, especially at women who are its main pillar, who are
deprived of their links with both the younger and more
independent sections of the class.
b) By means of emigration labor power from the more
backward areas is pitted against labor power from the
advanced areas. This does not only involve the use of
young immigrant labor power (which is more isolated and
politically disorganized) against local more organized labor
power, it is also a way of hitting at the women left behind
the women of the more backward areas women who have
had less success in developing their own struggles. Thus
these women are effectively used against the women of
the more advanced areas, against women who have gained
more power.
c) In the metropolitan areas which receive the inflow of
migrants, each new wave of migration further distances in
time and space the opportunities for immigrant women of
different sections and for these women and the native ones
to organize among themselves. It marks another tear in
the fabric that connects work in the home to work in the
factory, i.e. reproduction work to production work.
d) And for all these reasons emigration hits at women
in the waged workplace too, where men tend to take precedence over them.
106
3.
The rule that men take precedence over women in the
waged workplace began to be broken, especially after 1968
and during the Seventies. Emigrant women began to be
hired in such sectors as the machine tool, automobile and
chemical industries.
But how should this be interpreted? Did and does it
mean that capital preferred to employ immigrant women
rather than men in key sectors such as those mentioned
above? Is it a sign of a more general shift to employing
women outside the home? One which would meet with the
approval of reformists who think women should do their
best to grab this opportunity? Broadly, no. As will be seen
in the course of this this argument, the conclusions one
can draw from this new trend are very different.
In all these sectors, the machine tool, automobile and
chemical industries, women were always taken on at the
lowest, most unskilled grades. Thus, the reason behind
their being employed seems to have been an attempt to
break up the level of struggle reached by the more recent
waves of male immigrants. At the same time, as has already been mentioned, and will be examined in greater detail later, womens new independence had already created
a tension in the relationship between them and capital,
between them and the State, because of the requirements
of planned economic growth and the levels of reproduction (both procreation and housework) that were needed
in order to meet growth goals. This has increasingly become the cornerstone of development, not only in Western
Europe but also in Eastern Europe and the rest of the
107

world.13 We have already mentioned womens refusal to
procreate and to pay the price of reproduction in general
and how this refusal has affected intra-class relations, new
power structures, particularly in the case of women, and
youth who depend on womens work.
Thus it is in this context that the employment of women
in key sectors must be examined. And the main questions
are therefore:
For how long will capital be able to use women as a
means of breaking up the struggles of the more recent
immigrants who have often already assimilated and
incorporated the struggles of women in the community they come from?
How well can this policy realistically work, given
that it is based on the traditional political weakness
of women in the factory, and seems to ignore the fact
that women have already opened up their struggle
outside the factory?
To what extent can women be employed in the factory
at the same time they are also being encouraged to
fulfill their reproductive functions functions that
women have learned to reject if they have to pay too
high a price, given the conditions of housework, of
factory and office work, of the conditions of their lives
as a whole?
The hypotheses which we have formulated and will try to
develop here, albeit briefly, also set out the more general
13
On a worldwide scale this refusal leads to rather contradictory

policies, as demonstrated by the World Population Conference held
in Bucharest in 1974.
108

context in which another problem, that espoused by many
politicians who claim to be responding to the international
emergence of the Feminist Movement: the problem of
female employment.
In this context it seems unrealistic to suppose that the
admission of women into the bastions of male employment,
the machine tool, automobile and chemical industries, represents an about-turn in capitals attitude towards female
employment. That is, contrary to one line of argument,
it cannot be taken as an attempt on the part of capital
to abolish the separation of male and female labor markets. It is no coincidence that the people who now welcome
the mixed factory as a means of abolishing this separation are the same people who once denied that such a
separation even existed.
II. During the war and in the postwar period
the equilibrium of the relationship between production and reproduction as embodied in certain
geographical areas and community structures was
broken.
Why start with World War II? Because World War II
represented a massive attack on the value of labor power
and the starting point for the reconstruction of capitalist
power at a multinational level. However because labor
power has for so long always been taken as male labor
power this statement cannot indicate the true complexity
of the kind of attack we mean nor the complexity of the
new relationships that were created and formed during
the process of forming a multinational working class.
109

In his very original reading of workers struggles during
the Resistance in Italy, Romolo Gobbi14 cites the following
important data, he says, during this period the real wage
was systematically eroded to the point where in 1945 it
was only 22% of the real wage in 1913, thus it was only one
fifth of the already low wage of 30 years before.15 Moreover he continues, During World War I, taking advantage
of the growth of the workforce employed in war production,
the working class had launched a powerful attack on that
earlier wage level, and by 1921 had succeeded in raising
the wage level to 127 taking 1913 as 100 on the index.
During this cycle of struggles the workers also won other
victories, such as the 8 hour day and the recognition of
workers representation in the factory at the shop floor
level.16 By contrast, in 1945, not only had the real wage
fallen to one fifth of its 1913 level, but also, during the war
itself, the workers had clearly failed to achieve a level of
power in any way comparable with that won during the
First World War. This indicates that the Second World War
was based on a very different set of imperialist relations,
qualitatively different, from those of World War I.
In the USA workers were largely successful in defending their wage. Of course, no army invaded the US and
there was a much smaller loss of life in comparison with
that in European countries.17 There was no drastic food
14
15
16
17
Romolo Gobbi, Operai e resistenza, Torino: Musolini, 1973.

Ibid., p. 3.
Ibid., pp. 3-4.
David Thomson, Europe Since Napoleon, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1957, Italian translation: Storia dEuropa, Milano: Feltrinelli, 1961, p. 852. Concerning the war losses, Thomson gives
the following figures: 500,000 in France, 445,000 in the Common-
110

rationing: calorie deficiency caused by inadequate diet is
a problem the average American never had to face, even in
wartime.18 Womens employment in factories and offices
in the US did not take place in the context of a violent
attack on the whole community as it did in Europe. The
highest levels of violence and deprivation all took place on
the other side of the Atlantic and it was the consequent
weakening and breakdown of relationships that provided
the base on which emigration was established.
The attack on the value of labor power in Europe meant:
the use of forced labor male and female prisoners in
Germany, and the widest possible use and employment of
women in factories, offices and services in Great Britain:
As long as there were jobless men on the labor
market they did not resort to using women in
war industry. At the beginning their existence
was forgotten. In December 1939, the unempl-
18
wealth, 2,250,000 in Germany (just on the battlefield), 7,000,000

officially dead in Russia (but there are other figures) compared
with 325,000 from the United States. See also F. Roy Willis, Europe
in the Global Era: 1939 to Present, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.,
Toronto, 1968, p. 180; Nicholas Valentine Riasanovsky, A History
of Russia, New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, Italian translation: Storia della Russia, Dalle origini ai giomi nostri, Milano:
Garzanti, 1968, p. 604; Denna Frank Fleming, The Cold War and
Its Origins, New York: Doubleday, 1961; Italian translation: Storia
della guerra fredda, Milano: Feltrinelli 1964, p. 193.
Romolo Gobbi, op. cit., p. 8. For a more detailed analysis see:
Shepard Bancroft Clough, The Economic History of Modern Italy,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1964, Italian translation:
Storia delleconomia italiana dal 1861 ad oggi, Bologna: Cappelli,
1965; Rosario Romeo, Breve storia della grande industria in Italia,
Bologna: Universale Cappelli, 1973.
111

oyed women officially registered were 270,000
. . . in March 1941, the government decided
to put women to work . . . their recruiting
resembled in many ways the recruiting of men
for military service. The only ones exempted
were the farm women who replaced their husbands who were called up for military service,
the nurses, the midwives and the teachers. In
May 1942, mobilization was extended to eighteen and nineteen year old women. In 1944,
7,650,000 women found themselves organized
in industry and the auxiliary services, or in
civil defense. Another 900,000 worked parttime under the control of these same services.
Yet another million were unpaid volunteers in
the Womans Voluntary Service. Eventually
it became necessary to incorporate the farm
women, nurses and teachers etc . . . . and to
decentralize production to the greatest possible
extent. Deposits and factories were hurriedly
organized in residential suburban areas, where
it was possible to recruit mothers. . . . Parttime work grew rapidly.19
On the whole it was this attack on the relationship between production and reproduction, on male labor power
and female labor power that undermined any possibility
of working class defense (a defense previously maintained
at womens expense) and that began the radicalization of
the process of womens autonomy. Women, as labor power,
19
Evelyne Sullerot, La donna e il lavoro, Milano: Etas-Kompass,

1973, pp. 166-167.
112

were not only hit harder by the war but were also the
ones who were made most responsible for supporting and
defending themselves and the community. In the face of
the States arbitrary will, women discovered that this community could no longer protect them from anything, but at
the same time, precisely because of the weakness and the
dependency of their relationships within the community
they had to pay a very high price in order to support it.
This is why later on women began to identify less and less
with the community and also perhaps, why they were the
unexpected force that emerged in the aftermath of World
War II.
As for Italy, let us return to Gobbis perceptive analysis:
The nosedive taken by working class wages and the drop
in calories which fell below the level of subsistence were
the outcome of two concomitant factors: inflation and the
upsetting of the equilibrium of exchange between the city
and the countryside.20
The costs of reproduction, womens primary work, rose
rapidly during the war. It was not simply that work multiplied because of the difficulty of obtaining provisions and
the cost of basic goods, (the echoes of the womens demonstration in Turin in 1946 will last a long time),21 it was
also the fact that women had to take on secondary work,
low waged jobs, in order to send money and goods to the
soldiers who would not have been able to survive on State
pay.
20
21
Romolo Gobbi, op.cit., p. 11.

Liliana Lanzardo, Classe operaia e partito comunista alla Fiat: la
strategia della collaborazione: 1945-1949, Torino: Einaudi, 1971,
p. 332.
113

Thus to reproduce themselves, their children, the soldiers and the elderly, women were forced to take on every
type of work possible: in the home, the fields and the
factory. But while working in a factory, in an office or
driving a bus gave women an idea of the power of having
a pay check of their own, it also revealed how low, how
discriminatory their pay was in relation to that of men.22
In Italy it was often easier to survive in the countryside, because of what could be gleaned from the land. In
England, the countryside became the centre for the organization of home working. Villages in the peaceful English
countryside began to discover the novelty of being public
clearing centers for equipment and for deposits of raw materials that women came to collect. In the Midlands alone,
it has been calculated that the work done in the home using this kind of organization replaced more than 1,000 full
time women workers. This decentralization of production
was a great advantage in a country that was continuously
subject to bombardments which were designed to upset its
economy.23
In countries such as Italy, France and Germany, often
the only way to survive in the city was to take up prostitution. This work was accompanied by illegitimate births
the fruit of both the troops in transit and of centuries of
terrorism directed against the use of contraception and
22
23
While this phenomenon is usually ignored by current political

literature, we find it acknowledged and stressed in the earliest
feminist literature. See, among others, in France: Evelyne Sullerot,
op.cit., in Italy Luisa Abb et al., La coscienza di sfruttata, Milano:
Mazzotta, 1972.
Evelyne Sullerot, op.cit., p. 167
114

abortion and by venereal disease and high infant mortality.
As for womens role in the Resistance, there is not
enough space here to go into such a complex subject. However, just to mention some of the biggest contradictions
in their condition caused by the war, one point should be
made, that their role in the Resistance becomes clear if
one looks at it from the point of view of their work. Women
as well as working in the home, the fields and the factories often performed the most risky political work, just
like their Vietnamese24 and Algerian25 sisters. At the
24
25
The man would join the army to participate in the Resistance

and the woman would replace him working in the fields and in
the management of the household. Besides this (our emphasis)
she participated in the guerrilla struggle and gathered supplies
for the front. (from Aperus sur les institutions de la Rpublique
Dmocratique du Vietnam (Nord), Hanoi and from Nuova Rivista
Internazionale, n. 6, quoted in Vietnam, la famiglia nel diritto
vietnamita in Donne e politica, IV, n. 19, October 1973, p. 30).
What we described in the footnote above holds good also for Algerian women. It is well known that the bombs that exploded in the
bars and the stadiums during the terrorist phase were all placed
by women. But all over the world . . . wars of Liberation have
always put women in a position that the literature of Liberation or
Resistance has only mystified. What can we say about the classic
example of the shaven woman, who is exposed to the ridicule of
the population, when the war itself forces women into prostitution
as the only form of survival? We can say that the war is also a celebration of male sadism and highlights in a less mystified manner,
the relationship of men with women. Women are not only forced
to guarantee reproduction, at a very high price, but they are also
forced to defend themselves once more from men: from the the
enemy who rapes them; the partisan who shaves them and the
neighbor who despises them because they prostitute themselves.
115

same time though, they had almost no voice in political
organization.26
The postwar period meant, for most women, redundancy,
sacking or relegation to the lowest paid, most insecure jobs.
In Britain, this happened, though on a lesser scale than
elsewhere: In December 1945 the Minister of Labor tried
to control the movement of the return home. Nevertheless
the men came back looking for work for themselves and
expecting women to return to looking after the reunited
family. The numbers of officially unemployed women rose
quickly. In order not to lose their jobs women were forced
to accept lower wages. No laws were enacted to force the
employers to give equal pay for equal work to men and
women.27
In Italy both the expulsion of women from waged jobs
and the soaring cost of living were more extreme. In
Turin, 10,000 women wanted to throw the Prefect out of
the window in 1946.28 The Communist Party accepted the
Lateran Agreements; meanwhile in red Puglia Salvemini
reports that women were attacking religious processions
with stones and in the North there was a general air of
rebellion even in the prisons. The Italian States response
was repression. Repression started out by hitting at the
weaker sections of the class: women, youth and others and
then moved on to hit at those sectors that the Christian
26
The case of Vietnamese women may seem the most advanced. But
the political power they had access to was always very sectorial.
It is no accident that, up to this day, Vietnamese women who want
to abort must ask permission from a special judging commission.
It is a sad analogy with European advanced situations.
27
Evelyne Sullerot, op.cit., 169-170.
28
Liliana Lanzardo, op. cit., p. 332.
116

Democrats couldnt affect.29 Giving the vote to women was
a mere gesture, a fig leaf, to cover up the discontent
that the reformist parties were trying to repress by every
means possible. Simultaneously, there was an attempt to
re-launch the policy of demographic expansion that had
been a feature of the years after 1929 this time though it
went under the banner of anticommunist restoration.30 In
post war Europe in general, there was a concerted effort
being made to put everyone back into their traditional
roles, the places they had come from.
Not everywhere though. In some countries women were
not the subject of mass sacking and redundancy. In the
countries of Eastern Europe for example, female employment in wage work rose in order to replace the millions
of men who had been killed in the war. And in Western
Europe, in Germany, the level of female employment remained high until after 1960 when it began to fall off.
Throughout Europe demographic policies that centered
on the introduction or expansion of existing systems of
Family Allowances were experimented with, and were
generally coupled with other economic incentives as well.
France began to reduce its traditionally high level of
female employment and established a salaire unique
allowance for the women who were sent back into the
home.31
29
30
31
The biographies of two women summarize the situation: Danilo

Montaldi, Militanti politici di base, Torino: Einaudi, 1971 (the
biography of Margitt and the last in the book: Girl).
Not the least of the means adopted for the restoration were the
campaigns connected with the Holy Year and the sanctification of
Maria Goretti and Domenico Savio.
Evelyne Sullerot, op.cit., p. 207.
117

This measure was not only intended to give a makeweight to these women but also to encourage a rise in the
birth rate. The main aim of all these demographic policies
was to rebuild the relationship between women and the
family community. Their experiences during the war and
in the postwar era had made women realize that the family
community, extended or not, was a centre of organization
of work that not only did not pay them but also left them
completely defenseless both when the men were absent
and when they returned, that not only did the community
oblige them to procreate but it also exposed them to a dual
blackmail: by the employers and by the men who expected
them to return meekly to their household chores.
Cutting the umbilical cord that bound them both to the
general interest and to the family became an increasingly
important issue for all women in the immediate postwar
years.
Above all the rupture came with the refusal to procreate32 a function that performed within the family structure creates a high work load and restricted life style. For
women, the war had come to mean not only the decimation of the fruit of their womb but also a lethal attack on
womens condition both in work and toil made at the risk
of their lives.
Consequently, the struggle around procreation that
spread throughout Europe was and is a struggle against
the organization of the family an organization that
32
Roland Pressat, op. cit. See also: Giorgio Mortara, LItalia nella
rivoluzione demografica 1861-1961, in Annuali di Statistica, anno
94, serie VIII, vol. 17, Roma 1965; Massimo Livi Bacci, Il declino
della fecondit della popolazione italiana nell ultimo secolo, in
Statistica anno XXV, n. 3.
118

instead of protecting women condemns them to powerlessness.
As a result, the rebellion that began in the family extended beyond the confines of the unit itself out into the
community upon which the family depends a community
that both sustains and models the family: the village, the
urban network of relatives and friends, that help women
to get by in cities and towns where, especially in Southern
Italy, access to a wage is limited. In this sense, the growth,
spread and development of a course of action led by women
throughout Europe was also to determine to some degree
the course of action followed by men.
Women headed the flight from the rural areas into the
towns; from rural small landowners (share croppers or
smallholder families), from family owned and managed
firms33 from the villages and smaller towns. And did
so, moreover, despite the restrictions on residence imposed by fascist laws that were still in force. It was a
widespread, very broad movement which, as will be seen
later, revealed womens lack of identification with their
social environment, their refusal to bear the costs of, or
accept the quality of life that this environment imposed
on them. Marriage itself will be used as an instrument for
rejecting that environment.
In countries like Italy during the Fifties and the Sixties
the rejection of marriage was often used in this way.34 The
high proportion of women workers at home and therefore
unwaged in relation to the numbers of workers working
33
34
This is the topic of a number of ongoing studies whose results will,

hopefully, soon be available.
See Massimo Livi Bacci, op. cit.
119

outside the home i.e., in waged work, rendered the Italian
situation anomalous in comparison with other European
countries. Hence the rebellion against their situation as
women could not have been simply a refusal of marriage35
even if their situation within the family had been revealed
to them during the war and in the postwar period.
The increase in the workload of housework during the
war, the result of the difficulty of obtaining and of the
high price of goods, has already been described. Rationing
continued in the postwar period until 194736 and at the
same time national income that had been halved in the
period 1938 to 1945 never rose above the pre-war level
until 1949.37 Furthermore, despite the fact that by 1948,
production had reached 1938 levels again, and that by
1960 both national and individual income had almost doubled, the national per capita income in Italy was still one
of the lowest in Western Europe.38
What this meant to women in terms of work and dependence, women who were left without any wage of their own
and at best seen as appendages to their husbands wages,
is succinctly revealed by the statistics. These show that
it was mainly women who died of the so-called diseases
of underdevelopment, vitamin deficiency and problems of
blood circulation.39 In other words, in the countryside, but
not only there, women would go to bed without eating in
35
See Leopoldina Fortunati, op. cit.

Shepard Bancroft Clough, op. cit., p. 370.
37
Ibid., p. 378.
38
Ibid., p. 388.
39
See Annuari Statistici Italiani, ISTAT. The fact, however, that
science takes no account of the harmfulness of housework requires
a logical interpretation of every statistic.
36
120

order to make sure others, husbands and children, ate40
and would stand too many hours and spend too much time
with their hands in water.41
Women and youth in the city had even fewer prospects.
As Romita writes:
There was prostitution, a sad sore that always
worsens after war. In this case too I gave precise orders . . . but a good, efficient, welltrained police force would have been required
to deal with this problem.42 And, he continues, what is there to say about juvenile delinquency? This was a huge problem particularly
in the big cities. . . . I immediately gave instructions . . . and the police did not fail (in
their task) of searching out abandoned minors,
who were often involved in illegal trading or
in some way in danger of going astray. In the
worst cases we attempted to rehabilitate them,
as far as we could, that is, within the limits
of a shortage of places available in the various
Institutions. In other cases we were only able
to warn their parents . . .43
40
41
42
43
Those who are waged or destined to be waged eat better, no

matter who works more. From this point of view we believe that
urbanization too did not make much of a difference.
In this respect it is striking to discover that in that period electric
household appliances were among the most important exports.
(See Shepard Bancroft Clough, op. cit., p. 407.)
Giuseppe Romita, Dalla monarchia alla Repubblica, Pisa: Editore
Nistri-Lischi, 1954, p. 41.
Ibid., p. 41.
121

This is not new. But all this has not been said in order
to simply discuss what happens during and after wars;
instead, these statistics, and some facts, and the analysis
of certain crucial aspects (ignored until now in political
discussion) have been set out here in order to trace and
find the drastic break in the relationship between production and reproduction. A break that brought about the
disintegration of whole social areas, and it was on this
break and the consequent social breakdown that emigration was founded. And it was from here that women began
definitively to separate themselves from the community
that even before, they had already wanted to leave to
make their own path. Even before emigration began, the
community had nothing to give to women.
Before concluding this discussion however, it is worth
looking at what the farm workers struggles had meant to
women. While most people would agree about the backwardness of the slogan the land to the tiller, (with all
the ambiguities of the reformist program that went with
it), what is of interest here is another backwardness or
better weakness, that lay in a situation where women still
hoped to be able to use the struggles of men at a time
when the proletarian family was profoundly changed and
not only for the will of capital.
The mass emigration of men would anyway have ended
the cycle of insurrections wherein women occupied the
land carrying red flags and barrels of water, becoming, together with men and young people, the defenseless targets
of the police; taking part in actions in whose organization they were allowed no say. Angelina Mauros death
122

marked the end of an era.44 With emigration, only women,
children and old people were left.
But the emigrants who now went North were able to
send much less money back than their predecessors, the
American migrants, had done. And they were less willing
to send it home, to support someone else. Thus young
women began to look for work, any work, domestic service
in the cities, piecework at home, seasonal jobs etc. even
though such work would only ever yield enough money to
put together a trousseau.
One positive outcome of the farmhand struggles however was that women were freed from the infamous custom
of having to serve the landowners wife for free.45 As their
husbands emigrated and became factory workers and not
farmhands womens refusal was definitive. Simultaneously, now that there were fewer men in the agricultural
labor market womens wages on the land jumped from 400
lire a day to 1,200 2,000 lire.
Besides at last having some money of their own, remittances from the men began to arrive though not always
that regularly. And women began for the first time to
44
Angelina Mauro, wounded in the insurrection of Melissa, died after

eight days at the hospital of Crotone, on the 9 thof November 1949.
45
It was not just a matter of customs and habits. This practice was
also ratified on paper. Examples of contracts between landowners and those who work the land including a clause concerning
womens unpaid work, are contained in Vincenzo Mauro, Lotte dei
contadini in Calabria, Milano: Sapere, 1973. Moreover, Il Giorno
of September 2, 1973 reports via a letter to the editor that during the assembly of fishermen being held in Trapani and attended
by women as well as men, someone cried out We arent going to
put up, anymore, with ship owners only choosing fishermen whose
wives will go work in their houses for free!
123

administer money directly, and to administer the property
left behind by the men. They were still controlled by the
elder members of the family, but all the same it marked a
definitive change within the Southern Italian community.
Women never followed the men on a large scale, although
a few did, and this is why the South is full of women today. If the family had been unable to give anything to
women other than dependence and work in the area of
origin, what hope had they realistically that it would be
any better for them in an immigrant ghetto? Women made
another path.
III. Emigration is founded in and on this break,
but it functions as a catalyst and in some areas massifies womens paths for their autonomy that are already underway.
a) The Italian Case
With the advent of Italian emigration to Germany,
womens struggle radicalized in both North and South
Italy, and took on many of the features of struggles in
other European countries that were also being restructured in a similar way. Emigration is the key factor in
the process of the European postwar reconstruction of
the working class. It is used as part of a heavy attack
on the value of both male and female labor power: an
attack that was first unleashed during the war. This
use of emigration is founded on the breakdown of the
organizational structures of the proletarian community,
the dislocation of whole communities and on the attack on
their possibility of reproduction.
124

It is reproduction that had to bear the main brunt of the
attack which is why the proletariat was forced to enter
the factory, to become part of the multinational working
class.
In 1943, women in Sicily burnt down the houses assigned to their family by the fascist government in order
to defend the sense of community that the village offered
even if it was only offered in a limited way. They did so
despite their recognition of the contradictions inherent
in that community. But when the men emigrated, these
tensions and contradictions finally exploded; the village
no longer offered them anything.
Through emigration and the way it revealed the precarious nature of relationships one can trace the progress of
womens tendency to refuse and to build on this refusal
of State policy and control. Their refusal to submit to the
States planning for economic growth, planning that meant
them having to bear innumerable children, remain tied
for interminably long hours to the house and the fields,
planning that deprived them of any personal freedom and
autonomy and left them always in a position of dependence
on others, the family, the village etc. where now, in the
absence of the men, the older generation held sway. In the
South of Italy, administering the remittances in a family
where only the elderly remained, and where women had
to face the double burden of a large household and work
on the land, meant paying a personal price that women
would no longer accept.
This situation was common to both South and North. In
the latter area it was particularly true in the context of
small rural peasant farms. Wherever the State wanted
to succeed in tying women to long hours and in isolating
125

them, they fled, they left the land. In her study, Women
Against the Family, Leopoldina Fortunati shows how, in
the Italian context, womens struggles against the family developed through struggles against farm labor. She
shows how this struggle spread and intensified as more
and more women began to manage the wage in new ways.
The movement from the land into the towns and cities
took place on a very large scale despite government attempts to control it, residence is only granted to those
who have a job and a job is only given to those who have
residence.
Among other strategies, women used marriage during
this period as a way to leave the land. They were less
and less willing to marry men who would not or could not
take them to the city.46 Moving to the city not only meant
working for one person instead of for many, it also meant
more opportunity to restrict and control the number of
children they had since it meant freedom from the pressures of the family and the village. Our hypotheses are
confirmed . . . the voluntary control of procreation first
spread and spread faster among urban populations than
among other sections of the population. Such voluntary
46
This is a well known fact. Today the men who in the North remain
on the farms increasingly resort to the good services of some women
or man in the South, who deal in marriages. Thus, through an
exchange of pictures they find (in some isolated village of Campania, Lucania and Sicily) the women who did not manage to leave
by themselves. But it is not just agricultural laborers who look for
these women; it is also those workers who are far from obtaining
an eight hour working day.
126

control, coupled with a lower propensity to marry had a
considerable impact on the number of births.47
Writing about the fall in the birth rate in Italy between
1861 and 1961, Giorgio Mortara says that where birth
control is practiced through celibacy or late marriage one
can see a fall in the total number of married couples, particularly young married couples; where the use of contraception or the suppression of the results of conception are
commonly practiced one can sometimes see a rise in the
numbers of married couples.48 He goes on to confirm our
hypothesis that the increased concentration of the population in urban centers and the suburbs has encouraged
the spread of practices designed to limit births.49
The city meant and means more power for proletarian
women. Not only are they better able to control the number
of their children, they also have greater opportunities to
improve the quality of both their own lives and those of
their children.
b) The French Case
The movement from the land to the city, towards a higher
degree of a power and control over reproduction, was a
European-wide phenomenon for women. In the aftermath
of World War II women throughout Europe began to fight
against the demands of procreation even in areas where
47
48
49
Massimo Livi Bacci, op. cit., p. 410. See also Graph no. 3 for the
proportion of married women versus single women and graphs 2,
1, 12 for the rate in wedlock fertility, general fertility rates and out
of wedlock fertility.
Giorgio Mortara, op. cit., p. 6.
Ibid., p. 6.
127

the social fabric had survived better, or rather disintegrated less, than in the South of Italy. Women everywhere
were finding that the price they had to pay within reproduction was too high and the dependency and isolation
that it brought were unacceptable.
The situation in France is closest of all to the Italian
situation.50 The State progressively cut female employment to a very low level. Notwithstanding this, and in
part going against it directly, women deserted agriculture
and small family firms in growing numbers. Moreover,
French women won a degree of control over procreation
earlier than women in other European countries.51 This
control created problems for capitals plans for postwar
reconstruction. In 1945, De Gaulle appealed to French
women to produce 12,000,000 beautiful babies;52 simultaneously, the French government encouraged emigration
from Algeria in a move that was seen explicitly as a policy
of repopulation.53
This is not to say that De Gaulles grotesque appeal
found any immediate solution through Algerian emigra50
Before the 20 thcentury France could compare with the USA and
Great Britain for its long tradition of female employment. By the
beginning of the century, however, this employment was already
reduced. The 1962 census registered 6,585,000 active women
compared to 7,694,000 in 1906.
51
See William J. Goode, op. cit.p.53.
52
Marie-Franoise Mouriaux, Lemploi en France depuis 1945, Paris:
Librairie Armand Colin, Collection U2, 1972, p. 35.
53
Cet accroissement de la population en France entre 1958 et 1965
est d pour 52.4% un excdent de naissance sur les dcs et pour
47.6% limmigration. Les Travailleurs immigrs parlent, in
Les Cahiers du Centre dEtudes Socialistes, n. 94-98, Septembre
Decembre 1969, Paris, p. 19.
128

tion. The real problem was not simply one of the quantitative restoration of the working class, it was rather more
an attempt, on the part of the State, to neutralize womens
struggles which were threatening reconstruction plans,
The connection between the orchestration of Frances demographic policies54 and female employment55 after the
war and the structure of Algerian emigration is clear.
Algerian emigration was, as we have said, described as a
policy of repopulation: it would be better to call it a policy
for the restoration of the working class: Algerian women
came with their husbands and children, and continued to
54
Besides the salaire unique there is a complete reorganization of

the system of Family Allowances. After World War II, a new organization, the High Consultative Committee on Population and the
Family, was established by decree on 12 April 1945. (Translators
Note: In English in the text.) (The Population Council, Country
Profiles: France, New York, May 1972, p. 8). This commission
worked many changes in the family allowances system in view of
what was happening in all the European countries. (See p. 9-10.)
55
From the McCloy plan of 1949 to the Schuman plan of 1950, European economic integration postulated the profitability of a political project . . . based on a non-downward rigid wage, that is on a
widening of the downward stratification of labor power, obtained
through the maintenance and expansion of highly labor intensive
sectors.
This project implied a massive introduction into factory production of quotas of new and politically weak labor power . . . female
labor power fitted only partially into this project. . . . Women
resisted being deskilled. . . . Franca Cipriani, Proletariato del
Maghreb e capitale europeo (The proletariat of the Maghreb and
European Capital), in this volume, i.e., Alessandro Serafini, et
al., Loperaio multinazionale in Europa, Milano: Feltrinelli, first
edition: May 1974, second edition January 1977, p. 79.
129

produce more children,56 children who were in the main
destined to go into the factory.
It should be emphasized again that this is not a mathematical but a political relationship, and should be seen
in political terms. Although very few politicians recognize
or even notice it,57 the connection between an unacceptable rate of population growth uncorrected by the provision of material incentives or by the expulsion or further
marginalization of women and the use of emigration
policies has a long history.
The path taken by womens struggles in France is, as we
said earlier, very like that taken in Italy. The exodus from
agriculture was massive. From 1910 to 1954 one in four
agricultural laborers left the land. The same percentage
holds true for the period between 1954 and 1962. After
1962, the pace speeded up.58 In 1962 there were 1,272,000
female farmers and agricultural laborers, in 1906, there
had been 3,329,000.59
Young women tend to leave the country first even before
men. The young peasants who want to stay on the land
look in vain for a wife. The girls have all fled to the city
so as not to be treated like their mothers, so as not to
56
57
58
59
At present Algerian women are also urged to perform this function

through courses of home economics taught by social workers.
But with respect to the trends in French employment, MarieFrancois Mouriaux writes Par suite dune natalit trs faible,
la nation recourt de manire trs large a limmigration. (MarieFrancois Moureaux, op. cit., p. 29.)
Les travailleurs immigrs parlent, op. cit., p. 20.
130

be treated more like servants instead of Queens of the
Fireplace.60
The country schools taught boys agronomy and agricultural mechanics and taught girls home economics.
The flight from the country was more than a flight from
personal isolation and slavery, from backwardness. It was
a flight from dual work from which even the new agricultural nationalization couldnt save women. The state
tried once again to send women back into the house and
the countryside and to demand a reproductive function
that none of the well known economic incentives could
induce them to provide. In this context, its worth noting
that because the laws passed in 1920 which prohibited
abortion and advertising of contraceptives had failed
to raise the birth rate significantly61 from 1932 on, the
French government had been forced to set up a system of
family allowances.
After the war, these allowances the salaire unique
became a dangerously contradictory provision, dangerous,
that is, for a system that had traditionally managed to
maintain very high levels of housework performed by
women precisely because housework had never been
exchanged for a wage. Allowances did not provide a lot
of money, but they did provide a monthly subsidy given
by the state to the wife. The parallel with the program
that was institutionalized in 1945 in England as Family
Allowances is evident both seek to encourage a positive
60
61
Ibid.
A further step in this attempt was reached with the approval of
the Code de Famille in 1942.
131

attitude toward procreation, something that had deteriorated at an international level.62
Although the salaire unique was a small amount of
money, a pittance, it was money which women tried desperately to accumulate along with any pay they might
obtain from unofficial jobs.
Had women declared these jobs, they would automatically have lost the right to receive this payment. Thus,
piece workers, domestic servants and part time workers
never declared their occupation for fear of not receiving
the allowance.63
Once in the city it was difficult for French women to
find employment, to find a steady wage.64 The underlying
aim of European integration was, as we have said, to
62
More specifically, the Family Allowance was given directly to the

mother (it was not included in the paycheck of the father as in
Italy), whether married or not married, who would certainly spend
it for her children, thus assuring that qualitative improvement of
labor power that the laborists (who were back in power) aspired to
and promoted also with a general policy of social assistance.
63
We know, on the other hand, the whole series of reasons, from the
loss of pensions to the loss of family allowances, etc. that in each
country rendered these works essentially not declared. This is why,
also in the case of France, the extent of their market can hardly be
measured by statistics but we can easily presume a rather wide
range of them, when we consider both the low percentage of waged
women and the heavy discrimination the State has managed to
impose since the postwar period on the efforts exerted by women
to gain an autonomous income.
64
There is, however, a substantial level of employment in the service
sector. This too is a European-wide phenomenon. With respect
to France, see Franois Lantier, Le travail et la formation des
femmes en Europe. Incidences de la planification de lducation
et du changement technologique sur laccs aux emplois et aux
carrires, La Documentation Franaise, Bibliothque du Centre
132

further marginalize female labor power and discriminate
against it. Rather the novelty was that women began
to be introduced into industrial sectors that had been
exclusively reserved for male workers.
On the whole, though, female employment in industry has been falling both absolutely and relatively since
the beginning of the century. During the postwar period,
however, important changes have occurred in the distribution of this decreasing amount of female labor power.
One important example of this can be found in the way in
which the textile sector has been restructured, creating
new, more skilled and better paid jobs that are largely
given to men. The women who have been expelled from
this workforce have found employment in electronics and
the metal working industries at low skilled levels.
In the period from 1954 to 1962, women entered the machine tool industry on a large scale (the number of women
employed rose from 136,646 to 194,222, a rise of 42.1%).
After 1962 the situation remained more or less stationary.
During the same period (1954-1962) the number of women
in the electrical industries rose from 65,500 to 114,000 (up
74%). Again in this period the number of women employed
in the chemical sector rose from 92,196 to 104,540 (up
13.4%) and in the food sector the number of women rose
8.8%, but here thousands of seasonal workers65 have to
be added to the figures for permanent workers. A certain
increase in female employment also occurred in factories
producing drugs, cosmetics and plastics.
65
dEtudes et de Recherches sur les Qualifications, num. 4, Octobre

1972, pp. 44. In particular see graph XIII, p. 45.
Franois Lantier, op cit., graph XIII, p. 45. Evelyne Sullerot, op
cit., p. 208.
133

Both in traditional female sectors like footwear and
porcelain and in new sectors such as machine tools, female workers are always relegated to the lowest positions.
The only partial exceptions are the women who supervise
female workshops in the clothing sector. But these jobs are
not skilled, they are merely supervisory.66 In the electrical
sector there are no skilled female workers, because skilled
work is reserved for men. The number of women employed
as technicians in the industry is totally insignificant.67 As
Madeleine Guibert points out, the introduction of automation seems to have had the consequence daccentuer le
cantonnement des femmes.68
c) The Algerian Case
We cannot close an analysis of France in the postwar period (the 1950s) given the close relationship between demographic policies, female employment and immigration,
without considering what this meant for Algerian women.
We need to examine whether the impact of immigration
on areas such as the Maghreb or Turkey is in any way
similar to that in the Italian South. In Italys case we
said that immigration tended to set in motion forces that
could break up the community, in particular the new experiences women gained in managing remittances and
minimal wages of their own69 which gave them moments
66
67
68
69
Franois Lantier, op. cit., p. 54.

Ibid., p. 54.
Ibid., p. 55.
Besides the case of agricultural laborers we previously mentioned,
see: Il lavoro a domicilio, in Quaderni di rassegna sindacale,
anno XI, no. 44-45, settembre dicembre 1973, for the much wider
134

of greater autonomy and power. Is this true of areas such
as Algeria?
It is first of all necessary to emphasize that the Algerian
community was not devoid of tensions or subversive ideas
on the part of women. In the Algerian community there
was, and still is, a lot of violence towards women. The
Algerian state has always been violent towards women
both before and after the revolution. Women are involved
in a daily struggle against men and the State. Womens
position in Algeria is revealed most clearly by the number
of murders and attempted murders of women by men,70
the number of suicides and attempted suicides by women,
and the number of infanticides by mothers, especially
unmarried mothers.71
70
71
proportion of cottage industry (as well as seasonal, temporary

work) in the South as opposed to the North.
See, in general, on Arab women (but the women of the Maghreb are
not subject at least to clitoridectomy), Yussef El Masry, Il dramma
sessuale della donna araba, Milano: Edizioni di Comunit, 1964.
The book Les Algriennes by the Algerian Fadela MRabet, Paris:
Maspero, 1969 a book whose importation and sale is forbidden in
Algeria gives evidence of a very high suicide rate among women.
Moreover, when we evaluate these percentages, we must keep in
mind that women are under-counted, whether at their birth or
their death, and that their suicides are not recorded, not even
failed attempts at suicide, e.g., jumping out of a window but failing
to die. Suicides in general are recorded as accidental deaths.
Infanticide is also widespread among single women and is, along
with abortion (p. 169), the only available means of birth control.
135

Marriage is still a bargain contracted by the parents72
even among the better off strata, although it has repeatedly been contested by women. The possibility of being
repudiated still exists, even though now it is called divorce,
and given the condition of Algerian women it always was
and still is a tragedy.73
In 1972, in order to maintain this situation Boumediene
espoused De Gaulles 1945 line about the twelve million
beautiful babies. While speaking to student volunteers
for the civil service on the subject of the demographic
explosion, Boumediene remarked, I personally think
that the solution does not lie in family planning but lies
instead in development. . . .74 development achieved
in Algeria as well as in Europe by means of an unlimited
supply of labor power whose costs of reproduction must
72
73
74
The Algerian woman is forced to get married when and with whom
her parents decide. This holds good also for the small educated
minority that reaches a few university courses. But we must remember that, as a rule, women are withdrawn from schools those
who go there to begin with after the second elementary course.
Today this small minority, that besides university courses has also
discovered the birth control pill, has discovered a very specific use
of the pill in marriage. Since they do not have the power to resist
the imposition of marriage, these women get married, then with
the pill they can pretend they are sterile; this in a short time leads
them to repudiation-divorce, which in this case is what they want.
But for the mass of Algerian women the use of divorce obtained on
their own initiative has few chances of success, first because of the
material conditions in which they live and furthermore because
many of them have not been registered at birth. In fact, Algerian
civilization while considering women very precious as a good,
considers them non-existent as persons.
From a speech by Boumedienne to the students volunteering for
the civil service, in Moudjahid, July 22, 1972.
136

be kept as low as possible. Thus in this matter at least the
post-revolution Algerian State has kept up tradition: the
exploitation and intimidation of women in order to ensure
that women procreate.75
In this context, one that appears to be different from
that of Southern Italy, what changes could and did emigration bring for women?
The Algerians who emigrated during the 1950s were
usually young men who rarely had a wife with them. It
is easy to see why they were without wives if one considers that the average price of a wife, the cost of the dowry,
was around 500,000 lire, and the average annual income
of an Algerian agricultural laborer was about 200,000
250,000 lire. The women who remained behind in Algeria
found themselves living in an ageing community, dominated by and the property of their husbands, fathers and
brothers and left without any control over money. The
women who went to France after some emigrant Algerian
worker had managed to save enough money for the bride
price, found that they had to face a new level of housework and moreover a level that tended to escalate all the
time because, for a long time, each new immigrant who
arrived had to join an already formed family in order to
survive. Clans were formed, clans of men supported by
one woman (and her small daughters) who, in reproducing
this growing community of men found that she was also
having to substitute for the women who had remained
behind in Algeria. When, to support the War of Liberation,
75
Concerning the condition of the hospitals and the cases of obstetric lesions, see: Ministre de la Sante, Tableaux de leconomie
algerienne, Alger, 1970, pp. 82-83.
137

the Algerian guerillas began to tax immigrants in France
in order to raise funds,76 this tax on an already meager
wage meant an even greater load of housework for women.
Thus the emigrant Algerian women also had a difficult
role in the war, one not unlike that of women in other wars
of Liberation.
Hence, during the Fifties, through its use of emigration,
the French government managed to solve its problem of
development mainly at the expense of Algerian women.
In the same way, it also managed to resolve the problem of
the relationship between production and reproduction and
the processes of struggle that this implies. In short, the
French State built this, the second great wave of Algerian
immigration upon the weakness and lack of power of Algerian women both in the community and in reproduction.77
While in countries that had attained a certain level of
industrialization such as Italy the war and the postwar
period acted as a catalyst for the contradictions present
both in the community and in reproduction, the same is
not true in the case of Algeria. It could not be true because
of the existing social fabric. The war of Liberation could,
on the one hand, trigger certain social tensions but could
not, because of this social fabric, facilitate any attack by
women on the organization of reproduction nor even, in
more general terms, any attempt by them to win their
emancipation from their conditions of backwardness.
76
Yves Courrire, La guerre dAlgrie, Tome II, Le Temps des lopards,

Paris: Fayard, 1969.
77
The first wave should be calculated from 1935 to World War II.
138

Because of the conditions from which they had come, as
well as the conditions which they met with in France, Algerian immigrant women who found themselves managing
a wage for the first time, initially found they were unable
to use it as a means of gaining a new level of power within
the community, or outside the community. Their conditions were far more restrictive than those of European
women, even of women in Europes pockets of backwardness. Their opportunities of gaining more power were
continuously being undermined because the wage had to
support a community that increased with the arrival of
every new immigrant.
The way in which Italian women used the wage as a
means of rejecting the patriarchal peasant family, or the
extended family in general (also in the South albeit with
some differences) and chose instead a smaller family that
could live better on a given wage78 was simply not possible
for the Algerian women in France. They could not use the
wage in order to improve the quality of their lives or the
lives of their children because they had to reproduce an
entire community and substitute for the women still in
Algeria.
These comments on Algerian emigration provide a basis,
a perspective, for interpreting the hierarchies of power
that exist within emigration itself: either in the community of origin or in immigrant communities abroad. The
Algerian case can be used to examine other flows of immi78
Leopoldina Fortunati, op. cit., points out with respect to Italy, that
the transition from the peasant patriarchal family to the urban
nuclear family was the product of the disintegration of a certain
kind of family operated not only by capital but by the women
themselves.
139

grants, e.g., Africans, who contributed to Frances development in much the same way as did the Algerians.
Lastly, the almost continuous flow of migration into
France from Italy, Spain and Portugal must also be seen in
relation to both French womens early refusal to procreate
and carry out reproduction work, and to the States desire
to keep them in a condition of backwardness (especially on
the farms). It is a flow that the French State has always
more or less openly encouraged a flow that was at first
channeled towards the same French fields that French
women were deserting.
d) The German Case
Germany, a country with a high level of industrialization
that, in the postwar years maintained an exceptionally
high level of female employment.79 What we have said concerning both the relation between women and the State
and the difficulties women have caused for capitals reconversion at all levels, from which the need for a broader
use of immigration derived, applies to Germany as well.
The Fifties in Germany were the years in which women, finally freed from Nazi restrictions, developed their refusal
of housework, of agricultural labor and of work done as
helpers in family-run firms.80 They also refused all the
professions based on some kind of domestic economy. So
great was womens refusal of housework that some people
were led to envisage a domestic service organized like
military service set up to fill the gap left by women.81
79
80
81

See OECD, Labor Force Statistics, Paris, 1970, pp. 96-97.
140

However, womens flight from the countryside was hindered by a considerable flow of immigration. This included
a large political flow from the East, and after 1957, a
growing tide of Italian immigrants as well. Until the end
of the 1960s these migrants (about 12 million) tended to
settle in rural areas at first, areas less damaged by the
war, and only later on did they move on into urban areas.82
As both immigrants and Germans deserted the land
and moved towards the cities, rural women changed from
being helpers to being managers of farms in their own
names. In areas such as Bavaria, it is not difficult to find
families where the man works in industry and the women
has had to take on both housework and work in the fields,
work that was formerly shared.
Likewise in the craft industries one begins to find
daughters of craftsmen who manage their fathers firm
alone when the son is no longer interested, and thus
become the owners of bakeries, bookbinders and decorators.83 However it was still more usual for women to be
employed in unskilled jobs within the craft industry.
In general, the bargaining power that women had developed against Kinder Kche Kirche (Children, Kitchen
and Church), did not translate into bargaining power in
relation to working outside the home. The State saw to
that by intervening with a decision to use immigrants
from the East and Italy thus preventing women who had
rejected procreation from entering the labor market and
82
83
Bruno Groppo, Sviluppo economico e ciclo dellemigrazione in

Germania Occidentale (Economic Development and the Cycle
of Emigration in Western Europe), in Alessandro Serafini et al.
Loperaio multinazionale in Europa, op. cit.
141

finding employment on equal terms with German men.
The fact that a flow of Italian immigrants had already
been guaranteed during the 1930s84 and then again during the war85 by joint agreements made with Italy shows
that the reproduction of the national working class was
already inadequate even then.
The German State, afraid that there might be demographic gaps in a period of economic growth, continued
rigidly to forbid abortion despite the fact that during the
second half of the 1950s most countries in the East introduced a degree of liberalization. However, in Germany, as
in other European countries, the dreaded unfortunate demographic development did occur and from the mid-1960s
on, got worse. Although German postwar development relied upon the extensive use of labor power,86 long work
hours, a lot of overtime and the progressive depletion of
agricultural labor,87 women were heavily discriminated
against with regard to industrial emloyment.
As in the case of France, women were eventually introduced into those industrial sectors from which they had
been traditionally excluded.88 Between 1950 and 60 all
84
See on this subject Foreign Labor in Nazi Germany, op.cit.

During the war they resorted to the forced labor of women sent
by the East, besides that, as is well known, of Jewish, gypsy and
political women.
86
Bruno Groppo, op. cit.
87
Ibid., graph no. 4.
88
In this respect we always speak of novelties in a relative sense.
When we go to the roots we discover always that every industrial
sector has been based on a very large use of female and young labor
power. For the Italian situation see: Stefano Merli, Proletariato
di fabbrica e capitalismo industriale. Il caso italiano: 1880-1900,
Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1973.
85
142

industries increased the numbers of their female workers:
in the steel and metal working industries, the number
of women employed rose by 162.3%, and the electronics
sector was not far behind. Female employment also increased both in traditional sectors, textiles, clothing, food,
tobacco, sweets etc. and in precision mechanics, optics,
watch making and photography,89 areas where the consummate female skills of dexterity and precision reveal
allegations of their lack of skill to be nothing more than a
pretext for low wages.
IV. In the 1960s the lines traced by the previous
processes are scored more deeply. The young working class is born out of refusal, rebellion and the
struggles of the women behind it.
In the 1960s the movement that women had started during the postwar period grew and spread. That is, their
refusal to function as appendages of development plans
that wanted them to be the producers and providers of numerous children, tied to long hours of work at home, in the
fields, in the factory and the office, chained and ghettoized
in conditions of personal dependence. The drastic fall in
the birth rate that began in 1964 gives an almost photographic image of the amount of control women had already
achieved over procreation. As we said at the beginning,
on a European scale this phenomenon is not simply the
consequence of the spread of contraceptives. Furthermore,
the fall in the birth rate was most rapid precisely in those
strata that had previously been the least successful in
controlling their fertility.90
89
90

See above, footnote 9.
143

As we have seen, this fall in the birth rate expressed
the level of power that women had won and is not an
event that can be explained by this or that factor. A level
of power built up through a process of struggle that has
tended to offset the general backwardness to which every
postwar or post-revolutionary government91 has always
tried to confine women; a lever of power that increasingly
allows women to bargain for a new quality of life.
The control of women, close to the hearts of European
planners since the beginning of European integration,92
grew in the 1960s. But the basic instrument of this integration emigration has proved to be a double edged
sword. Not only have immigrants become the spearhead
of rebellion as is fairly well known but emigration has
definitely radicalized the centrifugal forces set in motion
by women and youths. This is also true for the elderly,
who have increasingly demanded a certain quality of life,
whatever the price, (though in Italy today it would be
difficult to shout grey power).93 One dividing line still
functioning in favor of European integration (although
less so during the 1960s) is that between areas where
women can manage a wage, totally or partially (either
remittances or their own) and where they cannot. In the
latter areas survival is based on a rural income or expedients and women are totally dependent either on the
men of the family or on older women. In this case, the
emigration of some men, especially the youngest who are
not responsible for supporting the community does not
91
92
93
We refer here specifically to the Algerian situation to which we will

return.
See above, footnote 53.
Leopoldina Fortunati, op.cit.
144

undermine the community itself. The case of Algeria is
typical in this respect and is different from that of the
Italian South which has areas of industrialization and is
part of an industrial country. Not by chance is it possible
for young women in the South of Italy to flee from the
countryside, a type of behavior which is unthinkable in
Algeria.94 And if some Southern Italian women come to
the conclusion that they had better find a dowry on their
own because no money is likely to come from Germany
any longer, whatever they decide, alternatives are open to
them that are not available to Algerian women.
Another phenomenon connected to womens growing
independence which should be analyzed in order to understand the wave of working class struggles in the late
1960s is the fact that women have been able to impose a
different use of the wage within the family either when
the elderly were not present or when they failed to subordinate women. Increasingly, the wives of Italian men
who left for Germany and the wives of workers in Naples
and Gela expected to administer the remittances and pay
checks their husbands sent home, or even their own wage.
These women chose to invest the money that the elderly
would have traditionally saved or invested in land, in their
children. The young proletarians from the South who went
to work at FIAT in the 1960s had assimilated this new
94
This evasion also takes place in Algeria both as an escape from

the fields and as an escape from their husbands. They are desperate escapes in the attempt to disappear into the house of some
European in Algiers working as maids. But, regularly, according
to the rule of Taa the police take the woman back home. See the
last chapter in Yussef El Masry op.cit.
145

form of investment and with it the expectation of a higher
standard of living.
We do not wish to underrate the innovative aspects
of the rebellion of each new generation of workers and
students, but we want to emphasize that this rebellion
involves more than a direct confrontation outside of the
family context. It also involves a certain level of disintegration of the family itself. We need a new perspective
on the family.95 We must consider the erosion of authority emerging in the 1960s even in the proletarian family
and relate this phenomenon to womens management of
the male wage. This management has taken root among
increasingly wider sectors of proletarian women as European integration (based on emigration) has progressed
in the postwar period and as the process of urbanization
headed by women has spread throughout Europe. In addition to the womans own occasional wage (often earned
in the underground economy: cottage industry, piecework,
part time work etc. but in many cases the only source
of support for the entire family) this management of the
mans wage gives women more power in relation to men
and leads to a different relationship between the children
and their mothers and fathers, giving rise to a certain crisis
of authority.
95
We say develop a new perspective because the perspective implicit

in this analysis began in the late Sixties in the USA and in the
early Seventies in Europe, with the Feminist Movement on an
international level. In these years, sociologists and politicians have
only further confused the topic. See also, Mariarosa Dalla Costa,
Quartiere, Scuola e Fabbrica dal punto di vista della donna, in
LOffensiva, Torino: Musolini, 1972, 1974.
146

In countries like Italy, during the 40s and 50s, certain
sectors of proletarian women first experienced the management of a wage. Emigration did not affect these women
in the same way it affected women in countries such as
Algeria. In Italy emigration catalyzed womens first steps
towards independence. While in the latter countries, at
least in the short term, it worsened womens position. In
countries with high levels of female employment the breakdown of the family associated with increasing insubordination among youth, inside and outside the factories were
the results of the tensions stemming from the fact that
women were working at home and outside the home.96
However in both cases the young working class set in motion an entirely new cycle of struggles: in Italy (Turin,
Piazza Statuto, 1962) and in Europe in general. This new
cycle of struggle was born from the increasing refusal and
rebellion of the proletarian women who had created and
sustained the conditions for the struggle to grow in.97 As
we have already said, the attack on women, present since
96
97
Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Quartiere, Scuola e Fabbrica dal punto di

vista della donna, op.cit., p. 27.
Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Potere femminile e sovversione sociale (con
Il posto della donna di Selma James), Padova: Marsilio, 1972,
1974, p. 41. [English translation and publication: Mariarosa Dalla
Costa and Selma James, The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community, Bristol: Falling Wall Press, 1972, 1974,
pp. 26-27.] In the factories youth refuse the leadership of older
workers, and in the social revolts they are the diamond point. In
the metropolis generations of the nuclear family have produced
youth and student movements that have initiated the process of
shaking the framework of constituted power: in the third world
the unemployed youth are often in the streets before the working
class organized in trade unions.
147

the beginning of European integration, became more intense during the 1960s, this tendency was accentuated by
the wave of workers struggles at the end of the decade.
Although the Left has ignored it, in Italy the expulsion of women from the factory that began in 1962 is not
over yet: another million women have joined the unemployed.98 In Germany after 1960 capital intensive development and rationalization of the process of production gave
rise to a further worsening of the situation of female work
outside the home.99 Women were increasingly expelled
from the factories, and were forced to resort to part time
work, piecework and temporary jobs: from 1961 to 1971
part time female workers increased by 83% reaching 2.3
million.100 Immigrant women were employed either as
unskilled (60%) or semi-skilled (1/3) workers.101
In France the percentage of women employed in the new
industrial sectors from 1962 to 1968 increased: the electrical industry rose 11.1% from 114,000 to 126,660; chemical
98
99
100
101
From the ISTAT monthly bulletin of March 1972 it appears that

at the time of the inquiry the people included in the work-force
over 13 years of age were 21,754,000, of which 16,168,000 were
women and 5,586,000 were men. Among the women 10,701,000,
that is 49.1% are housewives. More precisely in 1970, among
employed women, 22% work in agriculture and almost all of them
are married and not young. Among the others, 45% work in the
service sector (married or not, young or not) and 33% in industry.
See also for a comparison with the situation in England: M. Pia
May, Il Mercato del lavoro femminile, espulsione o occupazione
nascosta femminile, in Inchiesta, anno III, n.9, genn.-marzo 1973,
pp. 27-37.
See, in general, OECD, Labor Force Statistics, Paris, 1970.
Bruno Groppo, op.cit.
Ibid.
148

industry rose 14.2% from 104,500 to 119,440; food industry rose 8.6% from 126,100 to 137,000; the machine tool
industry rose 4% from 194,220 to 202,160. However, these
changes did not significantly alter the sexual composition
of the sectors.102
In 1970, speaking at the Fourth National Congress of
the CGT on female labor, Christine Gilles said the second
figure, that of 33%, that I mentioned, represents the difference between the real wages of men and women . . . In
1945 the coefficients of a female machine operator in the
clothing industry were equal to P1 and P2 in metallurgy.
They are far from being equal today. Last May minimum
hourly wages were 3.93 francs and 4.10 francs.103
As for immigrant women, and Algerian women in particular, it should be remembered that in 62 63, fiscal
policy forbade any Algerian to leave the country with more
than 10 francs. This provided one more reason to have
someone already established in France to go to a group of
men supported by a few women.
Since 1967 further restrictions forbidding Algerian immigrants to send francs back to Algeria worsened the
already bad situation of the women there, because, without remittances, they couldnt buy certain goods which
could only be bought with francs.
After Liberation, Algerian emigration changed. Small
family nuclei or single women also began to emigrate, single women who rejected rural life or impositions in the
102
103
Franois Lantier, op.cit., graph XIII, p. 45. More generally see

OECD, Labor Force Statistics, Paris, 1970.
Marie-Francoise Mouriaux, op. cit., p. 150. [Translators note: CGT
= Confdration gnrale du travail or General Confederation of
Labor, one of several confederations of French unions.]
149

city life, like eating in a kitchenette separate from men, as
expected by the leaders of Islamic socialism. Most of the
women who emigrated alone to France were not proletarians. In fact most managed to enter the country by means
of a tourist or a student visa. Once in France, however,
these single women unlike single men could not, and
cannot, integrate with the Algerian community, because it
does not accept women unless they are under the control of
a man. Therefore they end up at best as waitresses, but
often as prostitutes. Proletarian emigrant women in general from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Yugoslavia,
Portugal either become waitresses or unskilled workers
in the machine tool sector.
V. After 1968, the 1970s. Women began to bargain
about reproduction. The community of immigrants
has no longer to reproduce itself.
After 1968 the investment that women in Europe had
made in their children (improving their childrens lives
as well as trying to improve their own), is revealed by the
potential for and level of struggle expressed by the working
class on a European-wide scale.
Following these struggles there was a further cut back
in the flow of Italian migration,104 and Italians moved
up the scale of immigrant employment. Now, the flow
of immigration from other areas of the Mediterranean
increased; Turks, Greeks, Algerians, Tunisians, Spanish
and Portuguese moved in to take over the lower skilled
and unskilled jobs.
Although one should not be too optimistic, it is clear that
over the last few years emigration has, as the Financial
104
The first slow-down of emigration took place after 1962.
150

Times openly admitted, brought the spectre of revolution
rather than social peace.105
Because of this there has been an attempt, though fairly
limited, to discover a source of labor power, a sector, that
no matter where it comes from, is weaker, more easily
blackmailed, than male immigrants: women. Here lies the
problem of the 1970s, for in these years, the path trodden
by women has reached a decisive turning point. In Europe,
as well as in the United States, it has become a mass
movement that expresses womens need for independence
and autonomy a life no longer paid for at the price of the
factory or of the home.
If men are less and less willing to submit to factory
discipline is it unlikely that emigrant women will prove
any more pliable. In this instance too the power difference
that exists between men and women particularly among
immigrants must not be forgotten. But given the direction
in which women are moving both in more developed
and in less developed areas it does not seem very likely
that the use of women will or can provide a long term
solution for the problems of European capital. In the
midst of other better known images of paper tigers and
white elephants perhaps the best image of this particular
capitalist game is of a cat chasing its own tail.
105
Europe Keeps Revolution at Bay in the Financial Times, February

28, 1973: The spectre of revolution, this ghost moves about from
place to place, visiting even the Netherlands, but is fondest of all
of Italy. . . . What is important is that it is quite apparent that
a great many of our leaders in industry, the trade unions and the
government itself are aware, some consciously, others only vaguely,
that Western society is in a more fragile state than it has been at
any time since th war. (In English in the text.)
151

European planners are now faced with a problem that
appears to be as difficult as that of squaring a circle. In
Germany, France and Italy (in FIAT after 1969) there have
been further attempts to introduce women, particularly
immigrant women, into the work force to replace male
immigrant workers who have proved disinclined to accept
factory discipline. In Sweden at Saabs Scanias of Sodertalje, comparable only with FIAT at Cassino, one finds
star like106 ways of organizing labor especially adapted
to be suitable for housewives including older women. At
the same time however, European women are themselves
less amenable to accept unwaged housework along with
factory work, and are becoming more and more determined
to make their reproduction work cost. Thus on the one
hand, capitalist development is founded upon determinate
levels of reproduction that must be continually guaranteed and that so far have cost the State very little, and on
the other hand women have begun their attack precisely
from this base: reproduction. It is true that the State
does still succeed in blackmailing the politically weaker
strata of women with work in the factory and work in the
home, but in Europe at least, the State is being forced
to respond to womens demands for payment of the costs
of reproduction. Among the most important examples of
this are: the proposal presented in France by the Union
National des Associations Familiales for a wage for housework that would be the equivalent of 50% of the minimum
106
We refer to the arrangement of workers on the line. We read in

the Financial Times of March 12, 1973, Car Plants without Mass
Disaffection: The assemblers, all housewives with no previous
factory experience, work in groups of three. (In English in the
text.) This example, however, is an isolated case.
152

wage, which would be subject to taxation and considered
to be a wage in every respect.107 The proposal already
has some support in government circles. Another example
is that of Italy, where women receive a monthly 50,000
lire check to pay for the extra housework involved when
they look after a handicapped relative at home instead
of leaving him or her in an Institution.108 In the same
country laws are also being proposed to raise the amount
of the Family Allowance. While Family Allowances do not
constitute a wage for housework, they are nonetheless
a clear indication that reproduction is already an area of
bargaining.
Before concluding, we should look briefly at the case of
Great Britain, a country that has only recently joined the
European Community, and which remains closely tied to
US capital which explains some similarities found between
the two countries policies and strategies around both population and female employment. The traditionally high
level of female employment in Britain has already been
mentioned. During the 1970s, the government encouraged
and financed broad studies on the condition of women
and their levels of employment. The commissions set up
for this purpose continually ended up by recommending
maximum flexibility in the organization of work so that
107
108
Les femmes au foyer, in Le Nouvel Observateur, April 10, 1973.

This check, issued by the provincial administration in some centers
of Emilia is officially in the name of the handicapped relative for
whom it is supposed to have a therapeudic function: not to make
him or her feel dependent or a burden on their family. Officially
it is ignored that the persons staying at home means an immediate
intensification of housework for the woman, which the 50,000 liras
are far from paying for.
153

women could choose between part-time and full-time jobs.
They recommended a rapid expansion of daycare centers
and nursery schools, with flexible schedules adjustable to
the mothers needs (mothers who should then go to work),
they also recommended setting up cafeterias which would
provide meals to youngsters and children whose mothers
work, even in the school holidays (our emphasis). Furthermore they recommended that the Minister of Education
should keep in regular contact with womens organizations, and that an adequate investigation be made on
the proportions and conditions of home-working (which
apparently is not only a Mediterranean problem).109
Yet despite all this it has still proved impossible for the
British government to persuade British women to take
factory jobs and replace West Indians, Africans, Indians or
Pakistanis. British women have already shown resistance
to accepting the discriminatory jobs they are constantly
being offered, thus it seems unlikely that they will quietly accept jobs such as secretary, typist etc. which110 are
the ones offered as a result of the talk about the need
for more widespread employment of women at a certain
skill level. Also the struggle around the costs of reproduction, for a wage for housework has already begun in
Britain and has reached a national level in the campaign
around Family Allowances.111 Not only was the govern109
See, on this subject, Her Majestys Stationary Office, Sixth Report

from the Expenditure Committee, session 1972-73, The Employment of Women.
110
It is enough to take a look at the Financial Times and Le Monde of
1973.
111
For a brief history of the Family Allowances System in Great Britain,
see Suzie Fleming, The Family Allowance Under Attack, Bristol:
154

ment forced to abandon its plan of abolishing the Family
Allowance (the only money which women receive directly),
it also had to face the growth of a movement that has
irreversibly opened up a struggle and begun bargaining
about reproduction.
At the same time, the community of male and female
immigrants has reached a level of subversion that is already too high to permit the State to use women against
men. Indeed the numbers of immigrant women in waged
work is very high, remarkably high in the context of a
labor market where the division between the sexes is very
rigid. The degree of subversion of the immigrant working
class has been raised by the new generation of workers,
the sons and daughters of the original immigrants, these
young men and women, particularly women, who were
either born or have grown up in Britain are freer from the
innate constraints of their parents, who came from social
areas where any wage was already a conquest, and have
no illusions that they will be able to move more easily up
the social and labor strata.
But the stability of a waged job has allowed the second
generation to achieve a new level of power high enough
to break that very stability itself. These young workers
have the same attitude to wage labor as any of their peers
Falling Wall Press, 1973; Hands Off our Family Allowances, What
We Need is Money, London: Crest Press, 1973.
As for the perspective behind this struggle the struggle over
wages for housework and its relationship with the struggles of
women who clean at night, see Radical America, vol. 7, no. 4
and 5, July-October 1973, pp. 131-192. The whole issue deals
comprehensively with the debate over wages for housework that
has been going on in Italy, Britain and the United States.
155

internationally, although their struggle is sharpened by
the struggle against racism within the labor market. It is
also sharpened by the fact that a supervisor is often seen
in terms of the slave driver of old. Specific to women is the
struggle against and refusal of the limitations imposed
by family life, a family life that the parents wages both
sets up and requires. Womens protest in the factory and
at school has not yet reached the levels of that of the
young men, but the force with which they confront their
mothers and fathers, a struggle they often have to carry
on alone and isolated within the family is a sign of their
preparedness to struggle. Since these young women are
rarely to be found in the streets in battle with the police
their struggle for independence is often not even seen.
Also the Black Movement has, in Britain too, completely
neglected womens condition in its programs and aims.
However, the results of their efforts can be surmised from
the way in which the parents of these young people are
increasingly more willing to become involved and help
youth in clashes with the police and in dealings with the
authorities in general. But while the young men remain
the visible protagonists, the young womens struggles although hidden, are often as effective.
Sometimes, a Black West Indian, realizing he was unable to support his family at home would escape to Britain,
leaving his wife and children at home. Women had to go
very far from home in order to achieve any independence
of their own either with or without a man. Often it is the
women who send money back so that their children can
join them when they settle. It did not take long for such
a situation to generate a crisis of authority. The British
government, while long promoting limitations on immigra-
156

tion, now in the Seventies has promoted the exclusion of
these children by attempting to stop West Indian women
from procreating; it attacked the Black birth rate by encouraging doctors to sterilize Black Women. This is in line
with US policies of the 1960s both towards its own blacks
and towards the Third World in general. When emigration
ceases to work well, it is better to export capital, to take
the factories to the workers. But Third World men and
women do not seem to accept them peacefully.
157
Part II.
Articles
158
7. Starting From the Social

Wage
Camille Barbagallo and Nicholas
Beuret
We wrote the following article almost two years
ago, when the global economic crisis had in
many ways just begun, as had the intensification of the neo-liberal program of austerity
in Britain. Stuart Hall has recently argued1
that the current conjuncture must be seen as
an intensification and continuation of the neoliberal project. While questions remain as to
the sustainability of neo-liberalism in the long
term, we certainly agree that in relation to children and childcare as well as the (dis)location of
women, it is very much a case of a continued onslaught. Unfortunately, many of the regressive
processes and possible outcomes we describe in
the article have come to pass or are currently
being implemented. In the last two years in
Britain, the number of unemployed women has
reached over one million, the highest since 1988.
Women now make up over 30 per cent of those
159

claiming unemployment benefits the highest
proportion since the data series began in 1983.
For those women who are still employed, nearly
three quarters of a million are involuntarily
working part-time.
Such dramatic changes and attacks make it
clear that it is not enough to simply trace and
track statistics and impacts or to outline possible futures for social reproduction and childcare
that are currently taking shape in Britain. We
need to place these changes within a context that
is now clearer than ever that is a crisis of social reproduction. Most importantly we need
to develop methods and practices that mean we
can not only survive this crisis but also create
new terrains of resistance, hope and revolt.
What is this crisis? It is not just a social crisis
one of Broken Britain and social collapse
which has a much longer history, one which has
intensified, though not been dramatically transformed, during the current economic crisis. It is
also a crisis for capitalism. It is a crisis in the
sense that as a system, capitalism finds itself
lacking for both adequate markets for its goods
and adequate profit rates. Currently the neoliberal answer is to attempt to reduce the cost
of doing business by shifting more and more
of the social costs of reproduction back onto the
broader mass of society. From the contours of
how these changes are impacting our families,
homes and communities, we know this not a
160

gender or race neutral process. However, it is
also a crisis for the state. In that it is a failure
of the institutions of governance of our social
reproduction. Not only in relation the costs that
the state has in relation to social reproduction
research shows that despite their best efforts, the
basic social wage in Britain has not been significantly reduced during the previous 30 years
of neo-liberalism. It is more than that in that
the state has failed to sufficiently transform and
discipline the working class into solid, decent
consumers and entrepreneurs who will do anything to get ahead.
Therefore, it is crucial to emphasis that the current British Government (as would the so-called
opposition party) intends to resolve this multifaceted crisis through processes of privatisation
and abandonment to the market. If you cant
pay for it, and you will have to pay for all of it,
you dont get it. It is at this front line of privatisation and abandonment that the battle over
the costs of living, the fundamental cost of reproduction and the availability of the resources
essential to reproduction, must be fought.
September, 2011
Try as she might, Margaret Thatcher failed in the early
1980s to impose true austerity on Britain. Which is relevant for us today because the current financial crisis is
not only being used to further the aims of the neo-liberal
project, it is also trying to succeed where previous attempts have failed. Across Europe, the financial crisis
161

has turned into a social crisis as wages and the conditions
of work and life are attacked through programs of austerity. The crisis is being used - indeed it is being put to
work in the best tradition of neo-liberalism - to subject
the populations of Europe to a brutal process of structural
adjustment.
In Britain, as in previous decades, the neo-liberal reforms are going deeper and moving faster than elsewhere
in Europe. The last remnants of the British welfare state
are currently being abolished and restructured and in the
process the government is winding back the state provision
of social services to levels not seen for decades. Thatcher,
and the New Labour governments that followed her, responded to the collapse of demand that austerity inflicted
on the economy at the start of the 80s through the creation
of a dynamic housing market (by selling council housing
and increasing access to cheap credit) and an increasingly
deregulated financial and banking market. For the last
thirty years, wages and income have diverged, with credit
(and rising asset values, especially housing) coming to
stand in for relatively stagnant wages. The current round
of restructuring is very much about a fresh attempt to
impose true austerity. All the belt tightening is focused
on reducing incomes to the level of wages.
The agenda of re-linking the wage to expenditure is
about reducing the amount of support provided by the
state that is to say, a reduction of the social wage. The
social wage in Britain has remained stubbornly high
throughout the decades of neo-liberalism, despite the
attacks, cuts and reconfigurations it has suffered. The
current austerity program aims to drastically reduce
the social wage, and in the process deepen the divisions
162

between so deserving and undeserving poor. However,
the aim of the present austerity program is not just to
wind back state expenditure, to reduce the tax burden
on corporations and banks, or to impose an even harsher
discipline on workers. It is all of these to be sure, but
it is also a continuation of the project of the production
of a neo-liberal subject. As Thatcher famously said
Economics are the method, the object is to change the
soul. One of the aims of neo-liberalism is to produce a
new kind of social subject one that is coldly rational
and entrepreneurial; one that is totally responsible for
their own care, education and reproduction and is morally
judged on how they put their freedom to work. The
processes of privatisation and marketisation that feature
so heavily in neo-liberal reforms are, as well as being
part of a process of accumulation by dispossession, a
means to that end.
The processes of neo-liberal subjectification, the relinking of wages to income, and reducing social expenditure have certainly not been achieved and at best can only
be said to have only partially succeeded over the previous
decades. Continuing levels of high social expenditure
and numerous consumer and housing bubbles testify
to the uneven successes and failures of the neo-liberal
project, not to mention peoples stubborn refusal to act
and think as cold entrepreneurs. This article will not
attempt to examine the whole of the proposed neo-liberal
British experiment, but will focus on one specific aspect:
childcare and the social wage. We begin with the question
of who will look after the kids because that is where we
have started from in practice (our need for childcare) and
because theoretically we see a need to develop a critique of
163

neo-liberal capitalism that recentres and revalues social
reproduction. We became involved in a campaign to save
community nurseries in the London borough where we
live in 2010.1 The nursery campaign, and its connects and
disconnects to the broader neo-liberal austerity reforms,
are our starting point for understanding the program of
government reforms in Britain and the effects of the social
wage more generally.
Women and Children First

The restructuring and reduction of the social wage is overwhelmingly an attack on women no other group of bodies
can be said to do so much unwaged work as women. And
so it is women who will suffer most from the latest cuts to
the social wage in Britain. Numerous studies in Britain
have already shown that it is women who will bear the
brunt of cuts to social expenditure, wage austerity and
job losses. Research by the House of Commons Library2
has shown that women will bear two-thirds of all of the
financial effects of the neo-liberal reforms currently being proposed by the central Government.
All across
Britain, government funded services that provide care and
facilities for children are being defunded, abolished and
downgraded. This article addresses some of our experience
in the east London borough of Hackney with a campaign to
1
2
http://friendsofhackneynurseries.wordpress.com/
A gender audit of the Budget was commissioned by Yvette Cooper
MP, and carried out by the House of Commons Library in June
2010. http://www.yvettecooper.com/women-bear-brunt-of-budgetcuts
164

save community nurseries. Community nurseries are one
of the remnants of previous feminist struggles in the 1960s
and 1970s that fought for progressive childcare provisions.
They are not-for-profit nurseries run by community members, with control of the running of the nurseries very
much in parents and workers hands as well as managers.
But before discussing the specifics of both Hackney and
childcare in Britain, it is necessary to explore the concept
of the social wage.
The Program of Cuts & the Social

Wage
Lets be clear from the start. The public services that are
being cut include things that we need, but we hate how
they are given to us: like unemployment benefits. They
also involve jobs that we rely on but resent having to do.
But what is also true is that they are part of a social
wage fought for and won by previous generations. By
social wage we mean the services and direct payments
provided by the state that enable our subsistence. The
health services, childcare, unemployment benefits, social
housing they are our social wage. The social wage has
a dual effect. It is a method by which the state organises
our lives and produces disciplined social subjects, and it
also a means of reducing the direct cost (to us) of our
own material reproduction. It is both our tool and theirs.
The social wage is a way of providing for those needs
that exist under capitalism that cannot be or are not paid
for by individual capitalists, for example the need for an
165

educated or healthy population. These are the social costs
of capitalist reproduction and they are paid for through
state expenditure. However, our needs are met on terms
that are not our own or defined by us. By determining
both our needs and problems, as well the solutions, the
state is able to produce particular compositions of social
relations and subjects.
Through services and payments the direct costs associated with reproducing ourselves are reduced (and our
needs to some extent satisfied). Instead of paying the full
cost for childcare out of our wages, we get subsidised or
free childcare. Instead of paying directly for health services when we are ill, such services are funded by taxation
and provided by the NHS. Instead of having to put aside
money in case we are sacked, we can claim the dole. In
so far as our needs are real, these gains are real. By reducing the connection between wages and our quality of
life we have weakened the power of money to command
our work and our existence. The social wage disconnects
our material reproduction from our income levels, thereby
undermining the discipline of the wage.
Importantly the social wage is also a way of paying the
unpaid. The social wage is one way of redistributing income so as to benefit those people whose (unwaged) labour
is fundamental and vital for the reproduction of workers
and capitalism in general. The primary focus of the social
wage is social reproduction and this involves labour processes that would otherwise be unwaged. This work has
historically been known as womens work3 and involves
3
Not womens work in the sense that these kinds of work are more
natural for women, but that capitalism has created a gendered
166

tasks such as caring for young children, the elderly, the
sick and disabled, the health of the body and emotional
and psychological services such as counselling. The last
forty years have seen significant shifts and changes to the
who, where and how social reproduction occurs. For instance, more men are now involved in the work of looking
after their children and more migrant workers are employed to look after our elderly relatives. While it is true
that such work has been and continues to be gendered and
racialised it is important to recognise that the landscape
of social reproduction is by no means simple or without
contradictions.
None of this is to say that the social wage is unproblematic. Obviously it is - because under capitalism wage
relations are based on exploitation and alienation, and the
various elements of the social wage are no exception. We
need the services because we have no other choice. This
need relates back to the dual freedom that Marx saw as
the precondition of wage labour in capitalist societies: we
are free to sell our labour and we have been freed from
the ability to reproduce ourselves in any other way. In the
past struggle around the social wage has had a tendency
to orientate to the second aspect of this freedom - our
ability or lack of ability to reproduce ourselves outside of
the wage-labour relation. It is here that the contradiction
of the social wage appears because it is not a wage like
any other. Its very existence undermines the authority
and power of command of the wage. However, left as it
is, the social wage also operates as a form of control and
division of labour where some forms of mostly unpaid and unwaged
labour have been naturalised as womens work.
167

discipline, and as a way of enabling wage labour to exist at
all in its current form. So, like other wage struggles, our
ultimate aim must be to go beyond the immediate relation
and create a new social relationship. But we cant do this
by opting out. Not only because dropping out and making
our own little utopias does not get us any closer to the
necessary transformation of the world in which we live,
but because the social wage represents real struggles and
gains. We need to be in, against and beyond the social
wage.
The Hackney Situation

Hackney, situated in north-east London, shares its borders
with the City and financial districts. With a population of
around 220,000, the borough is densely populated. There
is a concentration of migrant working class communities
and unemployment that is above average, at around 11
per cent of the population. The state is the biggest single
employer in Hackney; around 23,000 people are employed
in the public sector. As one of the most deprived boroughs in the UK, Hackney will be particularly heavily
hit by the Conservative /Liberal Democrats (ConDems)
proposed cuts to social expenditure. The Hackney Council is already talking about possible restructuring, with
temporary agency workers mostly likely being the first
to go. If everything goes according to plan, there will
be further cuts to local libraries, young peoples services
and there will continue to be job losses and cut backs in
the already privatised social service bodies that deal with
social housing (Hackney Homes), refuse and waste col-
168

lection, nurseries and other childcare services. Despite
the ConDems championing of family values, parents in
Hackney will be hard hit by the cuts to social benefits with
a freeze on child benefit payments and restructuring of
housing benefit. The cuts to housing benefits will particularly affect Hackney residents: almost 40% of households
in Hackney claim housing benefit, with a quarter of these
households in privately rented accommodation. The estimates of the number of people who will be forced to leave
inner London because of cuts to housing benefits has been
estimate to be around 250,000.
But our focus is the state of childcare provision through
nurseries. Nurseries in Hackney are under attack ironically not directly because of the ConDems austerity budget,
but because the Learning Trust, a private company that
controls the provision for childrens services in Hackney,
cut nursery funding in April 2010. In response Friends of
Hackney Nurseries (FHN), a coalition of nursery workers,
parents and community activists began campaigning and
organising to try and stop these cuts from occurring.
The Hackney Learning Trust the UKs first private
not-for profit company to take over the responsibility of
running all education services for an entire borough4
imposed cuts of up to 50,000 to community nurseries receiving commissioning grants. Commissioning grants subsidise childcare places for parents on low incomes. Commissioning grants have, until recently, only been paid to
4
Hackney Council outsourced the running of education services in

the borough to the Learning Trust in 2002. However the Council
remains responsible for allocating the Learning Trust funding and
the Major of Hackney ultimately remains responsible for borough
run services
169

the 13 remaining community nurseries in Hackney, out
of 68 childcare settings in the borough. These 68 include Council run childrens centres, community nurseries
(not-for-profit parent and staff managed nurseries) and
private nurseries (private nurseries make up half of the
total childcare places). As a result of the massive cuts to
commissioning grant funding and cuts to other funding
streams, many community nurseries had to reduce both
staff numbers and childcare places. Some are even facing
closure because of it.
Both the Hackney Council and the Learning Trust have,
after much public pressure, claimed that the overall pot of
money for low-income families in Hackney had not been
cut apparently it had just been redistributed. They
have resisted providing evidence of this redistribution,
and the timeline of action then reaction tells another story
one of incompetence and a slow but steady strategy of
privatisation.
When community nurseries were first told of the cuts
(one month before they were to be implemented), FHN
quickly reformed after 10 years of inactivity and immediately set about working with parents and nurseries to
put pressure on the Council and Learning Trust to reverse the cuts. This all happened just prior to the national
elections in 2010, making public shaming particularly effective as a tactic. In short order the Mayor of Hackney,
Jules Pipe, condemned the Learning Trusts behaviour5
and the Learning Trust scrambled to meet with the handful of nurseries that had started to publicly voice their
5
http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2010/05/04/mayor-speaks-outover-hackney-nursery-cuts/
170

opposition. Despite saying publicly that the money had
not been cut but redistributed, in the end the Learning
Trust reversed half of the cuts largely through something
they called a cushioning fund a one off grant to help the
affected nurseries through the hardship of the cuts. They
didnt say where this extra money had been found.
After this shambles, things got even more interesting.
Meetings between nurseries and the Learning Trust were
set up then cancelled without explanation. Different letters were sent, seemingly at random, to different nurseries
all saying slightly different things. The Learning Trust
started contacting community nurseries to offer them
help in winding down their operations. However, during
the weeks of confusion and misinformation the Learning
Trust announced that commissioning grants would now
be available to all nurseries in Hackney, further reducing the amount available to community nurseries (due to
increased competition with the private and Council run
nurseries). Finally, the Learning Trust decided in July to
cut yet another stream of nursery funding. Under the new
Single Funding Formula the funding stream that pays
for the 15 hours of free childcare for all 3 and 4 year olds
all nurseries will face a per child funding cut compared
with previous years. In addition, funding for children with
special needs has been reduced, something that must be
seen within the context of a general attack on the benefits
and services for the disabled within the national austerity
measures.6 FHN has managed to get a significant amount
of funding returned to community nurseries for at least
the next financial year. And we are continuing to apply
6
http://www.scope.org.uk/news/disabled-people-hit-by-welfare-cuts
171

pressure on both the overall funding and funding for children for special needs. But the future of the latter two
remains an open question.
What does all this mean? It would seem that the redistribution of funding from community nurseries to private
nurseries is part of the last stages of the privatisation of
childcare services. Over the last 20 years the total amount
of money given to community nurseries has been steadily
reduced. At the same time there has been an explosion
of private nurseries in Hackney. Fifteen years ago there
were no private nursery spaces in Hackney. Now, around
half of all childcare places are privately provided. This
process of privatisation has taken place within the context
of reduced state funding, indicating not only a process of
privatisation but also of marketisation of services.
A Brief Note on the Friends of

Hackney Nurseries Campaign
The rebirth of the FHN campaign group came just prior to
the national government and local council elections in the
UK in May 2010. As a result the very first meeting saw
over 30 people turn up, many of whom were associated
with local political parties and looking for a community
campaign to be identified with and support. Over the
next few months however, participation in campaign meetings was reduced to a smaller group of about eight core
members who are a mix of local parents, feminist activists
and nursery workers and managers (with more managers
than workers participating on a regular basis).
172

From the beginning the campaign collective has both
struggled to find direction and retain members. The inability to figure out what was actually happening in the
childcare sector in Hackney was both because of the complexity of childcare funding and because of the difficulty of
getting enough information from nurseries where staff are
both overworked and unsure of the state of their funding
themselves. Because of the difficulty of finding out what
was going on, it was not easy to establish clear objectives.
As many of us were either new to childcare or were well
established within existing structures, creating a collective vision of an alternative kind of childcare was difficult,
especially as we spent most of our time just finding out
what was already the case, rather than discussing what
we wanted childcare to look like in Hackney.
It could be said that the lack of a clear vision has hampered the groups efforts to build its membership and create a more powerful public dynamic. It wasnt the only
obstacle though. Time is the biggest stumbling block to
mobilising both parents and community nursery workers
and managers. No one has time to meet after work, or on
weekends. Overworked parents and nursery workers have
little space left in their lives outside of care and work (or
care work). Those of us in the campaign felt the pressure
of lack of time, and many of the activities we attempted or
undertook suffered from this lack. Because of the lack of
clear direction, and the reduced number of members and
their lack of time, the campaign made most use of traditional lobbying methods as opposed to organising methods,
despite the fact that many members of FHN had a clear
preference for organising work. These methods led to a
number of quick wins, but also to a series of engagements
173

with officials and councillors that took time from other
activities.
One unresolved tension in the group was around the decision for FHN to work with managers of the community
nurseries. Some group members felt that management
was management and working with them was a compromise. This reflects a broader tendency in the Left to see
managerial roles as something apart from the working
class. However such simple notions are becoming more
and more blurred under neo-liberalism, as we have seen a
diffusion of managerial responsibilities throughout the
workforce over the last 30 years from low-level line
managers and team leadership to an explosion of middle management - just senior and middle management
alone accounts for 15 per cent of the workforce in the UK7 .
Radical left politics needs to become reconciled with the
reality of everyday labour relations in the UK, which sees
many workers with at least some managerial responsibility. Management, as a general mode of social relations,
is diffused through the body of the proletariat and not
just something external to it and is embedded within the
production of the neo-liberal subject. This proliferation
of managerial ethics and ideas is on its own a blockage
to the production of different collective social relations,
and formed a very real concrete material condition within
FHN, with managerial priorities forming the basis for
many of our collective tasks.
Clearly, though, excluding all people with some kind
of managerial responsibilities is not an option, especially
7
http://www2.managers.org.uk/content_1.aspx
?id=10:293&id=10:290&id=10:9
174

not within a community nursery campaign where the gap
between management and worker is often slight and at
times imperceptible. However, different contexts lend
themselves to different alliances. Of course a clearer distinction between management and workers would need
to be made if the campaign involved staff undertaking
union organising at nurseries. However, in the instance
of a community campaign aiming to fight against government funding cuts and neo-liberal restructuring of the
childcare sector, working with both affected nursery staff
and managers, in community controlled and run premises,
it not only strategic but necessary. The desire or idea of
politics as pure neglects the actual messiness and contradictions so often present in the alliances, experiences and
possibilities of social reproduction.
Why Does the Privatisation of

Childcare Matter?
It could be argued, as it has been by many Hackney Councillors, that it doesnt matter if childcare is provided by
the Council, by community-run centres, or by private businesses. So as long as the total number of childcare places
in Hackney hasnt been reduced, does it really matter on
what basis they are provided?
The short answer is yes. The case against privatisation
can be summed up as follows. A service run according
to the logic of the market tends to drive down costs (and
therefore quality), reduce staff and employment conditions
to the absolute minimum (reducing wages and reducing
175

the quality of the childcare again), increase the costs to the
service user (through fee increases) and reduce provision
to those areas where it is profitable (creating a system
where having a service and the quality of that service
directly relates to how much you earn). There is also the
issue of directing public funds (via grants) to private-forprofit businesses. Any one of these outcomes is reason
enough to reject the privatisation of community or public
services.
The alternative to the market is often presented as the
state. However state-run services are also deeply problematic. They provide us with services we need but are given
in relationships of subservience or dependence. It is no
wonder that state-run services are so unpopular, with most
of the population of the UK preferring service cuts to tax
increases.8 While the services we have are a direct result
of the pressure we have been able exert as antagonistic
social movements, this pressure has been channelled into
the creation of services that follow the logic of the state
and serve the needs of capitalism. Our confrontation with
capital is over the imposition of waged labour and the
form this labour takes. But our struggle with the state
is over the overall management of our lives, in particular
the management of our own material reproduction.
Cuts to services are not the end of the states management of our lives, just a reconfiguration. With the move
from community-run to either Council or private childcare
8
Nearly three quarters of voters including most Labour

voters say that the governments priority should be
to cut spending rather than increase taxes Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/budget-2010-guardianicm-poll
176

we lose something essential: control. The only childcare
services parents (and to some extent workers) have any
control over in a meaningful way are community nurseries.
Committees of parents and staff manage them, and parents are encouraged to be involved at a decision-making
and organisation level. In contrast, the Council appoints
staff who manage Council run nurseries while private
nurseries may involve parents but they usually do so
in order to reduce their costs. Privatisation undermines
one of our most important gains from the struggles of the
60s and 70s: community run services that we manage for
our own material reproduction but that have financial resources provided by the state. This is why the slow decline
of funding and the latest attack on community nurseries
is so important. They are the last of the childcare services
we have any control over in Hackney.
Privatisation plays another important role beyond the
redirecting of public funds to private companies and removing public or community control from services. Privatisation is also a state-led project of producing a new
social subject: a rational, market-driven neo-liberal individual. Privatisation of community services introduces the
functioning of the market and the logic of profit to areas of
social life that had previously been structured differently.
Importantly the aim is not just to wring profit from what
were once public services, but to change the way people
interact with each other and change their expectations of
the state. In this context the privatisation of nurseries
can be seen as an attempt to produce the parent as a rational market actor. Mum and Dad as entrepreneurs, who
weigh up their options, calculate what will best deliver
the outcomes they desire and act individually to achieve
177

that end. The end result of the project of marketisation is
the creation of a social subject who is judged (and judges)
on their ability to meet their own needs (either through
directly paying for them or providing them on their own)
and make good on their ambitions and aspirations. To
be sure, privatisation is not the only mechanism through
which the neo-liberal subject is produced. It is however
a process which has the immediate effect of reorganising
the material conditions of our reproduction and creating a
measure of productivity, profitability and efficiency.
Outside the Laboratory

Hackney was always something of a laboratory for the
previous New Labour government, and the Learning Trust
is a perfect case in point. However it is not just in Hackney
that these cuts to care are taking place. Across the UK,
at a borough level and at a University level, childcare
services are facing declining funding and further cuts.
At least 20 universities are cutting childcare services9 ,
many other Councils are reducing funding, rents are being
increased10 and central Government is looking to decrease
childcare funding streams. In addition, the Government is
reducing and number of specific benefits including Child
Benefit. Specific grants and services for children are also
Nursery world, http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/923379/Fullscale-university-nursery-cuts-exposed-Unison/

10
Nursery world, http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/923379/Fullscale-university-nursery-cuts-exposed-Unison/
178

being cut, including grants for improving or building new
buildings11 , and grants for the creation of playgrounds.
As other observers have pointed out,12 the difference
between New Labour and the ConDems is a difference of
degree. It is clear that had New Labour won the election
they too would be embarking on cuts to the social wage. In
fact the cuts in Hackney were announced prior to the ConDems austerity budget, and are taking place as part of
the broader historical tendency of neo-liberalism. Clearly
cuts to nurseries need to be stopped, and sufficient funding restored in the short term. In the longer term there
needs to be a conversation at both a community level and
a national level about how we want our children to be
cared for, outside of the logic of the market and beyond
just making it possible for women to re-enter the waged
workforce in greater numbers. Before we can begin this
conversation, we need to understand why these cuts are
happening now, and what they mean.
The neo-liberal project has developed along two axes
in rich countries like Britain holding down or winding
back the wage and introducing the market as the basis for
all social relations. However the difference between the
current cuts in the UK and the cuts implemented in the
earlier phases of neo-liberalism both here and elsewhere
is twofold. Firstly capitalism has no need to increase the
paid labour force in the UK not at least until wages have
11
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/bulletin/NurseryWorldUpdate
/article/1032984/?DCMP=EMC-CONNurseryWorldUpdate
12
see Richard Seymour, http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site
/article_comments/the_axemans_jazz_why_cuts_why_now_and
_how_to_stop_them/
and
Tony
Wood,
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2830
179

been drastically reduced. If anything, the total number
of those available for waged work needs to be reduced to
make sure that the numbers of unemployed do not grow
excessively and that an entire generation of workers is
not lost. Secondly, there is a need to ensure that there
is not a reproductive crisis in the working class (this is
expressed by Prime Minister David Cameron as the desire
to fix Broken Britain). The government needs to find a
way to reduce state expenditure on the social wage without significantly undermining the continuity of care and
continued reproduction of the working class.
The post-feminist discourse of free-market liberal feminists and the pronouncements about the entrepreneurial
or aspirational citizen by all of the major political parties
takes centre stage as an organising ideological force within
the financial crisis. It is through the discourse of choice
that women are being encouraged to either move away
from waged labour and go back to the home or resume the
gendered second shift of unpaid work in the home as well
as working outside the home for wages. It is through the
rhetoric of choice that parenthood is being increasingly
cast as something that individuals rationally choose to do
and in doing so bear all of the moral responsibility (and
financial culpability) and therefore should not expect any
assistance from the state and other tax payers. The return to the home is not only being proposed to women
men too are being encouraged to consider this option but
only as long as their partners earn more than they do. The
idea that life decisions are rational choices made on a costbenefit analysis pervades current responses to both the
paucity of care, the disparity between men and womens
wages and an ever-present desire to escape waged labour.
180

It is through the discourse of choice that the state
can withdraw funding from services without appearing to
endanger social reproduction or provoking confrontation.
The choice of love, family and community over money and
careers is at the heart of post-feminist discourse. This
choice takes place within the context of a massive economic and political assault on women. From job losses
(women make up 65 per cent of all public sector employees) to cuts to pensions and benefits, as well as specific
programs dealing with everything from domestic violence
to cuts in playground construction the target is women
and especially those women that care for children. So the
rational choice ends up being not a choice at all but instead a necessity to return to the home to perform unpaid
reproductive labour. This rational choice also serves to
mobilise the elderly, whose own pensions and benefits are
under attack. When families are unable to return one
person to the home full time to care for children, the first
option taken by most parents in the UK is to turn to their
own parents before turning to paid childcare.13
The aim of the ConDems cuts to government spending is
to reduce the social wage, and to return social reproduction
to the realm of the unpaid. It is also an attempt to change
historical expectations. It is not a return to the 1950s so
much as the creation of a voluntaristic morality that serves
the same function of relocating people (women for the most
part) back into the home to perform unpaid labour. The
rational choice of generally lower paid women moving back
13
The 14 million grandparents in the UK provide an estimated 3.9billion in childcare free of charge.
See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/06/childcaregrandparents-strike
181

to the home to perform unwaged labour also reinvigorates
traditional gender relations with a neo-liberal logic of rational choice. It also further entrenches what has become,
over the course of the last 30 years, a dual economy with
a minority of well paid professionals at one end (with an
even smaller number of the super wealthy above them)
and a struggling majority of dual low-income households
at the other.
In, Against and Beyond the Social

Wage
Among the demands for childcare in the 1960s and 1970s
there was the demand for community run and controlled
nurseries. Feminists who struggled over questions of childcare and campaigned for community control of nurseries
won this demand with varying degrees of success. To be
sure, these nurseries have their problems. Like much of
the labour involved in providing social services, looking
after children is demanding, underpaid and undervalued.
Peoples capacity to care and love is relied upon and it
often means that people accept conditions they might not
otherwise. The logic of childcare liberates womens time
but only for waged work. To begin to navigate a path of
resistance out of the current crisis we need to return to
the question of what kind of reproduction we want.
For the nursery campaign in Hackney, this will mean
reinvigorating the community nursery sector. Even
though it will mean swimming against the neo-liberal
tide, community nurseries need to not just be defended
182

but expanded - with the state footing the bill. Outside
of Hackney, for the various social movements engaged
in resisting the ConDems austerity budget the task will
be to organise and mobilise around the question of not
only childcare provision but also the social wage more
generally. At present the lack of an organised feminist
movement and the continued lack of engagement by left
groups and social movements with the issue of childcare
means that this task is as urgent as ever.
The question of work needs be at the centre of all our
struggles waged and unwaged, concerning both conditions and compensation. But this must take place at a
general level, across all social provision of services, and
not be allowed to become a question of shifting resources
from one group of workers to another. And this demand
must take place in a broader conversation about care
what is it, where it happens and who does it. It is within
this conversation that the question of the social wage can
be raised once more from its starting point as wages for
the wageless and wages for reproductive work.
Central to our struggles around social reproduction is
the necessity to return to the question of work-time worktime paid for through wages and work-time unwaged. We
cannot allow our reproduction to depend on how much
time we have left from waged labour, instead we need to
reduce the time we spend at waged work. If reproduction
is brought to the centre of our struggles then perhaps the
struggle become less a refusal of waged work and more a
reduction of the working day so we have the time necessary
to participate in our collective social reproduction.
More generally there is an urgent need to refocus anticuts campaigns around the question of our material re-
183

production and place demands for control at the heart of
them. Here, ironically, the David Camerons rhetoric of
mutualism could be used tactically. By starting from the
idea of worker and service user alliances, there is a possibility of constructing a social force powerful enough to
resist funding cuts and creating alliances that co-manage
and co-control public services. By forcing the state to continue to fund our material reproduction and using their
rhetoric to push for more control at the same time, we can
build a resistance that means this crisis becomes a crisis
for capitalism and the state and not for us.
184
8. The Unfinished Feminist

Revolution
Silvia Federici
One of the main political developments of the last decades
across the planet has been womens revolt against confinement to domestic labor, leading to a redefinition of
this work and womens relation to capital and the state.
The Womens Liberation Movement of the 70s was the
political expression of this revolt. It was a movement
against housework and its corollaries: economic and social dependence on men, social discrimination, and the
naturalization of reproductive activities as attributes of
femininity. Women took to the streets, the schools, the
courts, demanding that the state cease to control their bodies, that abortion be decriminalized, that wife beating and
rape within marriage no longer be tolerated, that school
programs be revised to acknowledge womens presence in
history. Their revolt also took less visible forms that only
women in the movement could recognize as instances of
refusal of housework, like the fall of the birth rate, stiff
in post WWII Europe (Dalla Costa 1977), and the increase
in number of divorces and women-headed families.
185

The central role that housework and reproduction have
played in the feminist theories of the 70s was rooted in
these struggles. Womens refusal to define themselves as
housewives made it possible to conceive the unpaid domestic work done by women as a specifically capitalist form of
labor-production and a terrain of exploitation: the social
factory where the workforce is daily reproduced. It also
made it possible to rethink Marxs concept of productive
labor, through a critique that represents one of the most
significant contributions to Marxist theory and practice in
our time.
It was on the basis of this analysis that many feminists
called for wages for housework, as a strategic demand to
subvert not only domestic slavery, but the labor hierarchies created through the wage relation. The campaign
for Wages For Housework spread in the mid 70s in several countries of Europe as well as in the US and Canada,
but it never became a mass movement and its political
potential was never tested. Among North American and
European feminists, the dominant strategy was to fight
against discrimination in the waged workplace, to ensure
womens access to occupations formerly considered male
domains, and to demand publicly supported day-care so
that women could gain employment outside the home.
In the US in particular, by the late 70s, the questions
of housework and reproduction had practically vanished
from the feminist agenda, so much so that, by 1976, the
Supreme Court could defeat a proposal to make paid maternity leave compulsory for employers. It was assumed,
especially among liberal feminists, that sameness had
to be the condition for equality; thus any gender specific
demand as e.g. maternity leavewas rejected as a call
186

for special treatment, presumably undermining womens
demand for political equality with men.
Since then, much has changed in the global political
economy forcing a rethinking of feminist strategies worldwide. The neo-liberal restructuring of the world economy
has redefined the political terrain, exposing the unreliability of wage labor as a means of sustenance and social
reproduction. Most important, the worldwide emergence
of grassroots womens movements, organizing against the
privatizations and corporate plunder of common resources,
has demonstrated how urgent it is to create more cooperative forms of life and re-appropriate the basic means of
our subsistence. At the same time, institutionalization of
feminism by the United Nations have harnessed womens
struggle to the development of the neo-liberal agenda and
market relations. Coming from a different quarter, the academic feminists refusal of a feminist standpoint accused
of authorizing partial accounts of the female experience
and engendering stifling identity politics has also destabilized feminism as a political movement.
These contradictory trends make it difficult to predict
what role feminist movements will play in the future, particularly in the context of the unfolding global economic
crisis. However, the last three decades have taught us
important lessons about the limits of the wage struggle as
a basis for womens liberation.
In the 70, North American feminists assumed that
by obtaining extra-domestic employment women would
free themselves from a paralyzing isolation, join the class
struggle, and leave the home and housework behind. Four
decades later, we see that these assumptions were misplaced, underestimating international capitals capacity
187

to disarticulate the composition of the workforce that had
produced the feminist movement and recuperate its radical potential. Women thus entered the workplace at the
time of a historic, worldwide attack on workers wages and
employment levels, resulting in the de-industrialization
of large parts of the Unites States, the dismantling of local industries in the global South, and the precarization
of work. Not surprisingly, the jobs awaiting them have
been at the bottom of the work-scale, among the most
monotonous, hazardous, least secure and lowest paid. In
the countries of the OECD, the boom of womens employment reaching 60% of the female population in the 1990s
has been in the service sectors, which means that women
have exchanged housework in the home with housework in
restaurants, hospitals, cafeterias, in addition to providing
the work-force for call centers and data entry firms.
The situation has been bleaker in the Global South.
Here the increase in womens employment has been in the
informal sector, a euphemism for low paid homework, or
in the Free Export Zones the global sweatshops in which
the manufacturing industries shut down in the North
have been relocated. Periodically we are told, by leftists
as well, of beneficial effects that laboring in these modern
workhouses has for women, of the skills they learn, the
independence they gain through this kind of employment.
But generations of young women have wasted their bodies
and minds in them, earning a pittance while subject to
prison-like regimes.
Temporary jobs, below the minimum wage, mostly without any contract, have also been the norm in the former
socialist countries from China to Bulgaria. The transition
from socialism to capitalism has devalued womens labor.
188

How little women can expect from employment in the marketized economies of Eastern Europe can be measured
from the high number of female migrants from this region
to every country of Western Europe and the US, where the
jobs they can find (domestic workers, sex workers, eldercarers, nurses) generally involve a loss of social status and
years of social isolation.
In sum, entrance in the waged workplace has contributed to feminize poverty and lengthened womens
workday, while enabling employers to create new type of
plantations, in which consumer commodities and services
are cheaply produced, serving to minimize the cost of
labor-power production.
We must also dispel the myth that, due to increased
womens employment, unpaid domestic work and genderbased hierarchies have vanished. True, many housework
tasks have left the home, being reorganized on a commercial basis, leading to the boom of the service sector. In
the US, in the period from 1990 to 2006, employment in
food services and drinking places has increased by three
million. In the same period, the number of fast-food workers has gone from 2 million seven hundred thousands to
four million. However, these are the lowest paid workers
in America, according to official statistics and categories,
earning $7,77 cents an hour. [See Table 614, p. 406 of
Statistical Abstract of the United States 2008].
Women have refused some housework by deciding not
to have children or by reducing the number of children
they have and the services they provide to their partners.
In the US, the number of births has fallen from 118 per
1000 women in 1960s to 66.7 in 2006, resulting in an
increase in the median age of the population from 30 in
189

1980 to 36.4 in 2006. This procreation strike has been most
dramatic in Europe where in some countries (Italy e.g.)
birth rates have been for years below replacement. There
has also been a decline in the number of marriages and
married couples - in the U.S. from 56% of all households in
1990 to 51% in 2006, and a simultaneous increase in the
number of people living alone, in the US by seven and a
half million -from twenty three to thirty and a half millionamounting to a 30% increase. But these developments
have not significantly affected the amount of domestic
work the majority of women are expected to perform, nor
eliminated the gender-based inequalities built upon it.
If we take a global perspective we see that not only do
women still do most of the housework in every country, but
due to the states cuts of investment in social services and
the decentralization of industrial production the amount
of domestic work paid and unpaid that they now perform
has actually increased, even when they have had a extradomestic job. Indeed, across the planet, most working
class women are carrying on two jobs, saddled with a
tremendously lengthened workweek that leaves them no
time for anything but work.
Three factors in particular have contributed to the
lengthening of womens workday and the return of
reproductive work to the home.
Women have been the shock absorbers of the economic
crisis originally triggered by the globalization process but
now destined to become a permanent feature of the world
economy. Their extra work has compensates for lay-offs,
skyrocketing food prices, the cutting and privatization of
social services, and generally the vanishing family income.
This has been especially true in the countries subjected
190

to Structural Adjustment where the state has practically
stopped investing in healthcare, education, public transports and other basic necessities. As a result across the
globe they now must spend more time fetching water, obtaining and preparing food, and dealing with illnesses
which are far more frequent and damaging now, for the
marketization of healthcare has made visits to clinics unaffordable and malnutrition and environmental destruction
have increased people vulnerability to disease.
In the US too, due to budget cuts, much of the work hospitals and other public agencies have traditionally done
has been privatized and transferred to the home, tapping
womens unpaid labor. Presently patients are dismissed almost immediately after surgery and the home must absorb
a variety of post-operative and other therapeutic medical
tasks (e.g. for the chronically ill) that in the past would
have been done by doctors and professional nurses. Also
public assistance to the elderly (with housekeeping, personal care) has been cut. Home visits have been shortened
and the services provided reduced.
The second factor that has re-centered reproductive labor in the home, has been the expansion of "homework,"
partly due to the de-concentration of industrial production, partly the spread of informal work. As David Staples,
writes, in his No Place Like Home (2006), far from being an
anachronistic form of work, homework has demonstrated
to be a long-term capitalist strategy, which today occupies
millions of women and children worldwide, in towns, villages, suburbs. Staples correctly points out that work is
"inexorably" drawn to the home by the pull of unpaid domestic labor, because by organizing work on a home basis
employers can make it invisible, can undermine workers
191

effort to unionize, and can drive wages down to a minimum. Many women opt for this work to earn an income
while caring for their families, but the result is enslavement to a work that earns wages "far below the median
the work would pay if performed in a formal setting, and
it reproduces a sexual division of labor that fixes women
more deeply to housework." (Staples: 1-5)
Last, working for a wage has not eliminated sexual discrimination, though it has given women more economic
independence from men. Despite growing male unemployment, women still earn a fraction of male wages. We have
also witnessed an increase of male violence against women,
partly triggered by fear of their economic competition, in
part by the frustration men experience not being able to
fulfill their role as their families providers and, above all,
not being able to receive the same services women used to
provide.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis.
First, fighting for waged work or fighting to "join the working class in the workplace," as some Marxist feminist liked
to put it, cannot be a path to liberation. Wage employment
may be a necessity but cannot be a political strategy. Second, as long as reproductive work is devalued, as long it is
considered a private matter and a womens responsibility,
women will always confront capital and the state with
less power than men and in condition of extreme social
and economic vulnerability. There are also serious limits
to the extent to which reproductive work can be reduced
or reorganized on a market basis. How can we reduce
or commercialize the care for children, the elderly, the
sick, except at a great cost for those to be cared for? The
degree to which the marketization of food production has
192

contributed to the deterioration of our health (e.g. the
rise of obesity even among children) is instructive in this
context. As for the globalization of reproductive work, this
solution only extends the housework crisis, now displaced
to the families of the paid care providers.
What we need is the re-opening of a collective struggle
over reproduction aiming to create new forms of cooperation around this work that are outside of the logic of capital
and the market. This is not a utopia, but a process already
under way in many parts of the world, that will certainly
expand in the face of the continuing institutional assault
on our means of subsistence. Through land takeovers, urban farming, community-supported agriculture, through
squats, the creation of various forms of barter, mutual aid,
alternative forms of healthcare -to name some of the terrains on which the reorganization of reproduction is more
advanced- a new economy is beginning to emerge that
may turn reproductive work from a stifling, discriminating activity into the most liberating and creative ground
of experimentation in human relations.
Meanwhile we should not ignore that the consequences
of the globalization of the world economy would certainly
have been far more nefarious except for the efforts that
millions of women have made to ensure that their families would be supported, regardless of their value on the
market. Through their subsistence activities, as well as
various forms of direct action (from squatting on public
land to urban farming) women have helped their communities to avoid total dispossession, extend budgets, add
food to the kitchen pots. Amidst wars, economic crises,
devaluations, as the world around them was falling apart,
they have planted corn on abandoned town plots, cooked
193

food to sell on the side of the streets, created communal
kitchens -ola communes- as in the case of Chile and Peru,
thus standing in the way of a total commodification of life
and beginning a process of re-collectivization of reproduction that is indispensable if we are to regain control over
our lives.
For further reading see the following bibliography:
Peggy Antrobus. (2004). The Global Womens Movements. Origins, Issues and Strategies. London: Zed
Books.
Rosalyn Baxandall and Linda Gordon eds. (2000).
Dear Sisters, Dispatches from the Womens Liberation
Movement. New York: Basic Books.
Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Nicholas Faraclas
and Claudia Werlhof eds. (2001). There is an Alternative. Subsistence and Worldwide Resistance to
Corporate Globalization. London: Zed Books.
Giovanna Franca Dalla Costa. (2008). The Work of
Love. Unpaid Housework, Poverty Sexual Violence
at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Brooklyn (NY):
Autonomedia [Translated from Italian, First Edition
1978].
Mariarosa Dalla Costa and Selma James. (1975).
The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. Bristol(UK) : Falling Wall Press.
Mariarosa Dalla Costa and Giovanna Franca Dalla
Costa eds., (1999). Women, Development and Labor
194

of Reproduction. Struggles and Movements. Trenton:
Africa World Press.
Mariarosa Dalla Costa. (2008, 1994). "Capitalism
and Reproduction." In Werner Bonefeld ed. Subverting the Present Imagining the Future. Brooklyn (NY):
Autonomedia.
Federici, Silvia. (2009) "Witch-hunting, Globalization, and Feminist Solidarity in Africa Today." (Forthcoming) In Wagadu. Joint Issue with the Journal of
International Womens Studies. January 2009.
"War, Globalization and Reproduction." (2008, 1992)
In Matt Meyer and Elavie Ndura-Ouedraogo eds.,
Seeds of New Hope. Pan-African Peace Studies for
the Twenty-First Century. Trenton (NJ): Africa World
Press, pp. I14-164.
(2006) "Prostitution and Globalization: Notes on a
feminist debate." In Davies, Matt and Magnus Ryner
eds. (2006). Poverty and the Production of World
Politics. Unprotected Workers in the Global Political
Economy. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan, pp. 113136.
_____________. (2004). Caliban and the Witch:
Women, The Body and Primitive Accumulation.
Brooklyn (NY): Autonomedia.
____________. (2004). "Women, Land Struggles and
Globalization. An International Perspective." Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 39, Issue 1/2,
January March, 2004. London: Sage.
195

________________ . (1999). "Reproduction and Feminist Struggle in the New International Division of
Labor." In Dalla Costa and Dalla Costa eds. (1999)
pp. 47-82.
______________. (1980). "Putting Feminism Back
on its Feet." In Sonhia Sayres et all eds. The 60s
Without Apology. Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press. In collaboration with Social Text.
_______________ . (1975). "Counterplanning From
the Kitchen." (with Nicole Cox) Bristol: Falling Wall
Press.
_______________ . (1975) "Wages Against Housework." (1975). Bristol (UK) : Falling Wall Press.
Leopoldina Fortunati. (1995, 1981). The Arcane of
Reproduction. Housework, Prostitution, Labor and
Capital. Brooklyn (NY) : Autonomedia (Translated
from Italian, First edition 1981).
Nona Glazer. (1993). Womens Paid and Unpaid Labor. The Work Transfer in Healthcare and Retailing.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. (2003). Rising
Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around
the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Mendez, Jennifer Bickham. (2005). From Revolution
to the Maquiladoras. Gender, Labor and Globalization. Durham: Duke University Press.
196

Maria Mies, Maria, Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen.
(1999) The Subsistence Perspective. Beyond The Globalized Economy. London: Zed Books.
Mies, Maria. (1986) Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale. London: Zed Books.
Maria Mies, Maria, Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen
and Claudia Von Werlhof. (1988). Women: The Last
Colony. London: Zed Books.
Seguino, Stephanie. (2007). "Plus ca Change? Evidence on Global Trends In Gender Norms and Stereotypes." In Feminist Economics, Routledge. Volume
thirteen, Number Two, April 2007, 1-28.
Sigle-Rushton, Wendy and Jane Waldfogel. (2007).
"Motherhood and Earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European and Nordic Countries." In Feminist Economics, Vol. 13, Number 2, April 2007. 5592.
Staples, David E. (2006). No Place Like Home. Organizing Home-Based Labor In The Era of Structural
Adjustment. New York: Routledge.
Wichterich, Christa. (2000). The Globalized Woman.
Reports From a Future of Inequality. London: Zed
Books.
World Values Survey. Data from the World Values
Survey. (2006). Accessed at http://www.worldvalues
survey.org.
197
9. Womens Autonomy &

Renumeration of Care
Work1
Every construction of autonomy has its own history that
evolves in a specific context and must face specific obstacles and battles. Yesterday I mentioned the first stages
of this history through the initiatives of that feminist
movement in which I directly participated initiatives
necessary for women to regain the availability of their
body. I have also recalled how, on a planetary level, this
battle is far from being concluded. Here I would like to
consider other aspects of this history, starting again from
the initial moments of that political experience, to assess
what is the relation between women and autonomy today
with respect to some emergent problems, and also to ask,
in relation to the latter, what has happened to both the
This paper has been presented at the international Conference

on: La autonomia posible (The Possible Autonomy). Universidad
Autonoma de la Ciudad de Mexico, October 24-25-26, 2006. It has
been translated from Italian into English by Silvia Federici.
198
9. Womens Autonomy & Renumeration of Care Work

demand that housework (or care work) be remunerated
and to womens economic autonomy.
First Act
Today there is a great celebration of differences. But I
always feel the need to specify of what difference we are
talking about, from whose point of view and for whom it
constitutes a problem, for whose benefit or disadvantage
it is. This is the only way to focus on the question and find
any solutions.
We thought it was enough, at the time of the movement,
to identify one difference insofar as it was producing a
crucial hierarchy: the difference of being, as reproducers of
labor-power, unwaged workers in a waged economy where
men, as producers of commodities, would be destined, by
the capitalist sexual division of labor, to be waged workers.
We worked on this question, and it kept us busy for about
ten years. The rest followed from this fundamental fact.
By demanding wages for housework we wanted to attack
the capitalist stratification of labor starting from its deepest division, that between the male work of production
of commodities and the female work of production and
reproduction of labor power. But if this work was vital
for capitalism, as it produces its most precious commodity,
labor power itself, then we had in our hands a formidable
lever of power, as we could refuse to produce. Starting from
this fact, we could demand a new type of development centered on different conditions for the care of human beings,
beginning with womens economic autonomy and a more
equitable sharing of care work with men. For this rea-
199

son we also demanded a general, drastic reduction of work
time outside the home, so that women and men, both could
share the burden but also the pleasure of reproduction.
Thus time, money and services, were in those years the
basic elements of our demands.
The high point of the movements in Italy, at the end of
the 60s and beginning of the 70s, was the training ground
of our militancy, the arena where many of us learnt to
struggle and analyze that perverse thing that is capitalist development. I too, at the beginning of my work at
the University (I had begun to work there in 1967), was
holding seminars for students on Capital, but first I would
go to leaflet, in pale dawns full of mosquitoes, in Porto
Marghera, discovering what is a factory, its rhythms, its
health hazards, its history. Because factories, I remember
I wrote on a leaflet, trying to explain the concept, are not
like trees that have always existed... I do not remember
by any means that period as a time of convivial aggregation, as others have said they remember it. It was rather a
period of great learning, of very austere living, of much sacrifice and commitment, of much determination. Perhaps
the most beautiful thing was the immediacy of relations,
finding ourselves active in the same cause, and the blooming of this great community to which we belonged. It was
not necessary to fix appointments in order to meet, we all
knew where the others were, it was a life in common. Seen
from a womans viewpoint, that experience represented
undoubtedly the decisive emancipation from the family of
origin and its expectations; it meant to have found a free
and friendly territory from where to discover the world,
without being forced to marry soon, a territory where to
learn different things from those necessary to be a good
200

wife. Yes, like for the insurgentes of the Ezln, the question
when are you going to marry? remained more and more
unanswered.
But precisely that capacity we had elaborated, to become aware of a problem and analyze it, at a certain point
made us discover that for us women in those relations
there was still some suffering and uneasiness. For all relations are power relations, even in the sexual revolution
which nevertheless took place, and everything that we
represented and did as women continued to count very
little and not to be recognized. We felt split between the
imperative that wanted us to be like men, capable of being
and acting like them, and the feeling that we belonged in
any case to another world, where men as well would ask
us different things and expected us to be different. But
then the window would close again over that world that
remained without a name. It was a sort of clandestinity
of femininity. But not long after we would come out of the
clandestinity and pass from resistance to the attack.
Already in 1970 I began the elaboration of a new course,
the feminist analysis and path that I would undertake.
But I usually point to 1971 as the turning point because
in June of that year, in Padova, by inviting some women
activists, to discuss a document I had drafted, I held the
first feminist meeting. I gave birth to that organization
that would be called Lotta Femminista (Feminist Struggle),
which later was transformed into the network of Committees and Groups for Wages For Housework that was active
at the national and international level. The separation
from the male comrades was not without pain. Our hypothesis that they should be happy because by engaging in
new struggles we broadened the anti-capitalist front was
201

not verified. On the contrary, because they thought that
certain struggles were crucial, the fact that we privileged
others meant for them that we subtracted militant power
from these struggles. We also paid for the fact that since
we were no longer under their eyes engaged in the same
actions, from their point of view, we were doing nothing.
In the same way as they had not seen our housework, they
did not see our autonomous political work. We were accused, especially at the beginning, of risking to embark in
things that did not promote a class viewpoint, that were
inter-classist, such as abortion and violence which concerned all women. Moreover, as women in movement we
changed and consequently relations, even personal ones,
broke up. When we began to speak of housework, the first
reaction on the male front was a mocking smile. What
were we bothering with? After all it was not a big thing,
not even real work to be sure, and with the daycare centers all problems would be resolved. That strange idea
that with daycare centers, that is, with a few hours of
child care, every problem concerning housework would
be resolved, lasted for a long time. There was not even a
minimal idea of the number of material and immaterial
tasks, predictable and unpredictable, that constitute the
daily allotment of this work. We too were charged with
being separatists, with wanting to divide the movement,
but actually I think that it was no longer possible to speak
of an anti-capitalist struggle without seeing how much
unpaid labor the wage commanded, starting with womens
labor, and without taking into account therefore womens
insurgency. In Rome, on July 7, 1972, we had organized,
at the University, a workshop on female employment. We
decided that it should be open only to women. This was an
202

absolute novelty, it had never happened at the university.
The reaction of groups of men generically self-identified as
comrades, was to prevent the workshop from taking place,
by launching from outside the room condoms full of water
that broke the windows. What followed was an intense
debate in the pages of Il Manifesto and Lotta Continua2
that gives an idea of what the times were like. Just the
fact that women could meet by themselves could provoke
a violent reaction. It would not be right to absolutize these
kind of reactions. There were comrades who understood
the centrality of our discourse, the importance of the work
we carried on, and behaved accordingly. But that episode
is indicative of how hysterical the male response could
be when faced with the new fact: women analyzing and
discussing autonomously not in the presence of men. Concerning the charge of separatism, I want to make it clear
that we never theorized separatism, but theorized autonomy. However, there were at least three good reasons why,
we, like many others, had to work separately. First, the
presence of men, precisely because of the power relations
between them and women, would have limited our ability to speak, to let emerge and thoroughly analyze the
issues that most directly concerned us, and with regard
to some of them, it would have undoubtedly created some
uneasiness. Second, these issues were so big that they
2
Il Manifesto (Translators Note, TN:The Manifesto), July 14 and

20, August 4, Lotta Continua (TN: Continuous Struggle) July 15
and 21, 1972. See also LOffensiva, Quaderni di Lotta Femminista
n.1(TN: The Offensive. Notebooks of Feminist Struggle n.1), Musolini Editore, Torino1972, which collects the reports destined to
that seminar and the militant materials that came out concerning
that moment of confrontation.
203

would absorb all our energy, therefore, as I said on other
occasions, the idea of a double militancy (in feminism and
in some extra-parliamentary group) was never an issue,
because we would not have had the time for it. Finally, if
the behavior of the comrades was also a reason for our separation, they had to confront the problem of how to change
it. Reversing the charge, we could say that it was their
male chauvinist behavior that divided the movement.
From what I am learning, the same charge is now being
moved against Mayan women. But I believe that only the
women who experience a certain situation can decide how
much separately or how much together they can conduct
a cycle of struggles. It is true, however, that how much
we can struggle together is a question that must be confronted also by the other side, that is, by men, in support
of the issues raised by women, because generally support
is given only by one side, that of women.
In Italy, today, young women who are active around
some issues, often the precariousness of work and the
transformations taking place in the university, consider it
unacceptable to work separately from their male companions, they do not feel the need for it. But they are obviously
benefiting from the victories won by their mothers and
by the feminist movement of the 1970s. Their relations
with their male partners are more egalitarian; the hard
struggle to regain control over our body was fought by
those who preceded them. Although there are still political forces who try to take away the freedom that women
have won3 , women today have the means to live their sex3
There was a particularly strong attempt, over the last years, by

catholic forces to abrogate the law 194/78 which authorizes the
204

uality with less risks than a quarter of a century ago. In
any case, even if one becomes pregnant, it is not likely
that she will be thrown out of her home. On the contrary,
many women decide to become pregnant independently
of having a relation with a man. They are determined to
have a child, but are less eager to embark in the type of
life in which it is necessary to mediate daily ones choices
with those of a partner. They are also determined to break
a relation, even a marriage, if it is not satisfactory. On
other issues, instead, various associations have formed,
made only of women or predominantly of women, first of
all those of the Anti-Violence Centers.4 Thus, we have a
complex situation where, depending on the issue, one feels
the need to work only with women or not, in a context in
voluntary interruption of pregnancy. The Veneto Region has proposed a regional bill that would authorize the presence of members
of catholic organizations in the consultori (clinics for family counseling) and hospital wards. In response to all this, women have
decided to make their voce heard and with the support of the CGIL
(Italian General Confederation of Labor) have organized a rally in
Venezia on October 7, 2006, under the banner of Lets break the
silence. It was in fact from the times of the feminist movement
of the 70s that women did not make their voice heard with such
strength. And this time men, participating to the demonstration,
supported the cause of women.
If in Europe the first Antiviolence Centers or Houses for Women
(who have suffered violence) were formed at the end of the 70s, in
Italy, aside from the initiatives set up by the feminist movement,
we had to wait until the beginning of the 90s. Significantly, a
decade of repression and normalization had to pass before AntiViolence Centers began to be formed. Today there are more than
eighty, of which one fourth offers hospitality in a secret apartment
also called shelter. The first four houses for women who have
suffered violence were formed between 1990 and 1991 in Bologna,
Milano, Modena and Rome.
205

any case not comparable to that of the movement of the
70s. Today, organizing in associations that have a relation with the institutions has taken the place of the action
of the spontaneous group sof that decade. Those groups
functioned as a battering ram demolishing the doors of the
many prisons in which the rights of women were enclosed.
These associations try to monitor the situation and offer a
first point of reference and aid to those who continue to be
the victims of the violation of these rights.
It was immediately clear to us that building our autonomy required a great battle. We had to equip ourselves.
Immediately maternity emerged as a difficult knot to untangle, for it is an irreversible choice that conditions the
entire life of a woman and it is not resolved by taking
children to a daycare center. But above all it became
clear to us that the refusal of work strategy that we
still approved of as a form of struggle, was not applicable
in all cases to the work of reproduction and care work.
We extended our refusal to the refusal of marriage, of
co-habitation with men not to see our energies absorbed
by the fact of having to respond to male expectations (a
woman at home is always on call, we used to say). But
we could never have had children and then refused to
take care of them. Care work, insofar as it is work that
concerns human beings, put precise limits to our action,
it prospected a situation in which the strategy of refusal
appeared not practicable, a utopia. In our hearts we had to
decide. Those of us more engaged in organizational work
renounced to have children, because it would have been
incompatible not only with the amount of political work
that we planned to do, to make the world more moonlike
(to recall the ancient Mayan divinity, half sun, half moon),
206

but incompatible, above all, with our mental availability
to program and deal with the deadlines and the contingencies of our activity. This too was in perfect correspondence
with the decision of many Chiapas insurgentes, given the
impossibility of combining maternity with that type of
militancy. However, maternity became a cardinal point of
our discourse: if the productivity of the capitalist family
and the female body was centered on the production of
children, then womens liberation required that we break
with this imposition, with being condemned to this sole
function, with the fixation of this role. Hence the slogan:
Women lets procreate ideas not just children! This was a
cry of liberation from biological determination, an invitation to a different creation, to procreate ideas that could
generate another world in which the mother-wife function
would not constitute any longer our only possible identity,
or be paid at the cost of so much toil, isolation, subordination, and lack of economic autonomy. This is why we
put forward the demand for wages for housework, to reject
its gratuitous attribution exclusively to womankind, so
that womens economic autonomy might be constructed
starting from the recognition of that first work. In the refusal of maternity we read a behavior that would become
more and more widespread in Italy, as in other advanced
countries, and more recently in countries not particularly
advanced 5 , leading in our case to a natality rate of 1, 2
5
To this phenomenon is devoted the article Ecco la generazione No

figli (TN:Here the No children generation) published in the daily
La Repubblica of August 28, 2006. It reports that very low natality
rates are now found not only in Italy but in other countries of
Southern, Northern, Eastern Europe and the far East, where in
the case of Singapore and South Korea it is a new phenomenon.
207

which is considered very negatively by politicians.6 Not
only the demand, but above all the perspective of making
the work of reproduction cost in all the places supported
by this work, brought our struggles a type of struggle
very different from those that had been waged so far to
the neighborhoods, the schools, the universities, the factories, the hospitals. It would be impossible here to deal
with them, in any case everything has been accurately
documented in the material we used on our militant front:
leaflets, pamphlets, journals, small books7 .
What was the response of the state to all this, to
that autonomy that women had begun to build by reappropriating their own body, but that still needed to be
6
The Minister for Family Policies, Rosy Bindi, has declared the
following on television: the most worrisome lack of growth in Italy
is that concerning natality. (Rai 3, broadcast of the early evening
program Ballaro, Tuesday, October 3, 2003).
I mention here, above all, the journal Le operaie della casa (TN:
The House-Workers), published by Marsilio Editore, Venezia,
and also a series of little books for militant use, put out by the
same publisher, edited by the Collettivo Internazionale Femminista (International Feminist Collective). Of this series the following booklets were published: Le operaie della casa, (TN: The
House-Workers), 1975; 8 marzo 1974. Giornata internazionale
di lotta delle donne, (EnglishTranslation: Wages for Housewok
Committee of Toronto, Women in Struggle. Italy Now, n.3), 1975;
Aborto di Stato: Strage delle innocenti (TN: State abortion: Massacre of the innocent women), 1976; Dietro la normalit del parto.
Lotta allospedale di Ferrara (TN: Behind the normality of childbirth. Struggle at the hospital of Ferrara), 1978; Silvia Federici
and Nicole Cox, Contropiano dalle cucine, 1978 (Original text
in English: Counterplanning from the kitchen,1975). And also
LOffensiva (already cited), and Il Personale Politico. Quaderni
di Lotta Femminista n.2 (TN: The Personal is Political. Notebooks
of Lotta Femminista n. 2) Musolini Editore, Torino, 1973.
208

rooted in an economic autonomy starting from the recognition of their first work? The response was fundamentally a
bit more emancipation. This was accompanied, at the end
of the 1970s, by a repression of all the movements. From
1972 to 1979, female employment increased by one million
and a half. The new Family Code8 was approved, centered
on the parity of the partners (this too corresponded to the
need not to subordinate to the will of the husband the
choices of a wife that increasingly was looking for and
finding job). But the real wage diminished, and during the
70s the buying power of the families was rather guaranteed by the broader involvement of the various members
of the family in the labor market, often with jobs off the
table, in the new context offered by the decentralization of
production.9 From then on the family would be supported
by the presence of at least two paychecks that the passage
from fordism to post-fordism and then to the neo-liberal
globalization would have increasingly made precarious.
The state then managed to evade the demand that the
womens movement had put forward on the economic level,
and women accepted the only kind of autonomy that was
being offered, that is emancipation, but they did not perform the miracle of coupling, cost what may, their unpaid
8
The Reform of the Family Code issued in 1942 was sanctioned with
the bill n.151, approved on May 19, 1975, that stipulated first of all
the parity of the partners in the married couple. Other bills were
later approved that changed the regulation of other important
aspects of the Code.
M. Dalla Costa, Emigrazione, immigrazione e composizione di
classe in Italia negli anni 70 (TN: Emigration, immigration, and
class composition in Italy in the 70s) ,in Economia e lavoro, n.4,
October-December,1981.
209

work in the family, including childcare, with work outside the home. Many never married, many decided to live
alone, the number of divorces and separations increased10 ,
and the collapse of the birth rate continued. Womens refusal of procreation triggered that type of crisis of social
reproduction that later was reflected in the unbalance between young and old; for a time, however, there was no
major cause for alarm.
The prevailing sociological literature spoke of the
womens double presence as a female capacity to combine
the two works, domestic and extra-domestic, and described
the many strategies women used to implement it. In reality, in my opinion, there were only two strategies: the
first, a drastic reduction of the number of children, the
second, the use of unpaid work of women relatives, or the
employment of other women as domestic workers by the
hour. But the sociological literature did not use to speak of
this side of the story. While the permanent live-in domestic worker, in Italy, was a figure on the way to extinction,
domestic workers by the hour were a very important support to womens outside employment. Thus, the salarization of housework proceeded in indirect ways. Women
had more and more consistently refused unpaid domestic
work, changing the modalities of its condition, rationalizing it to the extreme, and reducing it, also by making life
choices different from those of their mothers. They had
chosen as their priority the construction of their economic
autonomy, that state policies allowed them only through
10
La Repubblica, on November 9, 2006, reported that from 1995 to

2000, separations grew by 59%, divorces by 66,8%, and that it is
the South that registers the most conspicuous growth, (p.38).
210

extra-domestic work. They had in their hands more money
than they had in the days before the movement. With that
money they paid other women to do a significant amount
of housework; some more housework went out of the home
to be transformed in goods and services offered by the
market. It is enough to think, to give an example, of the
restaurant and catering sectors. Thus, unpaid housework
shrank, while paid work expanded, in and out of the family. Although the employment of a domestic and/or baby
sitter often consumed a large part of the female wage,
women more and more refused work that did not produce
money. Moreover, in the 1970s, already in Italy a migratory flow was growing that had already brought to the
country hundreds of thousands of people. Within it, by 77,
it was calculated that the domestic workers of color were
100.000, out of a total immigrant workforce estimated as
consisting of 3-400.000 of people. This female labor force
tended to take those jobs of live in maid that Italian
women no longer wanted. It was the beginning of a type of
immigration of men and women, mostly from Africa and
Asia, of whom many would be destined to domestic work,
a flow that in the following decades would become more
robust and would be restructured as immigrant came from
a broader range of countries. The question of the relation
between immigrant women and care work, the so-called
question of the globalization of care, was to become in time
increasingly important. At the end of the 70s, therefore,
womens autonomy has made great steps ahead, at least
in Italy and other advanced countries, with respect to the
re-appropriation of ones body and oneself as a person.
Laws that are fundamental had been approved, like that
on the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, and the law
211

instituting the consultori (clinics for family counseling).
The referendum on divorce had been won, and there was
a new family law. This autonomy, instead, remained in
a precarious state as far as domestic work or care work
was concerned, constrained between a refusal of this work
that involved heavy sacrifices, like for example renouncing maternity, and emancipation. But precisely through
that emancipation, housework would become more and
more visible and waged. The 70s were also the decade in
which, on the wave of the feminist movement, the United
Nations global conferences on the condition of women
began. The first, to celebrate the International Year of
The Woman, was held precisely in Mexico City in 1975.
On December 18, 1979 the General Assembly of the UN
adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women, which went into effect
in 1981. We had to wait, instead, until 1993, when the
UN Conference on Human Rights was held in Vienna to
see womens fundamental rights recognized as an integral
part of human rights, and to have the Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women. This
was a problem that had already been denounced in all its
seriousness, and in the various forms it took across the
world, at the Nairobi Conference of 1985, held at the end
of the first UN Decade for Women. In the same conference it was also stipulated, in the final document11 , that
the contribution, remunerated and unremunerated, that
women make to all aspects and sectors of development
11
This occurred with the acceptance of the amendment (proposed by

Housewives in Dialogue) of the paragraph 120 of the document
Forward Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women. (In
English in the text).
212

should be recognized, and that this contribution should be
measured and included in economic statistics and the Gnp
(Gross national product).
There is always a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of
these Charters but undoubtedly the planetary dimension
of the policy debate has strengthened the power to decide
what is just and what is unjust in traditions and legislations, and go beyond the constraints of both to affirm new
principles and new norms.
Second Act
The 80s marked the take off of neo-liberalism that would
fully unfold with the neo-liberal globalization of the 90s.
In various countries these were years of normalization
and repression after the great struggles of the previous
decade. These were the years of the deepening of the international debt and the ever more drastic application of
structural adjustment policies12 , officially adopted to enable the indebted countries to pay at least their service on
12
On the problematic of international debt the literature is very vast.

I refer above all to the works of Susan George. Among them: Il debito del Terzo Mondo, Edizioni Lavoro, Roma, 1989 (Translated from
the English: A fate worse than debt, Penguin Group, England, 1988
); Il boomerang del debito, Edizioni Lavoro, Roma, 1992 (Translated from the English, The Debt Boomerang, Westview Press,
1992); Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Lindigeno che in noi, la terra
cui apparteniamo, in A. Marucci ed., Camminando domandando,
DeriveApprodi, Roma, 1999, (English translation The Native in
Us, the Land We Belong to in Common Sense, n. 28, 1998, and
in The Commoner, n.6, 2002, in www.thecommoner.org); M. Dalla
Costa and G.F. Dalla Costa (a cura di), Donne e politiche del debito,
FrancoAngeli, Milano,1993, (English translation: Paying the Price.
213

the debt. These politics actually aimed at lowering standards of living and expectations, so that the new forms of
production, premised on the cheapening and precarization
of labor, could take off everywhere, thus enabling business
to have a competitive advantage in the different regions of
the planet. But, above all, being strongly oriented toward
export, the type of development that was imposed through
the structural adjustment policies could only aggravate
the debt. In that period, the privatization of communal
goods, like land and water, the privatization of public
goods, like state and parastatal agencies, the currency devaluations, the withdrawal of subsidies from basic goods,
the strong subsidies given to modernized, mono-cultural
agriculture, the wage cuts, the reduction and precarization
of employment, the cut of public spending on social services and entitlements, starting with pensions, the cut and
restructuring of public expenditure with the privatization
of health care and education, the increase in the fees paid
by the consumers, the liberalization of commerce with the
adoption of policies aiming to favor export and import, represented a powerful instrument of the underdevelopment
of reproduction at the global level, functional to the take
off of a new phase of accumulation. This also signified
an unprecedented attack against the struggles waged by
Women and the Politics of International Economic Strategy, Zed
Books, London, 1995). (Japanese Translation: Yakusokusareta
hatten?, Impact Shuppankai, Tokyo, 1995) and by the same editors, Donne, sviluppo e lavoro di riproduzione. Questione delle
lotte e dei movimenti, FrancoAngeli, Milano,1996 (English translation: Women, Development and Labor of Reproduction. Struggles
and Movements, Africa World Press, Trenton, N.J., EE.UU., and
Asmara, Eritrea, 1999).
214

women not only for the well-being of their families and
the improvement of their living conditions, but to gain a
higher level of autonomy. In the advanced regions this
meant the loss of a good job, the loss, therefore, of the
type of emancipation that this employment guaranteed,
and the immersion in precarity, poverty and dependence.
In the less advanced areas this meant, above all, that
more and more land was expropriated, for so-called processes of agricultural modernization or for large and often
devastating projects financed by the World Bank, of which
the construction of dykes is only the best known example.
This poverty - caused by the politics of debt, rooted in land
expropriation and then, particularly in the 90s, by the
intervention of a permanent politics of war that made the
land increasingly unusable because of military operations
and war residues generated those migratory flows that
brought to the advanced countries, of Europe above all,
new subjects, of whom a considerable part, mostly women,
were to do large amounts of reproductive work. These neoliberal, belligenous (war producing) politics will be at the
origin of a new division of reproductive labor worldwide,
whereby increasingly women coming from the so-called
developing countries or from others, defined in transition,
(transition to democracy in the case of Eastern European
countries) would come to do this work for the advanced
countries. They had to leave behind a torn reproductive
environment, that of the family first of all, patched up at
the cost of a greatly increased toil for those remaining,
but at least compensated by the remittances sent by the
women who migrated. The reproduction of the areas considered more peripheral has been devastated, in order to
redefine and deepen on a planetary level the stratification
215

of the working social body. The plan is to produce cheap
labor power to employ in the reproduction sector of the
more developed regions. In this way, the state could avoid
confronting the problems emerging in this context and
avoid taking on the financial burdens that should be its
responsibility.
But what were these problems? What were these urgent
necessities, becoming always more conspicuous, given that
fewer and fewer children were procreated? What expanded
this new need for labor? The emerging question, though
it was not the only one, was the care of not self-sufficient
elderly, an issue that was to become particularly crucial
in the discourse on womens autonomy that we are elaborating.
Third Act
It is since 1990 on, after a decade of general application of
the politics of debt and with the unfolding of neo-liberal
globalization, that emigration has become a truly worldwide phenomenon, reaching the figure, according to the
estimates of the United Nations13 , of more than 175 milion emigrants across the planet. Italy, traditionally an
exporter of labor power, in the 80s and 90s, becomes a
net importer, attracting laborers from Asia and Africa and
more recently Eastern Europe. An increasing number of
women have migrated towards Europe, during the last
decades. At the end of the 90s, 45% of immigrants to Eu-
13
UN Census, 2000.
216

rope were women, this coinciding with a growing demand
for domestic workers in Southern Europe14 .
It is exactly in the 90s that a new figure of worker begins to take a more precise shape, increasingly embodied
by immigrant women, the caregiver. She is the one (at
times it is a man)15 who cares for a person who is no longer
capable of being self-sufficient in his/her daily tasks, generally an elder, male or female, with more or less serious
problems as far as self-sufficiency. The need for this new
figure of domestic worker, the demand for this specific type
of care work stems from demographic changes that have
seen both life expectancy increase as well as the percentage of the elderly in the population, as womens refusal of
maternity has remarkably reduced the number of young
people. This is a trend that affects the European countries
as a whole, not just Italy. It is a crisis of social reproduction because the balance between young and old breaks
down, and there is no longer an adequate generational
replacement. Because of womens refusal of maternity,
the prospect is that in Italy (a country that, according to
the Istat estimates, has one of the lowest birthrates in
the world, namely the 1,2 ratio mentioned above, recently
raised to 1,3 thanks to the new born to immigrant women)
14
In Italy the immigrants registered as legal residents were 1.512.324

in 2002, of whom 45.8% were women (Caritas, Dossier statistico immigrazione 2003, (TN: Caritas, Statistical dossier on immigration
2003), Edizioni Nuova Anterem, Roma, 2003.
15
It is estimated that in Italy the male component of the work of
caregiver is 25% and that 73% of those who do this job are about
30-40 years old (La Repubblica, October 16, 2006, p.16. It cites
the following sources: Inps, Caritas Ambrosiana and the CGIL,
Lombardia).
217

within a 30 year period one out of three people will be over
65.
The significant fact, that must be properly interpreted,
is that in Europe the majority of those over 65 (with the
exception of those over 90) lives at home, not in private or
public institutions. This situation is obviously the result of
a decision made non only by the elderly, when still able to
express themselves, but by the younger woman, a relative,
generally the daughter, who is aware that this is the most
humane option. This decision is made, despite the fact
that, due to the amount of tasks and duties involved, it
will heavily condition her life and limit her autonomy,
even with the intervention, whenever possible, of the paid
work of other women. The feminist refusal of unpaid
reproduction work, expressed also through the refusal of
maternity, has not substantially liberated women from
care work, except for a certain period of their lives, when
they would have had to raise a child. Mom has gone out
was the title of an exhibition organized by the Wages For
Housework Group of Varese16 . But she had to come back,
we would have to write today, if we were to have that
exhibition again. The time out has lasted a brief period.
The problem of care has returned, in an even heavier and
more complex way, with the elderly, who are often not
self-sufficient. A fifty or sixty years old woman, or even
older, who had participated in the struggles of the feminist
movement, who needs herself some rest, and if retired,
needs to enjoy what during her work life she could not
16
This is discussed in the homonymous article in the journal Le

operaie della casa (TN: The houseworkers), double issue, NovemberDecember1975/January-February1976, p.21.
218

have, must face the problem of having parents in a very
advanced age, often over eighty, with all the typical old
age ailments. The burden is on her, who often has no adult
sons or daugthers who at least could in part collaborate.
After having worked hard to construct her autonomy, this
autonomy is further reduced because the problem of the
care of others, who are weaker and depend on her, has not
been resolved. The social body is precisely that, a body; it
is not divisible, and it re-proposes the problem of care in
an eternal return.
It is in this context that we must place the work of the
caregiver 17 that is done by women who migrate to Italy,
in the wake of the disasters produced in their countries
by structural adjustment policies, by wars, and by democratizing interventions. It responds to a need which state
policies are still too far from satisfying. Their employment demonstrates first of all that also this type of care
work has been increasingly subsumed under that process
of salarization of housework that I just mentioned, and
17
It is calculated that half of these workers in Italy are not regularized. Many of the women who do this specific work come from
Eastern Europe, from Romania, Moldavia, and Ukraine. Again
La Repubblica, in the article already mentioned, dedicated to the
presence and work of caregivers in Italy (October 16, 2006, pp.16-7)
reports a growth of regular presences that goes from 51.110 in
1994 to 142.196 of 2000, to 490.678 of 2003, to 693.000 of whom
619.000 foreigners in 2006. See on this matter Rossana Mungiello,
Segregation of Migrants in the Labour Market in Italy: The Case
of Female Migrants from Eastern European Countries Working
in the Sector of Care and Assistance for the Elderly. First Results of an Empirical Study Carried Out in Padova, in Zu Wessen
Diensten? Frauenarbeit zwisischen Care-Drain und Outsourcing,
Zurich, Frauenrat fur Aussenpolitik, 2005, pp.72-77.
219

that the problem is such that it is usually necessary to employ a person full-time to deal with it. But some common
notions must be demistified. The first is that the caregiver
liberates the relative from the care of the elder. On the
contrary, the work of a caregiver cannot function well if it
is not accompanied by the constant guidance, cooperation
and verification of the female relative. A work that begins
with the presentation of the case situation, which is always different and changing and requires a constant help,
practically a division of tasks between the female relative
and the paid woman. It is generally the former who must
do the shopping, because it is difficult to do it together
with the person cared for, she is also the one who does
the bureaucratic work, keeps the administration and the
financial management of the house, she takes the elder to
the doctors and must guarantee an immediate presence
and intervention in all the emergencies. Precisely because
of the loneliness that comes with living every day with
an elder, who is often mentally debilitated, the caregiver
herself has to be reproduced. Thus, the so-called work-of
love18 comes back not only as a real need in the care of
the elders, who will be poorly assisted if there is not a
real concern for their well-being, but also as a need in the
relation between the employer (often the daughter) and
the caregiver. The former will have to follow the situation
as it evolves to cope in a timely way with those moments
when the problems become difficult to sustain, and will
have to offer all the resources and facilitations that can
18
G.F. Dalla Costa, Un lavoro damore, Edizioni delle donne,

Roma,1978 (English Translation: The Work of Love, Autonomedia, New York, 2008).(Japanese translation: Ai no rodou, Impact
Shuppankai, Tokyo, 1991).
220

make that work less burdensome. Often she will have to
substitute herself to the caregiver to concede her some
extra periods of rest in the most demanding moments, and
above all more money if the situation becomes too heavy.
Let us keep in mind that if there is no extra money in
the family to pay for another caregiver on Saturdays and
Sundays, considering that this type of work has a high
cost19 with respect to the normal family budget, it will be
the daughter and the husband who will care for the elder
relative during these days, which means that their weekly
rest and the time that would have devoted to shopping,
in case they still had a job, would vanish. This is how
many couples spend their week-ends, and the problem
returns during the vacation month of the caregiver, because while a cleaning job can wait, or find a temporary
solution, elders who are not self-sufficient cannot be left
alone even for a moment, and they cannot find themselves
suddendly face with other people that they do not know
19
For the caregivers who have a regular contract, this stipulates

from 750 to 900 euros net, plus 200 euros of contributions by the
employer, one month of paid vacation, and another month of pay
as a thirteenth monthly pay (tredicesima), and another again as
severance pay. Food is provided by the employer, and so is a room
in the apartment, a problem that is usually resolved by changing
the use of another room. The live-in caregiver who stipulates a
contract for at most 8 or 9 hours a day, has the right to have two
or three hours a day free, and a day and a half a week also free,
generally Sunday and Saturday afternoon. But there are also
part-time contracts, not like those for live-in, it depends on the
conditions of the person to be assisted and what the caregiver is
most interest in. Many prefer to work as live-in for some years,
not to have expenses for food and rent and be able to send home
almost all the salary.
221

and that have not been instructed about how to relate to
them and what tasks to perform. This is not tendentially
a precarious work because there is no convenience for the
employer to change the caregiver after having done all the
work of teaching that this work requires, and if a good
relation between the caregiver and the person cared for
has been established.
Precarity intervenes, instead, when there are irregular
work conditions, and this shows how crucial it is that a
more substantial economic support be given by the state
to the families to enable them to stipulate regular work
contracts.
I thought it was important to detail this combination of
tasks, those done by the caregiver and those done by the
relative, not to make the opposite mistake than the one
mentioned before. There was a time, after the end of the
feminist movement of the 70s, when the identification of
womens emancipation with a job outside the home kept
hidden the role of domestic workers employed by the hour;
today, in dealing with the work of the caregivers, the risk
is that it will be treated as an a solo, with no mention of
the work done by female relatives.
The employment of immigrant women has highlighted
the magnitude of the problem. It is not a care work that
the female relative, if she does it alone, can combine with
other jobs. If today the subjects who take on this task have
been forced to do it because of the political circumstances
that have devastated their lives, it is desirable that in the
future this work may become a normal good job, done
also by Italian women (in part this has already started),
above all if the state gives a more substantial support to
this work and its conditions improve. There is no ques-
222

tion, in fact, that the State should devote more funds to
pay for this work, given that its cost for many families
is already unsustainable, and this leads to conditions of
irregular employment. Lets keep in mind, however, that
this is a terrain where from the central State or from the
local government some economic response to care work
or domestic work arrived. It is thanks to this response
that many families can manage to stipulate an employment contract. First of all there has been the assegno di
accompagnamento (Attendance Allowance), 450 euros a
month, paid by the National Social Insurance office (Inps),
independently from income levels directly to the person to
be assisted, when not self-sufficient physically or mentally.
But it is very difficult to obtain it. It is conditioned on a
declaration by the Health National Service of total and
permanent disability. Many cases, above all of physical
rather than mental disability, are not considered serious
enough to justify it. There are other provisions as well,
coming from the Regions, conditioned upon very low income levels, not alternative to the mentioned Attendence
Allowance. Among them, is the caregiver grant (contributo badante) up to a maximum of 250 euros monthly,
given by the Veneto Region to those who have hired a
caregiver at least for 20 hours a week. Then the Alzheimer
grant (516 euros monthly) added to what is prescribed by
the regional law n. 28 of 1991.20 There are also specific
support services. In order to put an end to the clandestinity of many caregivers and the risks connected with the
20
Since 2007 these regional policies have been all replaced by only one
provision: the care grant, for a maximum of 520 euros monthly,
introduced by the Veneto Region.
223

possibility of infiltrations by criminal organizations, initiatives have been taken also by the Provinces, like Bergamo,
which has decided to devote 400 euros monthly to families
who have already hired a caregiver or need to do it.
Despite the neo-liberal tendency to cut public spending
on social welfare, we must nevertheless reckon that the
terrain of welfare, where some salarization of care work
has been obtained, resurfaces as an irreducible terrain of
bargaining, starting precisely from policies of this type.
The crisis of social reproduction creates problems also for
the state. Presently, the Minister for Family Policies, Rosy
Bindi, is proposing to make banks and foundations participate in the expansion of the funds to be devoted to the
elderly; at the same time, warning about the fall of the
birthrate, she is proposing to give 2500 euros yearly for
every new born till adulthood. Wages For Housework, so
much opposed by the institutional forces in the high phase
of the movement, returns articulated in various forms, as
an irrepressible need. Those who would have preferred
that this money be used again to support institutes for the
elderly where to ghettoize the third or fourth age made
a mistake. Institutes are appropriate for those extreme
cases that cannot be cared for at home. Not only is the
care they provide of a different quality, but above all the
elderly themselves do not like these places and prefer
to stay at home. The woman, through her refusal to be
the one solely responsible for unpaid reproduction work,
no matter what the case and conditions, has led in this
specific sector as well to a process of visibilization and
salarization. But she has also guaranteed, by accepting a
limited freedom, that is, a relative autonomy, the preservation of the relative autonomy and the physical as well as
224

psychological wellbeing of those, who, in weak conditions,
depend on her. With her refusal and relative acceptance,
she has shown that in the case of care work refusal alone
is a utopia, and that this specific elder care work must be
supported by a higher level of funding by the state, so that
the families can cope with the cost, and the work itself
can be performed in regular contractual conditions, in the
same way as the state must expand the services devoted
to this weak sector of the population. Women have also
shown that one of the main obstacles to keeping an elder
at home or in the home of a relative is the hike in real
estate prices and rents, which has reduced the space in the
apartments to a minimum, so that often there is not even
a room available for the elder or for the caregiver. This is
a problem that people had already faced for years in the
case of children. Increasingly, apartments are holes that
do not allow for visits and even less the permanent presence of parents or the arrival of children. Nevertheless,
the problem posed by the presence of not self-sufficient elders also re-proposes the question of having children, and
having therefore some economic support to raise them, in
addition to different living conditions, so that people can
begin to desire again to have a child and see it as a possible choice. In fact, with rare exceptions, nobody else but
the children will care about keeping at home the elders
who are not self-sufficient, nor will organize and watch
over their reproduction. The problem of elder care is one
that in different ways and with very different situations
is present at a planetary level. Thus, the question of an
economic support by the state for this work must, I believe,
enter the political agenda as one of the most urgent issues.
225

If these are the emergent problematic of care work, to
say, then, that domestic work, i.e. reproduction work, tends
to become more and more immaterial work21 , or at least
that it can be included into the sphere of immaterial work,
indicates a lack of knowledge of this work. The work of
reproduction, which is articulated in many components,
of which here we have considered just one, has always
been a combination of a lot of material work grafted on
immaterial work of reproduction, psychological, affective
etc. Therefore, there is nothing new under the sun. But
to say that today the category of immaterial work would
grasps better its novelty is to do an injustice to this work
and the new realities that traverse it, of which the one
discussed above is a good example, loaded with heavy and
material tasks. The fact that these tasks must possibly be
performed with affection does not make them immaterial.
If the condition of being an elder and not self-sufficient is
a significant difference, arguing that women are increasingly burdened with the control of the flows of difference,
22
and to see this as immaterial work again implies not
to see in its reality the work that is burdened with this
difference and its problems.
It is equally clear, considering the terrain of eldercare
(and similarly childcare) that the work of reproduction
cannot be resolved with communication.23 This is particularly so as its problematics are not exhausted by the
search for better agreements among the partners, but im21
22
23
A. Negri, Movimenti NellImpero (TN: Movements in the Empire),

Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2006, pp. 241, 215,184.
A. Negri, op.cit., p.193.
See C. Marazzi, Il posto dei calzini (TN: The place of the socks),
Edizioni Casagrande, Bellinzona, 1994.
226

ply for women many hours of work, lack of money, the risk
of poverty, the lack of autonomy. All these are problems
that cannot be resolved with communication.
Nor is what is necessary a further technological innovation. Nor do we need the genial idea of some informatic
worker, whose political program would seem to me not
very promising precisely because of its coming from the
realm of the immaterial24 . Genial ideas is not what we
need.
What is needed is work more adequately remunerated,
and more free time for all, women and men.
What is necessary is to recognize the materiality of life
and of the works that safeguard it, in the house as in the
field25 , and their ties with human relations and with the
land, and this holds true for the work of women as for the
work of peasants.26 If anything, women have shown that
24
A. Negri, op. cit., p.184.

The emerging networks of peasants in the South as in the North
defend the fact of being able to have an agriculture managed
according to sustainable methodologies often very traditional and
with a large use of living labor (which implies a large occupation)
resting on the availability of very material goods like land, water
and natural seeds, instead of other methodologies that are being
imposed on them. Even in the North it is significant what peasants
say, as they do not refuse technology tout court, but prefer not to
depend too much on machines and use, instead, where it makes
more sense, the greatly available resource of labor. See on this
point J. Bov and F. Dufour, Il mondo non in vendita, Feltrinelli,
Milano 2001 (English translation, The world is not for sale, Verso,
London, New York, 2001). I believe that the new subjectivities,
that are significant from a political viewpoint, emerge from these
contexts, not from the leading capitalist methodologies.
26
M. Dalla Costa, LIndigeno che in noi, la terra cui apparteniamo, see previous citation, and Rustic and Ethical in Ephemera,
25
227

the autonomy that everyone pursues and desires faces
irreducible conditionings, whether it is by children or the
elderly, and if today the difference is between those who
are burdened with this work and those who are not, this is
a difference that should not be celebrated but demolished,
by building a more common responsibility with regard
to care work, and demanding from the state (since the
common does not exhaust the public) more substantial
and generalized allocations of money and services.
Bibliography
Bov J. e Dufour F., Il mondo non in vendita,
Feltrinelli, Milano, 2001 (English Translation: The
world is not for sale, Verso, London, New York, 2001).
Caritas, Dossier statistico immigrazione 2003,
(Translators Note, TN: Statistical Dossier on Immigration 2003), Edizioni Nuova Anterem, Roma,
2003.
Theory and Politics in Organization, Vol. 7(1) March 2007,

ed. by Emma Dowling, Rodrigo Nunes and Ben Trott, in
www.ephemeraweb.org. And still by the same author, La sostenibilidad de la reproduccin: de la luchas por la renta a la salvaguardia
de la vida, in Laboratorio feminista, Trasformaciones de trabajo
desde una perspectiva feminista. Produccion, reproduccion, deseo,
consumo, (TN: The sustainability of reproduction. From the struggle for the wage to the safeguarding of life, in Feminist Laboratory,
The transformations of work from a feminist perspective. Production, reproduction, desire, consumption), Tierradenadie Ediciones,
Madrid 2006.
228

Collettivo internazionale femminista (a cura di),
Le operaie della casa, (TN: International Feminist
Collective ed., The Houseworkers), Marsilio Editori,
Venezia, 1975.
Collettivo internazionale femminista (a cura di), 8
marzo 1974. Giornata internazionale di lotta delle
donne, Marsilio Editori, Venezia, 1975; (English
Translation: Wages for Housework Committees
of Toronto, Women in Struggle. Italy Now, n. 3,
selfpublished).
Aborto di Stato. Strage delle innocenti, (TN: International Feminist Collective State abortion. Massacre
of the innocent women), Marsilio Editori, Venezia,
1976.
Collettivo internazionale femminista (a cura di), (autore: Gruppo femminista per il Salario al lavoro
domestico di Ferrara Dietro la normalit del parto.
Lotta all ospedale di Ferrara (TN: International Feminist Collective ed., author the Feminist Group of
Wages for Housework of Ferrara, Behind the normality of child-birth. Struggle at the hospital of Ferrara)
Marsilio Editori, Venezia, 1978.
(autrici: Silvia Federici e Nicole Cox) Contropiano
dalle cucine, Marsilio Editori, Venezia, 1978. (Translated from the English: Silvia Federici and Nicole
Cox, Counterplanning from the Kitchen. Wages for
229

housework. A perspective on capital and the left,
Falling Wall Press, Bristol, 1975.
Dalla Costa Mariarosa, Emigrazione, immigrazione
e composizione di classe in Italia negli anni 70, (TN:
Emigration, immigration and class composition in
Italy in the Seventies), in Economia e lavoro (NT:
Economy and work), n. 4, October-December, 1981.
Dalla Costa Mariarosa, Potere femminile e sovversione sociale, con Il posto della donna di Selma James,
Marsilio Editori, Padova 1972, 4 ed. Venezia, 1977,
(English Translation: Dalla Costa Mariarosa and
James Selma, The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community, Falling Wall Press, 1972).
Dalla Costa Mariarosa, LIndigeno che in noi, la
terra cui apparteniamo, in Marucci Alessandro (a
cura di) Camminare domandando, DeriveApprodi,
Roma, 1999 (English Translation: The Native
in Us the Land we Belong to, in Common Sense
n. 28, 1998 e in The Commoner, n. 6, 2002 in
www.thecommoner.org).
Dalla Costa Mariarosa, Rustic and Ethical in
Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organization,
vol.7(1), 2007, edited by Dowling Emma, Nunes
Rodrigo and Trott Ben, in www.ephemeraweb.org.
Dalla Costa Mariarosa, La sostenibilidad de la reproduccin: de la luchas por la renta a la salvaguardia
de la vida, in Laboratorio feminista, Transformaciones del trabajo desde una perspectiva feminista.
230

Produccin, reproduccion, deseo, consumo, (TN: The
sustainability of reproduction. From the struggle for
the wage to the safeguarding of life, in Feminist Laboratory, The transformations of work from a feminist
perspective. Production, reproduction, desire, consumption), Terradenadie, Madrid, 2006.
Dalla Costa Mariarosa e Dalla Costa Giovanna
Franca (a cura di), Donne e politiche del debito.
Condizione e lavoro femminile nella crisi del debito
internazionale, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1993 (English Translation: Paying the Price. Women and
the Politics of International Economic Strategy,
Zed Books, London, 1995). (Japanese Translation:
Yakusokusareta hatten?, Impact Shuppankai, Tokyo,
1995).
Dalla Costa Mariarosa e Dalla Costa Giovanna
Franca (a cura di) Donne, sviluppo e lavoro di
riproduzione. Questioni delle lotte e dei movimenti,
FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1996 (English Translation:
Women, Development and Labour of Reproduction.
Struggles and Movements, Africa World Press,
Trenton. N. J., EE.UU. e Asmara, Eritrea, 1999).
Dowling Emma, Nunes Rodrigo and Trott Ben (editors), Ephemera. Theory and Politics in Organization,
vol.7(1), 2007 in www.ephemeraweb.org.
Ecco la generazione No figli , (TN: Here the No
Children Generation) in Repubblica (La), 28 agosto
2006.
231

George Susan, Il debito del Terzo Mondo, Edizioni
Lavoro, Roma, 1989. (Translated from the English:
A fate worse than debt, Penguin Group, England,
1988).
George Susan, Il boomerang del debito, Edizioni Lavoro, Roma, 1992. (Translated from the English, The
Debt Boomerang, Westview Press, 1992).
Il personale politico, Quaderni di Lotta femminista
n. 2, (TN: The Personal is Political. Notebooks of
Lotta Femminista n. 2). Musolini Editore, Torino,
1973.
Laboratorio feminista, Transformaciones del trabajo
desde una perspectiva feminista. Produccin, reproduccion, deseo, consumo, (TN: The transformations
of Work from a Feminist Perspective. Production,
reproduction, desire, consumption),Terradenadie Ediciones, Madrid, 2006.
Le operaie della casa, giornale dellautonomia femminista, bimestrale edito negli anni 70.(TN: The
Houseworkers, journal of the feminist autonomy, bymonthly, published in the 70s).
Le operaie della casa, n. doppio 0 bis, novembredicembre 1975/gennaio- febbraio 1976. (T.N. The
houseworkers, double issue, number 0 bis, November
December 1975).
LOffensiva. Quaderni di Lotta femminista n.1, (TN:
The Offensive. Notebooks of Lotta Femminista n. 1),
Musolini Editore, Torino, 1972.
232

Lotta Continua, (TN: Continuous Struggle), 15 luglio
1972.
Lotta Continua, 21 luglio 1972.
Lotta Continua, 1 agosto 1972.
Manifesto (Il), (TN: The Manifesto) 14 luglio 1972.
Manifesto (Il), 20 luglio 1972.
Manifesto(Il), 4 agosto 1972.
Marazzi Christian, Il posto dei calzini, (TN: The
Place of Soks), Edizioni Casagrande, Bellinzona,
1994.
Mungiello Rossana, Segregation of Migrants in the
Labour Market in Italy: the Case of Female Migrants from Eastern European Countries Working
in the Sector of Care and Assistence for the Elderly.
First Results of an Empirical Study Carried Out in
Padova in Zu Wessen Diensten? Frauenarbeit zwsischen Care-Drain und Outsourcing, Zurich, Frauenrat
fur Aussenpolitik, 2005.
Negri A., Movimenti nellImpero, (TN: Movements in
the Empire), Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2006.
Repubblica (La), 28 agosto 2006.
Repubblica (La), 16 ottobre 2006.
Repubblica (La), 9 novembre 2006.
United Nations Census, 2000.
233

United Nations, Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies
for the Advancement of Women, in Report of the World
Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievments
of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality,
Development and Peace, Nairobi, 15-26 July 1985,
United Nations Publications, (Sales n. E.85.IV.10).
United Nations, Report of the World Conference to
Review and Appraise the Achievments of the United
Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development
and Peace, Nairobi, 15-26 July 1985, United Nations
Publications.
234
10. On Elder Care

Silvia Federici
Introduction
Care work, especially eldercare, has come in recent years
to the center of public attention in the countries of the
OECD in response to a number of trends that have put
many traditional forms of assistance into crisis. First
among these trends have been the growth, in relative and
absolute terms, of the old age population and the increase
in life expectancy (Kotlikoff and Burn 2004), not been
matched, however, by a growth of services catering to the
old. There has also been the expansion of womens waged
employment that has reduced their contribution to the
reproduction of their families. (Folbre 2006: 350) To these
factors we must add the continuing process of urbanization and the gentrification of working class neighborhoods,
that have destroyed the support networks and the forms of
mutual aid on which older people living alone could once
rely, as neighbors would bring them food, make their beds,
come for a chat. As a result of these trends, it is now recognized that for a large number of elderly, the positive effects
of a longer life-span have been voided or are clouded by
the prospect of loneliness, social exclusion and increased
235
10. On Elder Care

vulnerability to physical and psychological abuse. With
this in mind, I present some reflections on the question of
eldercare in contemporary social policy, especially in the
US, to then ask what action can be taken on this terrain
and why the question of elder care has been absent in the
literature of the Marxist left.
My main objective here is to call for a redistribution of
the common wealth in the direction of elder care, and
the construction of collective forms of reproduction enabling older people to be provided for when no longer selfsufficient and not at the cost of their providers lives. For
this to occur, however, the struggle over elder care must
be politicized and placed on the agenda of social justice
movements. A cultural revolution is also necessary in the
concept of old age, challenging its degradation as a fiscal
burden on the state and the younger generations (on one
side), and (on the other) its mystification as an optional
stage in life that we can cure, overcome, and even prevent, if we only adopt the right medical technology and
the life enhancing devises disgorged by the market (Joyce
and Mamo 2006).1 At stake in the politicization of elder
care are not only the destinies of older people and the
un-sustainability of radical movements failing to address
such a crucial issue in our lives, but the possibility of gen1
As Joyce and Mamo point out in "Graying the Cyborgs" (2007),

driven by the quest for profit and an ideology privileging youth,
a broad campaign has been underway targeting the elderly as
consumers, promising to "regenerate" their bodies and delay aging
if they use the appropriate farmaceutical products and technologies. In this context, old age becomes almost a sin, a predicament
we bring on ourselves, by failing to take advantage of the latest
rejuvenating products.
236
10. On Elder Care

erational and class solidarity, which for years have been
the targets of a relentless campaign by political economists
and governments, portraying the provisions which workers have won for their old age (like pensions and other
forms of social security) as an economic time-bomb and
heavy mortgage on the future of the young.
1. The Crisis of Elder Care & the Era of

Neoliberalism
The present crisis of elder care, in some respects, is nothing new. Eldercare in capitalist society has always been
in a state of crisis, both because of the devaluation of reproductive work in capitalism and because the elderly, far
from been treasured, as they were in many pre-capitalist
societies as depositories of the collective memory and experience, are seen as no longer productive. In other words,
elder care suffers from a double cultural and social devaluation. Like all reproductive work, it is not recognized as
work, but unlike the reproduction of labor-power, whose
product has some recognized value, it is deemed to absorb
value but not to produce it. Thus, funds designated for
eldercare have traditionally been disbursed with a stinginess reminiscent of the 19th century Poor Laws, and the
task of caring for the old, when no longer self-sufficient,
has been left to the families and kin with little external
support, on the assumption that women would naturally
take on this task as part of their domestic work. It has
taken a long struggle to force capital to reproduce not
just labor-power in use, but the work-force throughout its
237
10. On Elder Care

entire life cycle, with the provision of assistance also for
those who are no longer part of the labor market. However,
even the Keynesian state fell short of this goal. Witness
the Social Security legislation of the New Deal, enacted
in 1940 in the United States, and considered "one of the
achievements of our century" (Costa 1998: 1). It only
partly responded to the problems faced by the old, as it tied
social insurance to the years of waged employment, thus
excluding unwaged house-workers from it, and provided
assistance only to those in a state of absolute poverty.
The triumph of neo-liberalism has worsened this situation. In some countries of the OECD, some steps were
taken in the 1990s to increase the funding of home-based
care, and provide counseling and services to care-givers.
[OECD 2005; Benera 2008: 2-3,5] Efforts have also been
made to enable caregivers to reconcile waged work and
care work. In England and Wales, where it is reckoned
that 5.2 million people provide informal care, starting
in April 2007, caregivers for adults were given the right
to demand flexible work schedules. (Carmichael et al.:
7).2 But the dismantling of the welfare state and the
neo-liberal insistence that reproduction is the workers
personal responsibility have triggered a counter-tendency
2
Benera cites as an example a law passed in Spain in 1999, mandating employers to provide "different forms of temporary leaves to
facilitate care work" (p.5), followed by a more extensive one in 20067 "funding a portion of the expenses individuals household spend
on care." (ibid.) In Scotland, the Community Care and Health
Act of 2002 "introduced free personal care for the elderly" and
also redefined caregivers as "co-workers receiving resources rather
than consumers. . . obliged to pay for services." (Fiona Carmichael
et al. : 7).
238
10. On Elder Care

that is gaining momentum and the present economic crisis
is accelerating.
The demise of welfare provisions for the elderly has been
especially severe in the US, where it has reached such a
point that workers are often impoverished in the effort
to care for a disabled parent. One policy in particular
has created great hardships. This has been the transfer
of much hospital care to the home, a move motivated by
purely financial concerns and carried out with little consideration given to the structures required to replace the
services the hospitals used to provide.3 As described by
Nona Glazer (1993), this development has not only increased the amount of care-work that family members,
mostly women, must do. It has also shifted to the home
"dangerous and even life threatening" operations that in
the past only registered nurses and hospitals would have
been expected to perform.4 At the same time, subsidized
3
According to various surveys, as a consequence of these cuts, . . .

20-to 50 millions family members in the US provide care that
has traditionally been performed by nurses and social workers.
Family care givers supply about 80% of the care for ill or disabled
relatives and the need for their services will only rise as the population ages and modern medicine improves its ability to prolongs
lives. . . ..With more terminally ill people choosing to remain at
home until their final days, family members or friends now serve
as informal caregivers for nearly three fourths of sick or disabled
older adults living in the community during their years of life, according to a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine of January
2007 (Brody 2008).
4
As a consequence of this "transfer," the home (Glazer writes) have
been turned into a medical factory, where dialyses are performed
and housewives and aides must learn to insert caterers, medicate
wounds, while a whole new sort of medical equipment has been
manufactured for home use. [Glazer 154ff.]
239
10. On Elder Care

home-care workers have seen their workload double, while
the length of their visits has increasingly been cut forcing them to reduce their jobs "to household maintenance
and bodily care." [Boris and Klein: 180] Federally financed
nursing homes have also been taylorized, "using time- andmotion studies to decide how many patients their workers
can be expected to serve." (Glazer, ibid.: 174)
The globalization of elder care in the 1980s and 1990s
has not remedied this situation. The new international
division of reproductive work that globalization has promoted has shifted a large amount of care-work on the
shoulders of immigrant women. (Federici 1999: 57-8, Pyle
2006: 283-9) As is generally recognized, this development
has been very advantageous for governments, enabling
them to save billions of dollars they would have had to
pay to create services catering to the elderly. It has also
enabled middle class women to pursue their careers and
has allowed many among the elderly, who wished to maintain their independence, to remain in their homes without
going bankrupt. But this cannot be considered a solution
to elder care. Beside conferring a new legitimacy to the
neo-liberal doctrine that governments have no responsibility for social reproduction, this policy is condemned by
the living and working conditions of the paid care workers,
which reflects all the contradictions and inequities that
are characteristic of the process of social reproduction in
our time.
It is because of the destructive impact of economic liberalization and structural adjustment in their countries
of origins that thousands of women from Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean Island, and the former socialist world, migrate
to the more affluent regions of Europe, the Middle East
240
10. On Elder Care

and the United States to serve as nannies, domestics, and
caregivers for the elder. To do this they must leave their
own families including their children and aging parents
behind, and recruit relatives or hire other women with
less power and resources to replace the work they can no
longer provide. (Pyle 2006:289; Hochschild 2002) Taking
the case of Italy as an example, it is calculated that three
out of four "badanti" (as care workers for the elderly are
called) have children of their own, but only 15% have their
families with them. (Di Vico 2004) This means that the
majority suffer a great deal of anxiety, confronting the fact
that their own families must go without the kind of care
they now give to people across the globe. Arlie Hochschild
has spoken, in this context, of a "global transfer of care
and emotions," and the formation of a "global care-chain."
(2002: 26-7; 2000: 134-5). But it is a chain that most often breaks down, as immigrant women become estranged
from their children, stipulated arrangements fall apart,
relatives die during their absence.
Equally important, because of the devaluation of reproductive work and the fact that they are immigrants, often
undocumented and women of color, paid care workers are
vulnerable to a great deal of abuse: long hours of work,
no paid vacations, or other benefits, exposure to racist
behavior and sexual assault. So low is generally the pay
of home care workers in the US that nearly half must rely
on food stamps and other forms of public assistance to
make ends meet. (New York Times, 1/28/09) Indeed, as
Domestic Workers United the main domestic/care workers organization in New York, promoter of a Domestic
Workers Bill of Rights has put it, care workers live and
241
10. On Elder Care

work in "the shadow of slavery."5 It is also important to
stress that most elderly people and families cannot afford
hiring care-workers or paying for services matching their
real need. This is particularly true of elderly people with
illnesses who require day-long care. According to statistics
of the Cnel of 2003, in Italy only 2.8% of elderly receive
non-family assistance at home; in France it is twice as
many, in Germany three times. But the number is still
low. (Di Vico 2004) A large number of elderly thus live
alone facing hardships that are all the more devastating
the more invisible they are. In the hot summer of 2003,
thousands of elderly people died, throughout Europe, of
dehydration, lack of food and medicines or just the unbearable heat so many died in Paris that the authorities had
to stack their bodies in refrigerated public spaces until the
families came to reclaim them.
When family members care for the old, the tasks falls
mostly on the shoulders of women6 , who for months or
years live on the verge of nervous and physical exhaustion,
consumed by the work and the responsibility of having to
provide care and often perform procedures for which they
are not usually prepared. Few jobs are as demanding as
adult care; not surprisingly, a high percentage of family
caregivers show symptoms of clinical depression. Those
who have jobs outside the home are especially penalized.
5
The Bill of Rights Domestic Workers United has campaigned for

was finally introduced in the legislation of New York State in
November 2010, the first in the country to recognize care work as
work. Similar campaigns are presently taking place in other parts
of the US, especially in California.
6
However, in the US the number of men caring for elder parents has
been steadily increasing. (New York Times)
242
10. On Elder Care

Though the number of adults caring for their parents has
greatly increased,7 employers have made no provisions to
help workers carry out this task. On the contrary, at a
time when the power relation is in their favor, they expect
workers to spend more hours on the job and are reluctant to make any concessions. Thus, according to a recent
AARP report, workers caring for their parents, in the US,
must hide the fact that they are care-givers for fear of
being refused a raise or loosing their jobs, well-knowing
that lay-offs are always around the corner. They also fear
the resentment of their co-workers (Abrahms: 12) Particularly stressed are those referred to as the "sandwich
generation," who simultaneously are raising children and
caring for their parents. [Beckford 2009] The crisis of care
work has reached such a point that in low-income, singleparent families in the US, teenagers and children, some
no more than eleven years old, take care of their elders,
also administering therapies and injections. As the New
York Times has reported, a study conducted nationwide
in 2005 revealed that " 3% of households with children
ages 8 to 18 included child caregivers." (New York Times,
March 2009: A18).8
According to a recent AARP report, in 2009, the number of US

family care givers providing care for an elderly was estimated at
42.1 millions, the estimated monetary value of their contribution
amounting to $450 billions. aarp.org/bulletin, September 2011,
p.10.
8
Other countries where children have become care workers include
Britain and Australia, which often recognize them the right to
participate in "patient-care discussions" and ask for compensations
for their work. (New York Times ibid.)
243
10. On Elder Care

The alternative, for those who cannot afford buying
some form of assisted care, are publicly funded nursing
homes, which, however, are more like prisons than hostels
for the old. Typically, because of lack of staff and funds or
these institutions provide minimal care. At best, they let
their residents lie hours in bed without anyone at hand to
change their positions, adjust their pillows, massage their
legs, tend to their bed sores, or simply talk to them, so
that they can maintain their sense of identity and dignity
and still feel alive and valued. At worst, nursing homes
are places where old people are drugged, tied to their
beds, left to lie in their excrements and subjected to all
kind of physical and psychological abuses. This much has
emerged from a series of reports, including one recently
published by the US Government in 2008, which speaks
of a history of abuse, neglect, and violation of safety and
health standards in 94% of nursing homes. (New York
Times, 8/30/08) The situation is not more encouraging in
other countries. In Italy, the country beside the United
States that I have most researched, reports of abuses in
nursing homes perpetrated against disabled or chronically
ill elders are very frequent, as are the cases in which
needed medical assistance is denied.9
9
See on the topic: Francesco Santanera Violenze e abusi

dovuti anche alla mancata applicazione delle leggi in Prospettive Assistenziali, n.169, gennaio marzo 2010. Prospettive
Assistenziali is a journal in existence since 1968 dedicated to struggle against social exclusion, especially of
disabled and elder people. Santaneras article can be read
also online:
http//www.superando.it/content/voew/5754/121.
According to government controls realized in 2010, one
third of institutes for the elderly violate the legal norms.
244
10. On Elder Care
2. Eldercare, the Unions, & the Left

The problems I have described are so common and pressing that we would imagine that eldercare should top the
agenda of the social justice movements and labor unions
internationally. This, however, is not the case. Unless
they work in institutions (hospitals, nursing homes), as
is the case with nurses and aides, care workers are usually ignored by labor unions, even the most combative like
COSATU in South Africa. (Ally 2005: 3) Unions negotiate pensions, the conditions of retirement, and healthcare. But there is little discussion in their programs of
the support systems required by people aging, and by care
workers, whether or not they work for pay. In the US, until
recently, labor unions did not even try to organize care
workers, much less unpaid care-workers. To this day, care
workers working for individuals or families are excluded
from the Fair Labor Standards Act, a New Deal legislation that guarantees "access to minimum wages, overtime,
bargaining rights and other workplace protections." (Boris
and Klein 2007: 182) And the US is not an isolated case.
According to a ILO survey of 2004, "cross-national unionization rates in the domestic service sector are barely 1%".
(Ally 2005: 1) Pensions too are not available to all workers,
but only to those who have worked for wages and certainly
not to unpaid family caregivers. As reproductive work is
not recognized as work and the pension systems compute
benefits on the basis of the years spent in waged employment, women who have been fulltime house-wives can
http//:www.ansa.it/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2010/02/26/
izza_new.
245
visual-
10. On Elder Care

obtain a pension only through a wage-earning husband
and have no social security in case they divorce.
Labor organizations have not challenged these inequities, nor have social movements and the Marxist Left,
who, with few exceptions, also seems to have written
the elderly off the struggle, judging by the absence of
any reference to elder care in contemporary Marxist
analyses. The responsibility for this state of affairs can
be in part traced back to Marx. Elder care is not a theme
that we find in his works, although the question of old
age had been on the revolutionary political agenda since
the 18th century, and mutual aid societies and utopian
visions of recreated communities (Fourierist, Owenite,
Icarian) abounded in his time. (Blackburn 2002: 32, 39-41;
Nordhoff 1966).10
10
As Robin Blackburn points out, it was at the time of the French

Revolution that the first proposals for paying pensions to people
in old age and want appeared. Tom Paine discussed the issue in
the second part of Rights of Man (1792), so did his friend Condorcet who offered a plan that was to cover all citizens. On the
footsteps of these proposals, The National Convention declared
that 10 Fructidor was to be the date of the Fte de la Veillesse
and that there should be old people homes established in every
department. . . The Convention adopted the principle of a civic
pension for the aged in June 1794, just a few months after the
abolition of slavery" (Blackburn 2002 : 40-1).
In Marxs time, forms of assistance against sickness, old age, and
death, as well as unemployment, were provided by the "friendly
societies," workers clubs organized on the basis of trade, described
by John Foster as "the one social institution that touched the
adult lives of a near majority of the working population" (Foster
1974: 216). Moreover, while the zenith of utopian socialism was
in the early part of the 19th century, as late as the 1860s communitarian experiments, committed to protect their participants
246
10. On Elder Care

Marx was concerned with understanding the mechanics
of capitalist production and the manifold ways in which
the class struggle challenges it and reshapes its form.
Security in old age and elder care did not enter this discussion. Old age was a rarity among the factory workers and
miners of his time, whose life expectancy on average did
not surpass twenty years at best, if his contemporaries
reports are to be believed. (Marx, Vol.1; Seccombe 1993:
75-7) Most important, Marx did not recognize the centrality of reproductive work, neither for capital accumulation
nor for the construction of the new communist society.
Although both him and Engels described the abysmal conditions in which the working class in England lived and
worked, he almost naturalized the process of reproduction, never envisaging how reproductive work could be
reorganized in a different, non-exploitative society or in
the very course of the class struggle. For instance, he discussed "cooperation" mostly in the process of commodity
production overlooking the qualitatively different forms
of proletarian cooperation in the process of reproduction
which Kropotkin later called "mutual aid."11
Cooperation among workers, in Marx, is a fundamental
character of the capitalist organization of work, "entirely
from poverty, helplessness and old age, continued, especially in
the United States. A contemporary journalist, Charles Nordhoff,
counted at least 72 organized according to cooperative/communistic
principles. For a powerful history of Fraternal Societies in the
United States see: David T. Beito (2000), From Mutual Aid to the
Welfare State. Fraternal Societies and Social Services. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
11
For Kropotkins concept of Mutual aid see in particular the last two
chapters of the homonymous work. Peter Kroptkin, Mutual Aid. A
Factor of Evolution. (1902)
247
10. On Elder Care

brought about by the capital[ists]," coming into place only
when the workers "have ceased to belong to themselves,"
being purely functional to the increase in the efficiency
and productivity of labor. [Vol.I, Chapter 13: 449, 451]12
As such, it leaves no space for the manifold expressions
of solidarity and the many "institutions for mutual support", "associations, societies, brotherhoods, alliances,"
that Kropotkin found present amongst the industrial population of his time. (Kropotkin: 208, 221) Yet, as Kropotkin
noted, these very forms of mutual aid put limits to the
power of capital and the State over the workers lives, enabling countless proletarians not to fall into utter ruin,
and they sowed the seeds of a self-managed insurance system, guaranteeing some protection against unemployment,
illness, old age and death.
Typical of the limits of Marxs perspective is his vision of
the last stage of capitalist production as articulated in the
famous "Fragment on the Machines," in the Grundrisse
(1857-8), where he projects a world in which machines do
all the work and human beings only tend to them, functioning as their supervisors. Whether understood as a utopia
or a dystopia, this picture ignores in fact that, even in advanced capitalist countries, much of the socially necessary
labor consists of reproductive activities and this work has
proven not to be easily replaced by mechanization.
Only in part can the needs and desires of non-selfsufficient older people, or people requiring medical assistance, be addressed by incorporating technologies into
12
"As cooperators," Marx writes, workers "merely form a particular

mode of existence of capital." The productive power they develop
"is the productive power of capital." (ibid.)
248
10. On Elder Care

the work by which they are reproduced. The automation
of eldercare is a path already well traveled. As Nancy
Folbre (the leading feminist economist and student of eldercare in the United States) has shown, Japanese industries are quite advanced in the attempt to technologize
it, as they are generally in the production of interactive
robots. Nursebots giving people baths or "walking [them]
for exercise," and "companion robots" (robotic dogs, teddy
bears) are already available on the market, although at
prohibitive costs. (Folbre 2006: 356) We also know that
televisions and personal computers have become surrogate "badanti" for many elders. Electronically commanded
wheelchairs enhance the mobility of those who are sufficiently in charge of their movements to master their
commands.
These scientific and technological developments can
highly benefit older people, if they are made affordable
for them. The circulation of knowledge they can provide
certainly places a great wealth at their disposal. But this
cannot replace the labor of care workers, especially in the
case of elders living alone and/or suffering from illnesses
and impairments. As Folbre points out, robotic partners
can even increase peoples loneliness and isolation [ibid.].
Nor can automation address the predicaments -fears, anxieties, loss of identity, loss of the sense of ones dignitythat people experience as they age and become dependent
on others often even for the satisfaction of their most basic needs, like walking, eating, washing, defecating. It
is not technological innovation that is needed to address
the question of eldercare, but a change in social relations,
whereby the reproduction of our lives is no longer subordi-
249
10. On Elder Care

nated to the valorization of capital and is organized as a
collective process.
3. Women, Aging & Elder Care In the

Perspective of Feminist Economists
For a start, we need to recognize (as some feminist
economists like Folbre have done) that the question of
eldercare is essentially a gender question. Although
increasingly commodified, most care work is still done by
women and as unpaid labor that does not entitle them to
any remuneration and pension. Thus, paradoxically, the
more women care for others, the less care they can receive
in return, because they devote less time to waged labor
than men and many social insurance plans are calculated
on the years of waged work done. Paid caregivers too
are affected by the devaluation of reproductive work,
forming an underclass that still must fight to be socially
recognized as workers. In sum, because of the devaluation
of reproductive work, practically everywhere women face
old age with fewer resources than men, measured in terms
of family support, monetary incomes and available assets.
Thus, in the United States, where pensions and Social
Security are calculated on years of employment, women
are the largest group of elderly poor and the largest
number of residents of low-income nursing homes, the
lagers of our time, precisely because they spend so much
of their lives outside of the waged workforce in activities
not recognized as work.
250
10. On Elder Care

Science and technology cannot resolve this problem.
What is required is a transformation in the social/sexual
division of labor and, above all, the re-cognition of reproductive work as work, entitling those performing to
a compensation, so that family members providing care
are not penalized for their work. The recognition and valorization of reproductive work is crucial also to overcome
the divisions which the present situation sows among care
workers, which pit, on one side, the family members trying to minimize their expenses, and, on the other, the
hired care-givers facing the demoralizing consequences of
working at the edge of poverty and devaluation.
Feminist economists working on this issue have articulated possible alternatives to the present systems. In
Warm Hands in a Cold Age (2007), Nancy Folbre has outlined the reforms needed to give security to the aging
population, especially elderly women, taking an international perspective, and pointing to the countries that are
in the lead in this respect. At the top, she places the countries which provide almost universal systems of insurance.
At the bottom there are the US and England, where elderly assistance is tied to the history of employment. But,
in both cases, there is a problem in the way policies are
configured, which confirms an unequal sexual division of
labor and the traditional expectations concerning womens
role in the family and society. This is one crucial area
where change must occur.
Folbre calls for a redistribution of resources rechanneling public money from the military-industrial
complex and other destructive enterprises to the care of
people in old age. She acknowledges that this may seem
"unrealistic," equivalent to calling for a revolution. But
251
10. On Elder Care

she insists that it should be placed on "our agenda," for
the future of every worker is at stake, and a society blind
to the tremendous suffering that awaits so many people
once they age, as is the case with the US today, is a society
bound for self-destruction.
There is no sign, however, that this blindness will soon
be dissipated. With the pretext of the economic crisis and
low growth, policy makers are turning their eyes away
from it, everywhere striving to cut social spending and
bring state pensions and social security systems, including subsidies to care work, under the ax. According to
the dominant, obsessive refrain the presence of a more
energetic elderly population, stubbornly insisting on living
on, is making every social form of assistance unsustainable. It was possibly thinking of the millions of Americans determined on living past 80, that Alan Greenspan,
in his memoirs, confessed that he was frightened when
realizing that the Clinton Administration had actually
accumulated a financial surplus! [Greenspan 2007: 217]
But even before the financial crisis of 2008, for years policy makers had been orchestrating a generational war,
incessantly warning that that the expansion of the 65 +
population would bankrupt the Social Security system,
leaving a heavy mortgage on the shoulders of the young.
And as the crisis deepens, the assault on elder care, either
in form of cuts to services or cuts to pensions, intensifies.
Already in Greece, since 2010, pensions have been cut by
25%. In England, the ideology of the Big Society masks
the attempt to place social services on a voluntary basis,
possibly to be picked up by laid off women. Meanwhile, in
the US, conservative politicians (like the Republican candidate Rick Perry) call the Social Security system a Ponzi
252
10. On Elder Care

Scheme, or mechanically repeat the system is collapsing
and must be drastically restructured.
For sure, no one is arguing for an increase in government
funding of elder care, or a reduction of working hours to
make space for eldercare, or a remuneration of this work.
(Watson and Mears 1999: 193)
It is urgent, then, that social justice movements intervene on his terrain to prevent a triage solution to the
crisis at the expense of the old, and to bring together the
different social subjects implicated in the question of elder care: care workers, families of the elders, and the
elders themselves who are now told they are in an antagonistic relation to the young. Examples of this kind
of alliance are already visible in the struggles over elder
care, as nurses as patients, paid care workers, and families of their clients are coming together to jointly confront
the state, aware that when the relations of re-production
become antagonistic both producers and reproduced pay
the price. Meanwhile, a "commoning" of reproductive/care
work is under way.
Communal forms of living based upon solidarity contracts" are presently being created in some Italian cities
by elders, who in order to avoid being institutionalized,
pool together their resources, when they cannot count on
their families or hire a care worker. In the US, a younger
generation of political activists has been discussed creating "communities of care,"13 aiming at socializing the
13
The organization of "communities of care" is the project of some

anarchist activists, on both coasts of the United States, who are
inspired by the solidarity work done by Act Up in response to the
spread of AIDS in the gay community in the 1980s, which, against
all odds, marked a major turning point in the growth of that move-
253
10. On Elder Care

experience of illness, pain, grieving and the care work
involved, in this process reclaiming and redefining what
is means to be ill, to age, to die. These efforts need to be
expanded. They are essential to a reorganization of our
everyday life and the creation of non-exploitative social
relations. For the seeds of the new world are not to be
planted online, but in the cooperation that we can develop
among ourselves, which is most tested when confronted
with the task of ensuring that the lives of those who are
tied to wheelchairs or hospital beds do not become a living
torture, as it is so often the case in our society.
Bibliography
Abrahms, Sally. (2011). The Caregivers Dilemma.
aarp.org/bulletin, September 2001, (10-12).
Ally, Shireen. (2005)."Caring About Care Workers:
Organizing in the Female Shadow of Globalization."
Center For Global Justice, San Miguel De Alende
(Mexico): International Conference on Women and
Globalization, 27 July3 August 2005.
Anton, Anatole, Milton Fisk and Nancy Holmstrom.
(2000). Not For Sale: In Defense of Public Goods.
Boulder (Colorado): Westview Press.
ment. Information on "communities of care" can be found in a
variety of zines produced on this subject. On this topic see "The
Importance of Support: Building Foundations, Sustaining Community." In Rolling Thunder. An Anarchist Journal of Dangerous
Living, Issue Six, Fall 2008, 29-39.
254
10. On Elder Care

Beckford, Martin. (2009) "Sandwich generation families torn between demands of children and parents."
Telegraph.co.uk, April 1, 2009.
Benaria, Lourdes. (2008). "The Crisis of Care, International Migration, and Public Policy." Feminist
Economics, 14(3), July 2008, 1-21.
Blackburn, Robin. (2002). Banking on Death. Or,
Investing in Life: The History and Future of the Pensions. London: Verso.
Boris, Eileen and Jennifer Klein. (2007). We Were
the Invisible Workforce: Unionizing Home Care. In
Cobble ed. (2007) 177-193.
Brody, Jane E. (2008). "When Families Take Care of
Their Own." New York Times. November 11, 2008.
Calasanti, Toni M. and Kathleen F. Slevin eds.
(2006). Age Matters. Realigning Feminist Thinking.
New York: Routledge.
Carmichael, Fiona, Claire Hulme, Sally Sheppard
and Gemma Connell. (2008) In Feminist Economics
14 (2), April 2008. 3-35.
Castegnaro, Alessandro. (2002). La Rivoluzione occulta dellassistenza agli anziani: le aiutanti domiciliari. Studi Zancan 2002.
Chandler, Michael Alison. (2007) " When a kid becomes the caregiver." Washington Post, August 25,
2007.
255
10. On Elder Care

Cobble, Dorothy Sue. (2007). The Sex of Class.
Women Transforming American Labor. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Costa, Dora. L. (1998). The Evolution of Retirement.
An American Economic History. 1880-1990. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Cowell, Alan. (1994). "Affluent Europes Plight:
Graying." In New York Times, September 8, 1994.
Dalla Costa, Mariarosa and Giovanna F. Dalla Costa
eds. (1999). Women, Development and Labor of Reproduction. Struggles and Movements. Trenton (NJ):
Africa World Press.
Di Vico, Dario. (2004). " Le badanti, il nuovo welfare
privato. Aiutano gli anziani e lo Stato risparmia."
Corriere della Sera. June 13, 2004, p.15.
Eaton, Susan E. (2007). "Eldercare in the United
States: Inadequate, Inequitable, but Not a Lost
Cause." In Folbre, Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 37-52.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie Russell Hochschild
eds. (2002). Global Woman. Nannies, Maids and Sex
Workers in the New Economy. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Federici, Silvia. (1999). "Reproduction and Feminist
Struggle in the New International Division of Labor."
In Dalla Costa and Dalla Costa eds. (1999) 47-82.
256
10. On Elder Care

Ferguson, Ann and Nancy Folbre. (2000). "Women,
Care and the Public Good: A Dialogue." In Anton
et.al (2000) 95-108.
Folbre, Nancy, Lois B. Shaw and Agneta Stark eds.
(2007). Warm Hands in Cold Age. New York: Routledge.
Folbre, Nancy, Lois B. Shaw and Agneta Stark eds.
(2007). Introduction: Gender and Aging. In Folbre,
Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 3-6.
Folbre, Nancy. (2006). "Nursebots to the Rescue? Immigration, Automation and Care." In Globalizations,
Vol. 3. No 3, 2006 (349-360).
Glazer, Nona. (1993). Womens Paid and Unpaid
Labor. Work Transfer in Health Care and Retail.
Green, Carole A. (2007). "Race, Ethnicity and Social
Security Retirement Age in the US." In Folbre, Shaw
and Stark eds. (2007) 117-144.
Greenspan, Alan. 2007. The Age of Turbulence. Adventures in a New World. New York: Penguin Press.
Harrington Meyer, Madonna and Douglas A. Wolf,
and Christine L. Himes. (2007). "Linking Benefits to
Marital Status: Race and Social Security in the US."
In Folbre, Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 163-198.
Hochschild, Arlie and Ehrenreigh, Barbara (2002).
Global Women: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in
the New Economy. New York: Holt.
257
10. On Elder Care

____________________. (2000). Global Care Chains
and Emotional Surplus Value. In Will Hutton and
Anthony Giddens eds., Global Capitalism. New York:
The New Press.
Marx, Karl (1973). Grundrisse. London: The Penguin Press.
Marx, Karl (1976). Capital. Volume I. London: The
Penguin Press.
Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and Scott Burns. (2004). The
Coming Generational Storm. What You Need to
Know About Americas Economic Future. Cambridge
(MASS): MIT Press.
Kroptkin, Peter (1998). Mutual Aid. A factor of
evolution. London: Freedom Press. (First Edition
1902)
Joyce, Kelly and Laura Mamo. (2006). "Greying
the Cyborg. New Directions in Feminist Analyses
of Aging, Science and Technology." In Calasanti and
Slevin eds. (2006) 99-122.
Luatti, Lorenzo, Serena Bracciali, Roberta Renzetti,
(2007) Nello Sguardo dellAltra. Raccontarsi il Lavoro di Cura. In collaborazione con Donne Insieme.
Arezzo: Collana Briciole.
Lyon, Dawn (2006). The Organization of Carework
in Italy: Gender and Migrant Labor in the New Economy. Indiana Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.13, Issue
1, Winter 2006, 207-224.
258
10. On Elder Care

Misra, Joya, Jonathan Woodring and Sabine N. Merz.
(2006). "The Globalization of Care Work: Neoliberal Economic Restructuring and Migration Policy."
Globalizations, Vol. 3, N. 3, 2006, 317-332.
New York Times. (2009). "In a Turnabout, More Children Take on the Care Giver Role for their Elders,"
New York Times, February 23, 2009.
Nordhoff, Charles. (1966). The Communistic Societies of the United States. From Personal Observation.
New York: Dover Publications, INC. (First edition
1875)
OECD Health Project. (2005) Long Term Care For
Older People. OECD Publications.
Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar. (2002). Servants of Globalization. Women, Migration and Domestic Work.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pear, Robert. (2008). "Violations Reported in 94%
of Nursing Homes." New York Times, September 30,
2008.
Philipps, Lisa. (2008). "Silent Partners: The Role
of Unpaid Market labor in Families." Feminist Economics, 14 (2), April 2008, 37-57.
Povoledo, Elisabetta. (2008). "Italian Plan to Deal
with Migrants Could Affect Residents Who Rely On
Them." New York Times, June 21, 2008.
259
10. On Elder Care

Pyle, Jean L. (2006) "Transnational Migration and
Gendered Care Work: Introduction." In Globalizations, Vol.3, N.3, 2006, 283-296.
___________.(2006). "Globalization and the Increase
in Transnational Care Work: The Flip Side." Globalization, Vol.3, N.3, 2006, 297-316.
Ranci, Costanzo. (2001). Il mercato sociale dei servizi
alla persona.
Seccombe, Wally (1995, 1993). Weathering the Storm.
Working-Class Families From The Industrial Revolution To The Fertility Decline. London: Verso
Shaw, Lois B. and Sunhwa Lee. (2007). "Growing
Old in the US: Gender and Income Inadequacy." In
Folbre, Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 174-198.
Symposium: Globalizations,Transnational Migrations, And Gendered Care Work. Globalizations
Volume 3, Number 3, September 2006.
Timothy M. Smeeding and Susanna Sandstrm.
(2007). "Poverty Income Maintenance in Old Age: A
Cross-National View of Low Income Older Women."
In Folbre, Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 163-174.
Agneta Stark. (2007). "Warm Hands in Cold Age
On the Need of a New World Order of Care." In
Folbre, Shaw and Stark eds. (2007) 7-36.
Watson Elizabeth A. and Jane Mears. (1999).Women,
Work and Care of the Elderly. Burlington (USA):
Ashgate.
260
10. On Elder Care

Zajicek, Toni Calasanti, Cristie Ginther, Julie Summers. (2006). "Intersectionality and Age Relations.
Unpaid Care Work and Chicanas." In Calasanti and
Slevin eds. (2006) 175-197.
Zimmerman Mary K., Jacquelyne S. Litt, and Christine E. Bose. (2006). Global Dimensions of Gender
and Carework. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
261
11. Sex as Work & Sex

Work
Laura Agustn1
An army colonel is about to start the morning briefing to
his staff. While waiting for the coffee to be prepared, the
colonel says he didnt sleep much the night before because
his wife had been a bit frisky. He asks everyone: How
much of sex is work and how much is pleasure? A Major
votes 75-25% in favor of work. A Captain says 50-50%.
A lieutenant responds with 25-75% in favor of pleasure,
depending on how much hes had to drink. There being
no consensus, the colonel turns to the enlisted man in
charge of making the coffee. What does he think? With
no hesitation, the young soldier replies, Sir, it has to be
100% pleasure. The surprised colonel asks why. Well, sir,
if there was any work involved, the officers would have me
doing it for them.
1
Laura Agustn is the author of Sex at the Margins: Migration,

Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry (Zed Books 2007) and
recently participated in a BBC World Debate on Human Trafficking held in Luxor, Egypt. She has been studying sex work since
the early 1990s and blogs several times a week at The Naked
Anthropologist.
262

Perhaps because he is the youngest, the soldier considers only the pleasure that sex represents, while the older
men know a lot more is going on. They may have a better
grasp of the fact that sex is the work that puts in motion
the machine of human reproduction. Biology and medical
texts present the mechanical facts without any mention
of possible ineffable experiences or feelings (pleasure, in
other words), as sex is reduced to wiggly sperm fighting
their way towards waiting eggs. The divide between the
feelings and sensations involved and the cold facts is vast.
The officers probably also have in mind the work involved in keeping a marriage going, apart from questions
of lust and satisfaction. They might say that sex between
people who are in love is special (maybe even sacred), but
they also know sex is part of the partnership of getting
through life together and has to be considered pragmatically as well. Even people in love do not have identical
physical and emotional needs, with the result that sex
takes different forms and means more or less on different
occasions.
This little story shows a few of the ways that sex can
be considered work. When we say sex work nowadays the
focus is immediately on commercial exchanges, but in this
article I mean more than that and question our ability
to distinguish clearly when sex involves work (as well as
other things) and sex work (which involves all sorts of
things). Most of the moral uproar surrounding prostitution and other forms of commercial sex asserts that the
difference between good or virtuous sex and bad or harmful sex is obvious. Efforts to repress, condemn, punish
and rescue women who sell sex rest on the claim that they
occupy a place outside the norm and the community, can
263

be clearly identified and therefore acted on by people who
Know Better how they should live. To show this claim to
be false discredits this neocolonialist project.
Loving, With and Without Sex

We live in a time when relationships based on romantic,
sexual love occupy the pinnacle of a hierarchy of emotional
values, in which it is supposed that romantic love is the
best possible experience and that the sex people in love
have is the best sex, in more ways than one. Romantic
passion is considered meaningful, a way for two people
to become one, an experience some believe heightened if
they conceive a child. Other sexual traditions also strive
to transcend ordinariness in sex (the mechanical, the frictional), for example Tantra, which distinguishes three
separate purposes for sex: procreation, pleasure and liberation, the last culminating in losing the sense of self in
cosmic consciousness. In the western romantic tradition,
passion is conceived as involving a strong positive emotion
toward a particular person that goes beyond the physical
and is contrasted to lust, which is only physical.
It is, however, impossible to say exactly how we know
which is which, and the young enlisted man in the opening
story might well not understand the difference. Sex driven
by surging or excess testosterone and sex as adolescent rebellion against repressive family values cannot be reduced
to a mechanical activity bereft of emotion or meaning;
rather, those kinds of sex often feel like ways of finding out
and expressing who we are. And even when sex is used to
show off in front of others, or to affirm ones attractiveness
264

and power to pull, meaningless would seem to be the last
thing it should be called. Here it is true that one person
may not only lack passion but totally neglect anothers
feelings and desires, but just as often this other person is
engaged in the same pursuit. The point is that reductions
like lust and love dont go very far towards telling us what
is going on when people have sex together. Moreover, while
real passion is meant to be based on knowing someone
long and intimately, a parallel story glorifies love at first
sight, in which passion is instantly awakened and this
can occur as easily at a rave or pub as at the Taj Mahal.
Part of the mythology of love promises that loving couples will always want and enjoy sex together, unproblematically, freely and loyally. But most people know that
couples are multi-faceted partnerships, sex together being
only one facet, and that those involved very often tire of
sex with each other. Although skeptics say todays high
divorce rate shows the love-myth is a lie, others say the
problem is that lovers arent able or willing to do the work
necessary to stay together and survive personal, economic
and professional changes. Some of this work may well
be sexual. In some partnerships where the spark has
gone, partners grant each other the freedom to have sex
with others, or pay others to spice up their own sex lives
(as a couple or separately). This can take the form of a
polyamorous project, with open contracts; as swinging,
where couples play with others together; as polygamy or
temporary marriage; as cheating or betrayal; or as paying
for sex.
265
The Sex Contract

Even when love is involved, people may use sex in the
hope of getting something in return. They may or may not
be fully conscious of such motives as:
I will have sex with you because I love you even if I
am not in the mood myself
I will have sex with you hoping you will feel well disposed toward me afterwards and give me something
I want
I will have sex with you because if I dont you are
liable to be unpleasant to me, our children, or my
friends, or withhold something we want
In these situations, sex is felt to be and accepted as part of
the relationship, backed up in classic marriage law by the
concept of conjugal relations, spouses rights to them and
the consequences of not providing them: abandonment,
adultery, annulment, divorce. This can work the opposite
way as well, as when a partner doesnt want sex:
I will not have sex with you, so you will have to do
without or get it somewhere else
The partner wanting sex and not getting it at home now
has to choose: do without and feel frustrated? call an old
friend? ring for an escort? go to a pick-up bar? drive to a
hooker stroll? visit a public toilet? buy an inflatable doll?
fly to a third-world beach?
People of any gender identity can find themselves in this
situation, where money may help resolve the situation, at
266

least temporarily, and where more than one option may
have to be tried. Tiring of partners is a universal experience, and research on women who pay local guides and
beach boys on holidays suggests there is nothing inherently male about exchanging money for sex. That said,
our societies are still patriarchal, women still take more
responsibility for maintaining homes and children than
men and men still have more disposable cash than women,
making the overtly commercial options more viable for
men than for others.
We dont know how many people do what, but we know
that many clients of sex workers say they are married
(some happily, some not, the research is all about male
clients). In testimonies about their motivations for paying
for sex, men often cite a desire for variety or a way to cope
with not getting enough sex or the kind of sex they want
at home.
I want to have sex with you but I also want it with
someone else
This is the point in the sex contract many have trouble
with, the question being Why? Why should someone with
sex available at home (even good sex) also want it somewhere else? The assumption is, of course, that we all ought
to want only one partner, because we all ought to want the
kind of love that is loyal, passionate and monogamous. To
say I love my wife and also I would like to have sex with
others is to seem perverse, or greedy, and a lot of energy is
spent railing against such people. However, there is nothing intrinsically better about monogamy than any other
attitude to sex.
267

If saving marriages is a value, then more than one sex
worker believes her role helps prevent break-ups, or at
least allows spouses to blow off steam from difficult relationships. Workers mean not only the overtly sexual side
of paid activities but also the emotional labour performed
in listening to clients stories, bolstering their egos, teaching them sexual techniques, providing emotional advice.
Rarely do sex workers position clients spouses as enemies
or say they want to steal clients away from them; on the
contrary, many see the triangular relationship wife, husband, sex worker as mutually sustaining. In this way
sex workers believe they help reproduce the marital home
and even improve it.
Sex as Reproductive Labour

In support of the idea that sex reproduces social life, one
can say that people fortunate enough to experience satisfying sex feel fundamentally affirmed and renewed by
it. In that sense, a worker providing sexual services does
reproductive work. Paid sex work is a caring service when
workers provide friend-like or therapist-like company and
when they give a back rub whether the caring is a performance or not. The person providing the caring services
uses brain, emotions and body to make another person
feel good:
Leaning over to comfort a baby
Leaning over to massage aching shoulders
Leaning over to kiss a neck or forehead or chest
268

Leaning over to suck a penis or breast
If the recipient perceives the contact as positive, a sense
of well-being is produced that the brain registers, and the
individuals separateness is momentarily erased. These
effects are not different simply because the so-called erogenous zones are involved rather than other parts of the body.
In this sense, sex work, whether paid or not, reproduces
fundamental social life.
The argument against sex work as reproductive labour
is that sexual experiences, while sometimes temporarily
rejuvenating, are neither always felt as positive nor essential to the individuals continued functioning. Humans
have to eat and keep our bodies and environments clean
but we dont have to have sex to survive: the well-being
produced by sex is a luxury or extra. Sex feels as essential
as food to a lot of people, and they may be very unhappy
without it, but they can go on living.
Sex as a Job
The variability of sexual experience makes it difficult to
pin down which sex should properly be thought of as sex
work. My own policy is to accept what individuals say. If
someone tells me they experience selling sex as a job, I
take their word for it. If, on the contrary, they say that
it doesnt feel like a job but something else, then I accept
that.
What does it mean to say it feels like a job? There are
several possibilities:
269

I organise myself to offer particular services for
money that I define
I take a job in someone elses business where I control
some aspects of what I do but not others
I place myself in situations where others tell me
what they are looking for and I adapt, negotiate,
manipulate and perform but its a job because I get
money
There are other permutations, too, of course. All service
jobs involve customer relations, which are eternally unpredictable. Some clients are able to specify exactly what
services they want and make sure they are satisfied, but
some cannot and may end up getting what the worker
wants to provide. To imagine that the worker is always
powerless because the client pays for time makes no sense,
since all workers jockey for control in their jobs of what
happens when and how long it takes. This is a simple definition of human agency. And its important to remember
that a very large proportion of sex work is spent on selling:
the seduction and flirtation necessary to turn atmosphere,
potentiality and possibility into an exchange of money for
sex.
Furthermore, although we like to think about the two
roles, salesperson and customer, as separate, in the sexual
relation roles can be blurred. Theorists want to think
about the worker doing something for the client or the
client commanding the worker to act. But carrying out a
command does not exclude doing it ones own way, nor, for
that matter, enjoyment, feelings of connectivity and the
reproduction of self.
270
Non-Partner Sex in the Home

Many would like to believe that non-commercial (or real)
sex takes place in homes, while commercial sex lurks in
seedy other places. However, sex outside the partnership easily takes place while one of the partners is not
there. This can be sex that is ordered in and paid for or
adulterous, promiscuous, play or non-monogamous sex.
Sometimes the non-partner is considered almost one of
the family a live-in maid or nanny. Other times the nonpartner is someone whos come to perform some other paid
job the proverbial milkman or plumber. Theres also sex
in the home online, via webcam, or over the telephone, as
well as images or objects that enhance a sexual experience
in which no partner is necessary at all. The sex industry
penetrates family residences in many ways and cannot be,
by definition, the familys Other.
Most commentary on how the sex industry is changing
focuses on the Internet, where apart from more conventional business sites, sexual communities form and reform
continuously. Social networking sites like facebook provide spaces where the commercial, the aesthetic and the
activist intersect and overlap, also complicating the traditional divide between selling and buying. Chat and instant
messaging provide opportunities for people to experiment
with sexual identities including commercial ones. Much
of all this is unmeasurable, taking place on sites where
all participants are mixed together, not sorted into categories of buyers and sellers. Statistics on the value of
pornography sold on the Internet focus on sites with catalogues of products for sale, but the sphere of webcams,
271

like peep shows of old, blurs the wobbly line between porn
and prostitution.
Although some (like my colleague Elizabeth Bernstein
2007) claim that sex workers offering girlfriend-like experiences are a manifestation of post-industrial life, I am
not convinced. Sex worker testimonies from many periods
reveal the complexity always waiting to happen when brief
encounters are repeated, when clients seek again someone
with whom they felt a bond as well as a sexual attraction.
Nor am I convinced that the experiences of upper-class
clients patronising courtesans, geishas or mistresses are
inherently different from the socialising of working-class
men and women in treating cultures. Instead, it is clear
that the lines between commercial and non-commercial
sex have always been blurry, and that middle-class marriage is itself an example.
Scholars of sexual cultures wont get far if they follow
dogma that considers marriage to be separate and outside
the realm of investigations of commercial sex. In societies where matchmaking and different sorts of arranged
marriages and dowries are conventional, the link between
payment and sex has been overt and normalised, while
campaigners against both sex tourism and foreign-bride
agencies are offended precisely because they see a moneyexchange entering into what they believe should be pure
relationships. We have too much information now about
non-family forms of love and commitment, non-committed
forms of sex and non-sexual forms of love to hold on to
these arbitrary, mythic divisions, which further oppressive
ideas about sexually good and bad women. We know now
that monogamy is not necessarily better, that paid sex can
be affectionate, that loving couples can do without sex,
272

that married love involves money and that sex involves
work.
I see no postmodern crisis here. Some believe that the
developed West was moving in a good direction after the
Second World War, towards happier families and juster
societies, and that neoliberalism is destroying that. But
historical research shows that before the bourgeoisies advancement to the centre of European societies, with the
concomitant focus on nuclear families and a particular version of moral respectability, loose, flexible arrangements
vis--vis sex, family and sexuality were common in both
upper- and working-class cultures (Agustn 2004) . In
the long run it may turn out that 200 years of bourgeois
family values were a blip on the screen in human history.
Sex, Equality & Money

Understanding professional sex work has not been made
easier by making equality the standard for gender relations. We can only really know whether sexual experiences
are equal if everyone looks and acts the same, which is
not only impossible but repressive of diversity. In sexual
relations, equality projects run into the problem of dissimilar bodies, different ways of exhibiting arousal and
experiencing satisfaction, not to mention differences in cultural background and social status. Those who complain
about other peoples perversity and deviance are accused
in return of being boring adherents of repressive sex.
In terms of the work of sex, we run into a further difficulty vis--vis equality, the clich that sees participants
taking either an active or a passive role and identity. But
273

many people, not just professional sex workers, know that
the work of sex can mean allowing the other to take an
active role and assuming a passive one as well as taking
the active role or switching back and forth. Sometimes people do what they already know they like, and sometimes
they experiment. Sometimes people dont know what they
want, or want to be surprised, or to lose control.
For some critics, the possession of money by clients gives
them absolute power over workers and therefore means
that equality is impossible. This attitude toward money
is odd, given that we live in times when it is acceptable
to pay for child and elderly care, for rape, alcohol and suicide counselling and for many other forms of consolation
and caring. Those services are considered compatible with
money but when it is exchanged for sex money is treated
as a totally negative, contaminating force - this commodification uniquely terrible. Money is a fetish here despite
the obvious fact that no body part is actually sold off in
the commercial sex exchange.
Sex Work & Migrancy

In many places, migrant women and young men do most
of the paid sex work, because:
there are enormous structural inequalities in
the world, because there are people everywhere
willing to take the risk of travelling to work in
other countries and because social networks,
high technology and transportation make it
widely feasible (Agustn 2002). Migrants take
274

jobs that are available, accept lower pay and
tolerate having fewer rights than first-class citizens because those are less important than
simply getting ahead. Even those with qualifications for other jobs, whether as hairdressers
or university professors, are glad to get jobs considered unprestigious by non-migrants. While
many view migrants in low-prestige jobs as absolute victims too constrained by forces around
them to have real agency, social gain or enjoyment, there are other ways to understand them
(Agustn 2003).
Critics hold that migrants who work in private homes
reproduce the social life of their all-powerful employers
but accomplish little on their own behalf. This is strange,
because low-prestige workers who are not migrants are
acknowledged to gain a connection to society, knowledge
of being a useful economic actor and more options because
of having money.
We look at migration as neither a degradation nor improvement . . . in womens position, but as a restructuring
of gender relations. This restructuring need not necessarily be expressed through a satisfactory professional
life. It may take place through the assertion of autonomy
in social life, through relations with family of origin, or
through participating in networks and formal associations.
The differential between earnings in the country of origin
and the country of immigration may in itself create such
an autonomy, even if the job in the receiving country is
one of a live-in maid or prostitute. (Hefti 1997)
275

One of the great contradictions of capitalism is that even
unfair, unwritten, ambiguous contracts can produce active
subjects.
Ways Forward
I have proposed the cultural study of commercial sex
(Agustn 2005), in which scholars are free of the constraints of the traditional study of prostitution, where
ideology and moralising about power, gender and money
have long held primacy. Cultural study does not assume
that we already know what any given sex-money exchange
means but that meaning changes according to specific cultural context. This means we cannot assume there is
a fundamental difference between commercial and noncommercial sex. Anthropologists studying non-western
societies consistently reveal that money and sex exchanges
exist on a continuum where feelings are also present, and
historians reveal the same about the past (for example,
Tabet 1987 and Peiss 1986).
Sex and work cannot be completely disentangled, as the
officers knew and the enlisted man would some day find
out.
Works cited
Laura Agustn. 2005. The Cultural Study of Commercial Sex. Sexualities, Vol 8, No 5, pp 618-631.
_____________ 2004. At Home in the Street: Questioning the Desire to Help and Save. In Regulat-
276

ing Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. E.
Bernstein and L. Shaffner, eds., 67-82. New York:
Routledge Perspectives on Gender.
_____________ 2003. Sex, Gender and Migrations:
Facing Up to Ambiguous Realities. Soundings, 23,
84-98.
____________ 2002. Challenging Place: Leaving
Home for Sex. Development, Society for International Development, Rome, Vol. 45.1, March, 110-16.
Bernstein, Elizabeth. 2007. Temporarily Yours:
Intimacy, Authenticity and the Commerce of Sex.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hefti, Anny Misa. 1997. Globalisation and Migration. Paper presented at European Solidarity Conference on the Philippines, Zurich, 19-21 September.
Peiss, Kathy. 1986. Cheap Amusements: Working
Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York.
Tabet, Paola. 1987. Du don au tarif. Les relations
sexuelles impliquant compensation, Les Temps Modernes, n 490, 1-53.
277
12. Is Housework Soluble

in Love?
Viviane Gonik
This paper discusses two connected yet distinct points: on
the one hand the status and value of domestic and family
activities, and on the other the question of the control of
these activities. While these two points can be thought of
as distinct, it is important to stress the connections and
links between the two.
The problem of housework appears as such with the
beginning of industrialization and the concomitant separation between productive and domestic spaces and times.
For Marx there is on the one hand production work and
on the other the work of reproduction: reproduction of
life and the labour force. This separation is registered in
the sexual division of work and reinforces it: production
work is constituted in a separation from the reproductive
work which historically has been assigned only to women.
Factory work is thought, in its temporality as in its organization, by underlying the separate existence of family and
domestic work: it is work full-time, without interruption,
using physical and mental capacities to the maximum,
since one can rest once back at home.
278

As Danile Kergoat, among others, defines it, the sexual
division of work rests upon the priority assignment of men
to the productive sphere and women to the reproductive
sphere. Productive work is organized according to the
temporality of male workers (who are freed from all family
and domestic concerns), despite the fact that since the
beginning of industrialization women have been present in
waged production. Domestic activities have been relegated
to the private sphere and are unpaid. Viewed from the
market, these activities are neither recognized nor visible:
housework is only visible when not done. Let us recall
that until the 1970s Swiss statistics had a single category
for shareholders, housewives and other inactives.
Are domestic activities differentiated from productive
work only by the fact that they are not paid, or are they of
a different nature? Is it the fact of producing, of transforming nature that defines work (Marx), or is it the framework
of norms and measures in which these activities are inserted which determines the work quality?
This question can be illustrated by thinking through
the example of sexuality: sexual relations with a prostitute (a sex worker, as they define themselves) fit clearly
into the logic of work: there is a contractual negotiation
which defines the time, the conditions and the remuneration. There is also what the Latin-American feminists call
transactional sex, i.e. a sexual relationship associated
explicitly or not with a symbolic or real remuneration.
At the other extreme, there is a sex act which is part of
a relation of desire and affection. In these three cases,
the actions and activities are the same, and it is indeed
the framework in which they fit and the type of relations
279

which result from this which are determinant. The same
applies to child-care or to housework itself.
Domestic and family activities are thus characterized
as tasks carried out in ones own home (or surroundings)
concerning oneself or ones family and unpaid. One could
also add that they are mainly carried out by women. Dominique Mda for instance argues that human activity
has different forms: productive activities (work) which
at the same time aim at producing and obtaining a remuneration. . . . family activities, love, friendship. . . the
logic of which is clearly unrelated to the one of work: the
family community and the relations instituted between
its members differ radically from the relations established
between workers and their boss, the activity is not forced
in the same way, it does not pursue the same goals. (Presentation seminar, Paris 1).
According to this logic one we would describe family activities as more of the order of gift exchange, as described
by Mauss. They would aim, through gifts and countergifts, to develop and maintain social bonds between the
members of a family, which is why it is only when the bond
breaks that one starts [counting], and that one demands
and obtains a form of remuneration (e.g. alimony).
However this apparent separation is problematic since
it supposes the existence of two separate spheres, driven
by irreconcilable logics. It partly obliterates the question
of domination and the social relations of sex, and it naturalizes in a way family activities. The social relations of
sex are constructed in the private as well as in the public and professional spheres. Housework and paid work
cannot be analyzed as two separate entities because they
form a system. The time of wage-earning is placed and
280

conditioned by the time of housework (Hirata and Zarifian) and viceversa. Professional life and family life are
articulated to one another because they participate in the
same logic of relations of sex and of the sexual division of
work. The professional trajectory of women and/or men,
as well as their family trajectories, are thus narrowly dependent on the dominant conceptions concerning relations
between men and women in society.
Productive work does not exist without the incommensurable contribution of reproductive and domestic work.
Enterprises thus valorize this human capital that they
themselves never accumulated, but which they nevertheless regard as forming an integral part of their fixed assets.
This capital was constituted by the common and daily
unpaid activities, which make up the activity of reproducing ones life in an inhabited area. (Dalla Costa, Fortunati,
Gorz)
To end the invisibility and the non-recognition of domestic activities, the feminist movements of the 1970s
strongly asserted its status of work. As D. Kergoat and
H. Hirata write: it then became obvious that an enormous
mass of work is done for free by women, that this work is
invisible, that it is done not for oneself but for others and
always in the name of nature, of love or maternal duty. . . .
as though the fact that it is done by women and only
women was self evident, and that it should be neither
seen nor recognized.
Inspired by the work of Mariarosa Dalla Costa (Italy),
Selma James (England), Silvia Federici (USA), a feminist
movement for wages for housework appeared in Italy, the
USA, England, Switzerland and Germany. With a Marxist
vision of social relations, it demanded wages for this work,
281

in order to show, on the one hand that it is invaluable, on
the other hand to reinforce through this claim the social
power of women, the level of wages reflecting here the
existing balance of forces. The demand for wfh also aimed
to put an end to the capitals theft of womens unpaid labor
and subvert the division capitalism has created within the
workforce through the differential between waged and
unwaged work.
Another feminist current, of a more neo-liberal inclination, seeks to calculate the monetary value of domestic
activities and to include them in the calculation of the
GNP. In this logic, the only light which can reveal this
black and invisible economy is that of the commercial
economy. However, the very nature of this lighting and
its socio-economic vocabulary can only reveal its transformations and the extent of its penetration by capital and
the state. As Louise Vandelac puts it only what is recognizable according to the analytical grid and patterns of
thought of the commercial economy (i.e. similarities and
reductions already effectuated by the dominant economy)
makes visible this shadow economy.
To analyze everything through the grid of the commercial economy implies that it is the only explanatory framework for human activities, and to that extent it partakes
of the neo-liberal ideology, which affirms that the merchant logic must penetrate all aspects of our lives. On
this subject, one can also note that womens desire to
free themselves from part of this work was largely instrumentalized in order to widen the range of consumer goods.
Womens demands encouraged the creation of services and
goods which, on entering the domestic sphere, accelerated
the transformation of work itself. Family work remains
282

free, unpaid, but is more and more expensive. An important part of our wages are used to pay for these products
and services. As Monique Haicaut says: housework thus
becomes increasingly expensive, technical and specialized.
It is increasingly dependant on commercial innovation and
public services.
That brings me to the second point of the article, i.e.
the question of control, the standardization, or even professionalisation of the domestic sphere. Indeed, to accord
domestic activities with commercial logic (spaces of production and/or consumption) it is necessary, exactly as
capital does for paid work, to control productivity and
standardize activities.
From time immemorial, religion [has] codified and controlled social relations and more particularly sexuality.
With the separation of public / commercial and private /
domestic spaces and times, control has been differentiated.
If there is not yet an office of time and methods in private houses, there are various authorities which propose
normative frameworks for domestic activities. From the
19th century on, the medical discourse has replaced little
by little the religious one, always targeting sexuality, but
also the education of children (to fight against the degeneration of the race) and hygiene, as Genevieve Heller
showed in her book Propre en Ordre (trans. Nice and
Tidy ).
In addition, these normative injunctions are directed
first of all towards women. Today, with the diversification of the medical disciplines, the normative discourse is
also conveyed by psychologists, nutritionists, pediatrists,
discourses and rules taken up and dramatised by the media (e.g. TV shows like Super Nanny, My house is dirty).
283

The state too plays a big role, mainly through compulsory
schooling, which imposes a temporal framework, but also
through standards of cleanliness and for education of children. For example: until the 1960s, it was obligatory in
some Swiss cantons for young girls in secondary education
to spend some months doing home economics , while
their male school-fellows did their military service. Let us
note in passing the parallel between service to the nation
and service to the husband, between obedience learned by
training with weapons or with the ironing board.
As I already mentioned, housework has deeply changed:
women must now manage a variety of machines, transport their children for leisure or extra-curricular activities,
juggle with the programs of all the family members. If
manual work has decreased (mending socks, preparing
jams etc.), the organization of space, of activities and family programs has become more and more complex, without
bringing any change in the social relations between sexes.
The sexual division of work is recomposed according to a
sexual semantics which does not show any signs of deep
and durable changes (Mr. Haicaut).
Consequently, one observes a growing porosity between
productive and domestic spaces, or rather an extension of
managerial modes into family and domestic spaces: planning, negotiation, arrangement, establishment of objectives become domestic requirements. The couple has to
be managed. One must have educational objectives for
his/her children, plan ones stocks. Standards of efficiency
and productivity, rules concerning know-how, tend to impose themselves and standardize practices, and thereby
control them.
284

By this extension of commercial and managerial relations to all the aspects of living together, capitalism tries
to force into the market all the human capacities, and
that which still escaped it - the forms of collaboration or
human solidarities which resisted a purely financial or
managerial approach, i.e. the non-profitable (F. Bloch).
In conclusion, the question is how to make housework
recognized without inserting it into commercial, thus controlled, categories. How to obtain recognition for activities
centered on concern for the other and the creation of social
bonds, without having them be analyzed only from the
point of view of the commercial economy, and finally how
to recognize that a great part of human exchanges are
outside market relations? Perhaps it is a question of reconsidering the analyses and social organizations centered
on productive, paid work and an economicistic vision of
the world. This vision has constantly devalued living, noncommodified work. Economists, Marxists as well as neoliberals, when they finally accepted - under the pressure
of the womens movements - the existence of housework,
tried at all costs to see it in relation to the productive
sphere, which remains the only measure of social recognition and power.
How to struggle against social exclusion and the exploitation of this production-reproduction relation? How
to fight so that women do not pay such a scandalous price,
how to fight the poverty and solitude of the mothers, while
avoiding reinforcing a productivist logic, the logic by which
the sexual division of work and male domination were developed? It is a question of putting reproductive work
at the center of the debates and perspectives of alternatives to neo-liberal thought, such as those developed in
285

the networks of the social and solidarity economies? We
must collectively find the means of socializing housework
through associative, co-operative, mixed, self-managed
networks of friends, without becoming exhausted in the
fight for the sharing of tasks on the level of the couple,
and while debating the role of the state. As Gorz says Social relations withdrawn from the influence of value, from
competitive individualism and from commercial exchange
reveal these, by contrast, in their political dimension, as
extensions of the power of capital. This opens up a front
of total resistance to this power. It necessarily overflows
towards new practices of life, consumption, collective appropriation of common spaces and the culture of everyday
life.1
Andr Gorz, conomie de la connaissance, exploitation des savoirs,

Entretien avec Carlo Vercellone et Yann Moulier Boutang, 2004,
Revue Multitudes N15.
286
13. Of Feminists and Their

Cleaning Ladies
Caught Between the Reciprocity of
Care & the Desire for
Depersonalisation
Pascale Molinier
This article was originally published in French
in the journal Multitudes in 2009. To quote
this article: P. Molinier, Of Feminists and their
Cleaning Ladies: caught between the reciprocity
of care and the desire for depersonalisation,
Multitudes 2009/3-4, no. 37-38, p. 113-121.
Housework cannot be reduced to a series of chores. "I was
often surprised to realise that I was lovingly cleaning
the little girls room, and had to say to myself: "Im not
at home," writes Sylvie Esman in an article in which she
analyses her activity as a cleaner. What do the female
employers perceive of this caring aspect of cleaning work?
How do they respond to it? This is one of the main issues
287

that I have tried to explore by bringing together feminist
women who employ cleaners for three three-hour sessions.
According to Teresa de Lauretis, feminists are in an
excentric position in relation to the gender system, in that
they are both outside of it, since they are equipped with a
critical awareness without which feminism would not exist, but also inside it, insofar as no-one can attempt to live,
work and love without a degree of collusion in established
institutions and cultural systems. Gender "sticks to the
skin like a wet silk dress". The analysis of what "resists"
to it not just in terms of men or women who would not
define themselves as feminists forms the basis for exploring the subversive potential of feminism as well as its
capacity to act at an individual or more political level. This
was the gamble that this discussion group was making:
accepting entanglement, embarrassment, privileging "bad
conscience" as an access route to something which is not
normally given public expression. Seen through this prism,
the relationship with the cleaner displays a psychological
tension between the desire to be served without needing to
think about it in which we find what Joan Tronto refers
to as the "irresponsibility of privileged people" and the
desire to create a reciprocal link which "domesticates" this
relationship (see Martin-Palomo, here). This tension is not
specific to the relationship between female employers and
their domestic employees, it interrogates our relationship
with care more widely, in that we all benefit from it.
288
Having a Domestic
The discussion group (formed using the so-called "snowball" method) is very homogenous: 7 women, white and
heterosexual, between 37 and 60 years old with university
educations, most of them intellectuals, some with professional preoccupations connected to female work. The issue
is located on that famous boundary between private and
public life which second wave feminist movements have all
tried to break down. We all know the phrase: the personal
is political. The cleaner comes and applies pressure right
where it hurts: in the contradiction between theory and
practice, between ideals and compromises.
The bitter words of Nadge are a good way of summing
up the situation:
"I hate housework! I really hate household
chores. I think I got a cleaner before my daughter was born. I can see myself pregnant and
opening up an empty fridge. The cleaner was
the answer to the fact that he just wasnt doing anything. It was about getting rid of that
tension."
Pacifying the relationship within a couple is, in this group,
apart from one exception, the main reason for which a
cleaner eventually becomes necessary. Of course, having been brought up with cleaners or nannies helps the
decision to employ one oneself, especially before the children are born. The cleaner is a middle-class solution
to effectively (but never completely) reduce the conflict
with a partner who is reluctant to share the housework.
From this point on, even though the participants claim to
289

strongly resist masculine injunctions of the "youll tell the
cleaner that..." variety, they become responsible for household management and the feeling of unease connected to
it.
"Laid-back" Female Bosses for

Politically Correct Employees
Mat refers to her middle-class mother-in-law and her
"little maids", as she used to call them. What would be
the appropriate model for the feminist boss? Precisely not
to be exploitative, not being a boss. We are all "laid-back
bosses" adds Mat.
The group participants unanimously acknowledge that
housework is a real job. In fact, it is rather paradoxical
to observe that it is more their own work which does not
appear to be considered, in their home, as a "real" job.
Reading a book, writing, is supposedly not seen as such,
be it by their children (who interrupt them while they are
doing it), or, as they suppose, by their cleaners. Unless
they are projecting a sense of embarrassment onto the
latter, of which we might wonder if it is not of a specifically feminine nature: the guilt of being engaged in an
intellectual activity while another woman is carrying out
their household chores? The participants all limit "orders"
and instructions as much as possible. It is sometimes
preferable for the work to be done badly than for it to be
a source of conflict with the employee and of additional
hassle (making a detailed list of chores, checking the work
behind the cleaners back, trying to find a way of convey-
290

ing criticisms without hurting her feelings). They give a
favourable description of situations where the employee
has a level of domestic expertise that is higher than theirs.
This is not just a guarantee of quality work, it also appears to tend to make the relationship more equal, with
each woman having their area of expertise, their "skill".
However, this "equality" remains a relative one, as Audrey
points out:
"She (the cleaner) would rather be doing a different job. If she had stayed in Algeria, she
wouldnt have been doing this job. She invests
a lot in her daughters education, tells me about
what they do, which is the only subject which
she considers me to be an expert on (Audrey is
a teacher). It makes me feel less guilty that it
will stop at her."
Thus, even women who consider housework to be "a real
job" could not ask just anybody to do their cleaning. According to Nadge, some feminists tend to reduce their
sense of unease by employing a male cleaner, a strategy
she views as hypocritical. She justifies herself by calling on the services of an organisation which rehabilitates
women from difficult backgrounds and which guarantees
decent levels of pay and working conditions, while also offering training opportunities and a sense of independence
for both parties.
Elsa relates that a "very liberated Moroccan woman"
usually cleans the family holiday home. Last time, she was
not available. It was necessary to go to a remote village
and fetch her sister, who did not speak French well, wore a
veil and was accompanied by her little eight-year-old sister,
291

both to help her communicate and "probably to keep an
eye on her". "It all depends on the individual and how she
lives her life," comments Elsa, who could not bear to ask
this woman, who for her embodied "total imprisonment",
to do what she would happily ask her "liberated" sister
to do. It is as though too much asymmetry shattered
the possibility of establishing a relationship on a morally
acceptable basis.
The feeling that they are being "exploitative" seems to
depend to a large extent on the representations which the
participants have of their employees social trajectories.
Women being rehabilitated, the daughters of Audreys
employee, the "liberated Moroccan woman" embody supposed forms of social mobility in which doing other peoples
housework is just a moment in a persons or a familys biography. Other situations however are deemed unacceptable
due to a high level of qualification: a Polish woman was
a qualified optician, a woman from Burkina Faso was a
history teacher. Elsa wonders if getting out of the village,
seeing people, would not be beneficial to the "veiled sister".
Her perplexity is interesting: there is no politically correct
profile of the cleaner. Each cleaners situation can only be
evaluated in terms of its singularity, which implies that
first a bond must be created.
In Praise of Transparency
"Id like things to be done the way I want them
but without having to tell her."
"If I have to break down the tasks before she
does it, its more work for me."
292

(Nadge)
"What I wanted: for it to be done without me
and perhaps even for me not to see it..."
(Vronique)
Housework, as we know, if it is well done, should not be
seen and should not disturb the daily life of whoever is benefiting from it, otherwise it has failed. Nadge believes she
currently has the perfect employee. She is "transparent".
"She puts everything back exactly where it was. It must...
take more time...". But more often, employees make themselves visible through a style or objects which carry the
mark of their own aesthetic tastes, of their culture. The
failure of discreet work thus finds its most obvious expression in the error of "bad taste". Mat, having said at
the beginning of the session, "I love this woman, we cook
together, we garden together..." adds:
"But there are some things that bother me. Every year, she goes to Portugal, she brings stuff
back, last time it was a porcelain plate... this
really ugly thing. Now in my kitchen, Ive got
this artwork which a friend of mine made, and
I mean you can think what you want... She
(the cleaner) says: "Were getting rid of this"
and puts the Portuguese plate there instead.
What do we do? We put back our... We ended up
getting rid of the plate. Another time, it was a
little Fatima virgin as a good luck charm, really
ugly. She insists that it be visible. She thinks
its pretty. Its to mark out her territory."
293

Even though Mat fights against it through gestures of
reciprocity and shared tasks, social and cultural asymmetry is brutally expressed in a prejudice which opposes
beauty which can be the object of value judgements and debates (the friends work of art) and ugliness which is given
an irrevocable negative judgement (its ugly) between people who share the same life style and sense of aesthetics
(highly qualified Western women).
It can also happen that the employees initiatives are
met with a positive aesthetic judgement, which then leads
to the sense of a threat of intrusion:
"I had a seat, she thought the material covering
it wasnt very pretty, I was a bit worried as to
how it would turn out, but she brought me a
great piece of (oriental) material and we used
it. Id like it if that didnt happen again. Does
it open up a door? It is our home, after all."
(Audrey)
The participants thus particularly value their employees
discreet know-how. However, their comments highlight an
important point: not only must the work disappear, the
physical person and personality of the employees must
disappear with it. However, any intervention in the world
implies a process of subjectifying activity. To be effective at
your work, you must be as one with your environment, the
subject perceiving his/her surroundings as an extension
of him/herself. Housework, like any other work, requires
this kind of physical appropriation of the environment.
The care which we bring to a domestic space even if it
is not our own is personalised in our own image. The
participants agree in thinking that cleaners act "as they
294

would at home". Hence a major contradiction: to be successful, housework must be discreet, but it cannot be done
without being marked with ones own lifestyle and personal and cultural characteristics. Can it therefore never
fully satisfy those it serves?
Magic Disappearing Powder

In La socit dcente, Margalit also uses the term of "transparency" to discuss the humiliating relationship with indigenous people. He refers to "the magic disappearing
powder which is so to say thrown over the Arabs of the
occupied territories who work in Israel a magic powder
which makes them invisible: A good Arab should work
and not be seen". Here, the territory has not been unduly
occupied - "it is our home, after all". However, for the work
to be appreciated, the person doing it must also disappear. "We expect our servants," Margalit also writes, "to
make the necessary effort for their masters to easily and
safely ignore them." This is what the employee so valued
by Nadge succeeds in doing, her transparency being the
result of a combination of her know-how and of Nadges
absence. We can however wonder whether this depersonalisation of the relationship should not also be connected to
the wearing down which Nadge also mentions: "There is
a cycle with the cleaner from an organisation. She starts
really really well. Once youve got past the second year,
things get progressively worse..." As Elsa points out: "We
can tell that they need to see us. Its not much fun on your
own."
295

In longer term relationships, the presence and the expressions of the employee sometimes cause embarrassment. According to the different stories, they can be experienced as a threat of invasion ("it is our home, after
all") or of fusion-confusion. Thus Elsa refers to "a certain
taking of power over my space," before saying: "She does
the same thing as me. If Im having the bathroom redone,
she does so too, it makes me feel guilty..." Nadge exclaims
with a kind of horror: "Oh shes identifying with you! But
I would find that very worrying!"
Vronique remembers a past situation where she "took
advantage of moving house" to "let go" a woman who was
doing the housework and looking after her children. "She
was an isolated woman," she says. "Her solitude was
handy for me..." Vronique then corrects this initial picture: "But thats not true! There was a man she was
living with. This man died, she resented the fact that I
didnt go to his funeral." "It was heavy, a real weight," says
Vronique to describe the period during which this woman
already knew that she "wouldnt be coming along." "What
was oppressive was feeling more or less mean for not bringing her along, for not continuing a relationship which had
lasted ten years. For not giving her all my recognition,
for letting her go." But at the same time, "letting her go
was a relief.... She was always promoting what she had
done. She loved my parents, my parents-in-law.... She
resented me. She was angry not to be the nanny of my
third child, as she was for the previous two, she saw it as
an initial betrayal." Vronique then recounts how, when
her first-born was a baby, when she came home from work
she would ask if things had gone well: "yes, yes." Many
years later, the employee revealed that in reality the child
296

would cry for very long periods of time. "I understand the
fact that she didnt say anything because she needed this
job, but if I had known... I could have explained things
differently to the child..." "She was a bit shifty," she concludes, "an image which gets a bit fuzzy, a personality you
cant get a hold of..." Vroniques story reveals an opacity:
a psychological thickness, motives which you arent aware
of, a presence which "weighs you down", "a kind of hold on
you", she adds.
We cannot say that the desire for the employee to disappear as a person is the product of a will to humiliate
her in order to subject her, as is the interpretation in
traditional analyses of relationships between master and
servant, colonised and coloniser. However, we do in fact
observe depersonalisation and isolation here, two major
traits of the "all-purpose maid condition" which was theorised in the 1950s by the psychiatrist Louis Le Guillant
for whom this condition illustrated "with particular force
the psychological and psychopathological mechanisms connected to these elements of the human condition which
are servitude and domination."
Depersonalisation consists, in Margalits terms, in creating the conditions which allow you "not to see people in
detail", to neutralise the expressions of their individuality,
as though they were part of the scenery. The desire that
the employee make herself transparent sends us back to
an unconscious wish which Jean Cocteau poetically rendered in La Belle et la Bte: the wish for a subjectless
care in which servants are reduced to candelabra arms or
hands pouring jugs, a faceless availability which does not
expect any reciprocity.
297

On two occasions, the group participants dwelled on
their cyclical irritation with the symmetrical ordering of
objects cushions arranged in a row, ornaments placed at
four corners of a table, a rug folded into a square. This ordering upsets and contests the bo-bo aesthetic of a falsely
neglected, destructured space. We might see here nothing
more than anecdotal evidence of the irreducibility of class
relations. However, if we agree to grant these statements
the same level of importance as the participants themselves did, we find ourselves faced with a real theoretical
difficulty: the very particular scene on which domestic antagonisms are played out: the house in that it is the body,
the psychic space, which interrogates "the close relationship between the order of things in the world we live in
and the internal structure of this order". A good employee
is therefore one who does not upset the psychic order of
things.
At home: this term should be considered as a key concept
in the analysis of the sharing of domestic care. Employees want to "mark out their territory". This metaphor
can be understood as particularly pejorative, as if domestic employees were animals. But we can also think that
"territory" hearkens back, for the employer as well, to archaic dimensions which are connected to the preservation
of ones own integrity. As we have already pointed out,
fantasies about threats of intrusion and confusion were
clearly expressed in the group.
As Margalit stresses, "humiliation does not require a humiliator," and we do not know how the employees perceive
and feel about the "magic disappearing powder" strategies
adopted by their "cool" employers. For Le Guillant, the
maids resentment was integral to their condition, and we
298

can wonder if irritation and the feeling of being invaded
are not integral to the psychic centrality of "living in a
space". Things would always heat up, and on both sides.
The expression of the excessive presence of the employees
takes on cultural forms due to their social origin. The
employers irritation is then tinged with condescendence,
with class and racial judgements, even if they claim it is
not.
Where Domination Softens

The care in the work carried out by the employee is expressed with more or less success and discretion in the
care she lavishes on the domestic environment. But who
is taking care of her? Care, taken as the attentiveness of
the employer to her employee, stands in contradiction to
the desire for depersonalisation and this tension underlies
most of the relationships described by the participants.
Care, attentiveness, are expressed in gifts exchanged, in
gestures of reciprocity, of prohibition or sharing of unpleasant tasks. Several participants also describe ritualised
reciprocity strategies, such as coffee, sometimes served by
the employer, whether it is drunk together or separately
depending on the situation.
The dimension of caring for the other is explicit in the
attentive tone of Elsas comments, the only one who refers
to her cleaner using her first name. She describes a very
close and emotional bond. "When she says your sofa is
rotten, I listen to her. Her shoulders hurt, Im worried
about her future, shes 54 years old but shes in bad shape,
I try to find work thats not too hard for her." Elsa refers
299

to the transformation of her home as being connected to
care, to attentiveness tinged with affection. "Its done with
loads of care, with a professional conscience. Its endearing.
She tries to leave her aesthetic imprint on my home." The
domestic employees work is then fully acknowledged in
its aesthetic and ethical dimensions: creating a pleasant
environment so that people can live well within it (see also
Audreys oriental sofa). The interpretation in terms of an
"endearing" feeling, of small details which could be irritating objects that have been moved or arranged differently
suggests that Elsa also admits that her interior space
bears the personalised mark of Rachida, as she seems to
accept a certain permeability between their personal lives
without (too much) fear of confusion: imitation in works
done to the home. Finally, Elsa describes a relationship
in which what remains an enigma to her is precisely the
emotional implication on both sides of a relationship in
which each individual feels responsible for the other. "Ive
often thought," she adds, "that since I live alone, if anything were to happen to me she would be the person who
found me."
Whereas, for Nadge, the moral conflict of "exploitation"
is solved by using an organisation and by her low level
of domestic requirements, in the relationship between
Rachida and Elsa it seems that the moral conflict is always ready to be reactivated in concrete situations where
the limits of what it is acceptable to require or to do are
renegotiated. Elsa tells the story of having asked Rachida
one day to serve in a baptism that was bringing together
forty pieds-noirs from her family. The origin of the guests
made the situation more servile, which was the reason
for an initial refusal which Elsa managed to overcome
300

by suggesting they serve the guests together. Elsa also
suggests that is would not always be easy to evaluate
why a task is experienced as more difficult or servile than
others. Rachida does not like cleaning brass, especially
the outside handle of the door, because, according to Elsa,
this is perceived as "extravagant" and not simply useful
work. Elsa thus implies that she understands that "extravagant" work could be humiliating. The participants
emit an additional hypothesis: it may not just be because
the door handle is made of brass that the employee is reluctant to clean it, but also because it is located outside
the apartment. People can see her doing the devalued job
of a cleaning lady, which would increase the humiliation.
If Its Mummy...
The dilemma of the "letting go" recounted by Vronique
and Elsas story both suggest that the employer-employee
relationship is only bearable in the long-term if it is "domesticated", if it becomes emotional and moral. Regarding
her works in the bathroom, Elsa comments:
"These are works which everyone always postpones, you need an impulse to do it, so at the
end of the day its a good thing. Shes also doing
that to fight against the same things as me, to
fight against subservience. She also often compares me to her son. So when she puts my little
cushions on my bed, when usually theyre all
over the place, that endears me. If its mummy
then theres no more issue of subservience."
301

"To deal with the issue of exploitation, we introduce a
family relationship, which avoids making us feel guilty,"
adds Elsa. "If its mummy" however hides the fact that
the "mummies" could also be exploited by their children!
We also love our mothers because they serve us discreetly,
and we hate them, especially as teenagers, when they do
not respond ideally to the confused and contradictory web
of our expectations. Joan Tronto is right to criticise the
reduction of all care situations to the mythical one of the
mother-child dyad. The concealment of the care work in
maternal love nevertheless constitutes the main matrix
for fantasies of unlimited availability which underpin the
requests made by the beneficiaries of care to its purveyors.
And the perspective of care would in fact probably not
have emerged without the exasperation of some mothers
rebelling against the naturalness of their position as a
subordinate in their own family.
The Uncanniness of the Ordinary

Male resistance to the sharing of housework is not confronted through to the end by the women in this group,
but strategically worked around by employing a subordinate woman. The recourse to female domestic help in
order to avoid having a domestic is part of a displacement
activity which allows the woman to maintain her feminist
posture in an individualistic feminism, but without any
social change, by upholding a culture which continues to
favour men and implies the supply of a non-qualified female workforce. Even if they sometimes argue against
this, the participants know it, just as much as they know
302

what kind of model they are passing on to their children.
And the "wet silk" continues to stick to their skin. Whether
the connection is gotten rid of in favour of an impersonal
register (Nadge) or overinvested with a pseudo-filial register (Elsa), in both cases, the opportunities to reflect on
ones own compromising with the gender, class and colonial heritage system are reduced. For, if colonial history
inevitably "weighs" on the relationship between the daughter of pieds-noirs and the Moroccan woman, it is one of
the invisible linchpins around which are constructed most
of the domestic employer and employee relationships in
France today. In the discussion group, all the women in
fact spoke only of women coming from the third world
or from European countries that are poorer than France:
Portugal and Poland.
From taking notes to interpreting them, throughout
this work, I felt an enduring feeling of insecurity and
scepticism in the face of this "evanescence of the real", a
reality that is so close and quotidian that we could relate
it to what Stanley Cavell calls "the uncanniness of the
ordinary". This strangeness is doubtless better served
by cinema and literature, whether we think of La Porte
by Magda Sazbo or of the short stories of Grace Paley.
But what of it in terms of a psychological or sociological
analysis? What is the point, for example, of noting that Dominique had to give up on using environmentally friendly
cleaning products, because the cleaner refused to use them
on the basis that she had to scrub harder? This fading
in itself constitutes an important data of this incursion
into the domestic world. On the condition that we take
care seriously, the question is: How can we be environmentally conscious without worsening the musculo-skeletal
303

problems of the cleaning lady? More widely, what theoretical framework can we use to formulate in a pertinent or
significant manner the issues raised by care? As Sandra
Laugier points out, care does not invite us to reveal the
invisible, but rather to see the visible, the one that is just
there, right under our nose. To take it into account ethically and politically. Now that these products under the
sink and this burnished brass ball on our entrance door
have been defamiliarised, are we going to be able to see
them more... precisely?
S. Esman, faire le travail domestique chez les
autres , Travailler, 2002, 8:45-72. The investigation
was carried out together with Valrie Moreau, an
occupational psychologist.
T. de Lauretis, Thorie queer et cultures populaires,
Paris, La Dispute, 2007 (see chapter "La technologie du genre"). All first names have been changed.
Audrey describes a couple which shares household
chores equally, but where the cleaner is necessary
due to this reconstitued familys five children. Some
women (same profile) have told me that they gave up
on employing a cleaner because they would clear up
and clean everything before she came.
F. Behle, B. Milkau, De la manivelle lcran.
Lvolution de lexprience sensible des ouvriers lors
des changements technologiques. Paris, Eyrolles,
1998.
S. Esman (op. cit.) notes: Two expressions which I
often hear sum up this ambiguity: "Do like you do
for yourself" and "put yourself in my position..."
304

A. Margalit, 1996, La socit dcente, Paris, Flammarion 2007. Using the "magic disappearing powder" also means leaving before the cleaner arrives,
so that one neither has to see her nor speak to her,
a strategy which was employed by several members
of the group. The third being domestics resentment
which supposedly generates a "swallowed hatred".
Vroniques story suggests her former employees resentment.
L. Le Guillant, 1957, Incidences psychopathologiques de la condition de bonne--tout-faire , re-ed.
in Le drame humain du travail, Toulouse, Eres, 2006.
For example through wearing a uniform. Translators Note: The term "bo-bo" ("bourgeois-bohme") is
commonly used in France to designate members of
a social class that lays claim to a bohemian lifestyle,
while in fact tending to be relatively well off financially.
R. Kuhn, Lerrance comme problme psychopathologique ou dmnager , Prsent Henri Maldiney,
Lausanne, Lge dHomme, 1973. It is a question of
know-how, but not just that. In Nathalie Kupermans
novel, Jai renvoy Marta (Folio, 2005), the heroines
madness starts when she employes a cleaner who,
as well as various other coincidences, has the same
name as her grandmother and her daughter. Translators Note: The term "pieds-noirs" refers to French
nationals who were born in Algeria during the period
of its colonisation by France.
305

See Lise Gaignard, in A plusieurs voix autour de
Teresa de Lauretis , Mouvements, 57, 2009, p. 148154.
306

& the Enraged Mothers & Farmers of
Japan
Todos Somos Japon
New York, September 20111
Our thoughts should go especially to the women
of Japan who, we are told, are those who are
most strongly opposed to the government propaganda about patriotism and sacrifice. We understand they are struggling to resist this suicidal
logic, which demands their families consume
radioactive products to show the world that all
is well in this country and a nuclear disaster
is something we can live with. Their struggle
is our struggle and their resistance needs our
support.
Silvia Federici.
1
Todos Somos Japon is a project of network building, of creating a

current in and out of Japan, to support Japanese activists and
movements and for a new association of the struggling people of
the world.
307

The following is an edited version of the presentations
that women activists in Japan have made at the American
Friends Center in New York, on September 22, 2011, to
denounce the situation that has developed in their country following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, and the refusal of the Japanese government and TEPCO, the electric
power company that owns the nuclear plants, to evacuate
and relocate the people exposed to radiation, except for
those in the immediate vicinity of the reactors.
The decision to come to the US was prompted by the
yearly convening of the General Assembly of the United
Nations which the President of Japan is attending. The
women knew that he would come to reassure the world
that everything is fine in Japan and decided to come too,
to tell their stories and bring their demands for relocation
and reliable information to a broader stage.
They have come to denounce that they are trapped, that
they have been abandoned by the government and TEPCO,
and have no money to move, do not know where to go, do
not know what will happen to them, living in a place where
every day they and their family are exposed to very high
levels of radiation. On the same day of their presentation,
the mothers also held a demonstration in front of the UN,
to protest the curtain of silence that has been drawn on
their plight and alert the public to the dangers of nuclear
power.
History
On March 2011, the nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi plant were stricken by an earthquake and a tsunami.
308

Immense amounts of radioactive materials have since traveled throughout Northeast Japan. The land and people
have been contaminated. But many residents in the area
were told that they did not have to evacuate as everything was alright and they could carry on with their lives.
Rather than doing the utmost to guarantee the safety of
the population, in the wake of the disaster, the Japanese
government has raised the maximum limit of radiation
considered safe from 1mSv (millesieverts) to 20mSv - note
that after Chernobyl the maximum limit adopted for exposure was 5mSv. This new measure allows children who
are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation to be exposed to doses 20 times higher than the normal standard.
Changing the maximum limit of safe radiation exposure
has served originally to claim that only those within a
12 miles distance from the reactors should be evacuated.
Later the area to be evacuated was expanded to a radius
of 20 KM (12,5 miles) on April 22. But the problem is far
more dramatic than these measures acknowledge. The
effects of radiation are being felt as far as Tokyo, 150 miles
away from Fukushima, where apparently the water system is now contaminated; so are the aquifers of a large
area around Fukushima. And the economic consequences
of the nuclear disaster affects an even broader range of
people.
One of the women activists who testified at the American Friends gathering, Yukiko Anzai, told us, for instance,
that she is from the island of Hokkaido, which is 630 KM
from Fukushima, but her familys life has been hugely impacted by the disaster. She and her husband are organic
farmers and during the winter they keep their bees near
Fukushima, so now they must throw away all the honey
309

they have produced because it is contaminated. They also
feed their chickens with fishmeal, but now fear that this
too is contaminated, which in, her view, means the end of
Japanese agriculture.
The government is not helping, neither financially nor
logistically, those who need to relocate. They would still
have to pay taxes on their homes, they have no place to go,
no guarantee about their future. Thus, of the 300.000 children in Fukushima area only 3.000 have been evacuated.
Some were able to leave in the summer but now they have
to come back to go to go to school, despite the fact that the
buildings are contaminated.
The government has withheld information concerning
the levels of contamination present in the waters, the
fisheries, the soil, the air, the food. Instead of providing reliable figures, it has made repeated appeals to patriotism
urging people living near Fukushima to carry on with their
lives and even continue to eat this areas produce. They
have issued a leaflet To Respond to Pregnant Women and
Mothers with Small Children with Anxiety Towards The
Effects of Radiation, where with pretty-colored illustrations and texts they advise women that water is safe to
drink and even if they eat contaminated food it will have
no health effects. Their breast milk will be completely
safe for nursing, and if they get too anxious about the
radiation this will have negative effects on their babies.
Authorities are also coming down on people who tell the
truth. A teacher said that she talked about the radiation
to her students; but she was called by the principal and
told that she had to stop right away or she would lose her
job. She also reported that when one of her colleagues
wanted to evacuate his family the other teachers yelled at
310

him, and after he left they kicked his desk, and from then
on he was completely ostracized.
People, however, have not remained passive. After the
accident, activists in Japan contacted the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and asked them what they had done
to protect themselves, receiving. useful suggestions e.g.
about which food stuff to eat, how to monitor their movements. Women have been in the forefront. Faced with this
crisis, Fukushima mothers have been mobilizing to survive through everyday life, and protect their families, not
wanting to see their children die of contamination. They
are raising their voice against the government and TEPCO
[demanding a] wider evacuation effort and compensation
for the homes they have to abandon. And they are taking
their Geiger Counters in hand to monitor the radioactivity
[levels] on their own, despite the governments attempt to
discredit their findings. A mother cried in the face of the
officials [telling] them to eat the bag of contaminated soil
she brought from a schoolyard where her children play.
As the government is doing nothing to help, people are
trying on their own to decontaminate some places, like
the schools for the children. But because the environment
is so radioactive, the areas cleaned up soon become contaminated again. Now many mothers in Tokyo and other
groups all over Japan are checking food, they check the
urine, to test level of radiation. They found that many
people have already been internally affected. With this
monitoring they have also found that evacuation helps,
because after being away from the contaminated area, the
radiation level in the body goes down.
However, throughout the Fukushima area, families and
communities are torn apart, as those who have decided
311

to remain look at the others who move as traitors who
are putting their lives in jeopardy by telling the world
that the food produced at Fukushima is not safe. Often
the same family is split, as the women usually do all
they can to move or at least send their children away,
while the husbands want to remain. Many families are
divided not only emotionally but physically, as women
and children leave, coming back only once a month. And
the mothers who remain are also torn, between believing
the safety myths the government promotes and facing
the day to day threats posed by the invisible radiation
that is contaminating, their bodies, their environments
and peoples minds. Should I evacuate or should I stay?
Should I eat or not eat? Should I make my kids wear
masks and long sleeves or not? Should I let my kids play
outdoor? Should I raise my voice or keep my mouth shut?
These are questions every mother is constantly asking.
Meanwhile, no solution is in sight for how to deal with
the exploded reactors, the ongoing escape of radioactive
gasses, and the outflow of the waters used to cool the
reactors into the sea. At best there is talk of excavating a
trench around the plants, so the radioactive material does
not spread into the environment. Still, the government
is urging people to carry on business as usual. There
is even evidence that radioactive sludge produced by the
Fukushima reactor is being sold to fertilizer companies,
which means that the contamination is bound to spread
throughout the country and it will be even more difficult
for the inhabitants of the Fukushima area to validate their
claims. Also, it seems that the Japanese Government is
now planning to send products from Fukushima area to
third world countries under the guise of food aid.
312

As of now only 11 nuclear plants are operating of the
54 that had been operating in Japan, as dozens were shut
down after the incident because of their similarity with
the one in Fukushima. But now TEPCO wants to restart
some, despite the fact that the causes of the accidents have
not been properly investigated. Fukushimas mothers and
an anti-nuclear organization that was formed after the
accident are doing everything they can to stop it. They
have sat in front of the government offices. But on August
17th, a company rep deceptively claimed they had received
the approval from a local community for the reopening of
a plant (Tomari 3) [local governments in Japan have the
ability to block nuclear facilities restarts]. This is because
of the great amount of corruption that exists at the higher
levels of the Japanese Government and business, and the
revolving door principle whereby government officers and
TEPCO officers are tied by many threads and complicity
agreements, also extending to the academic world, the
scientists, the media, members of the judiciary. Thus,
in July the government passed a law to help TEPCO to
avoid bankruptcy, while the victims of the accident have no
relief, no guarantee for their future, and have to organize
their own evacuations. Colonial relations and militarism
are also part of the problem. There are 135 US bases in
Japan, for which Japan itself pays a considerable amount
of money. In fact, Japan pays two billion dollars just
for Okinawa, the same amount it has allocated for the
decontamination of the area around Fukushima. And now
the government is talking of spending one billion dollars
to fix fighter jets that need to be repaired.
There are many in Japan who now believe that TEPCO,
the Government officers who ignored safety standards, and
313

all those responsible for the disaster and for withholding
information should be tried for crimes against humanity,
in fact, for crimes against all living things.
314
15. Fukushima: A Call for

Womens Leadership
Ariel Salleh1
On 11 March 2011, the Fukushima nuclear electricity plant in Japan was hit by a powerful
earthquake and tsunami. An undetermined
land area remains uninhabitable; thousands
of people are trying not to breathe, touch, eat
or drink, the toxic levels of radiation in their
environment. It is believed that BHP Billitons
Olympic Dam and Rio Tintos Ranger mine exported uranium from Australia to this reactor.
Now, confusion and anger, sickness, and disability, will mark many Japanese lives for years to
come.2
Over 80,000 people have been forced to abandon their homes. Thousands of people are now
without a livelihood or the hope, in the near
1
Ariel Salleh is a researcher in Political Economy at the University

of Sydney; longtime Science for People activist; and writer on
eco-political matters: www.arielsalleh.info
Jim Green, Fukushima: The Political Fallout in Australia, Chain
Reaction, No. 112.
315

future, of rescuing one. Compensation claims
are certain to be well over $100 billion; rebuilding of infrastructure and housing will cost at
least $200 billion. Then theres the cost of clearing over 20 million tonnes of rubbish, some of
it radioactive, and the cost of securing and decommissioning the stricken reactors over the
coming decades. Add to this the relocation of
people and factories and the settling of injury
and health issues, and the cost of this disaster
will be in the neighbourhood of $450 billion, just
a little under 10% of Japans GDP. There are
an estimated 1,000 corpses too radioactive to
retrieve. Even when they are, who will cremate
or bury them, and where?3
Fukushima was a civilian incident, but nuclear
power and military weapons are joined in the
global production system. After World War II,
occupied Japan would enter an economic boom
as chemical weapons were converted into pesticides for farms and nuclear know-how turned
into power for cities.4
Roger Pulvers, Japan after its Triple Disaster of 2011, The Science
Show, ABC Radio National, 23 July 2011 (accessed 7 August 2011).
4
The military-industrial complex is the worlds foremost environmental polluter. Michael Renner, Assessing the militarys war on the
environment in L. Brown et al. (eds.), State of the World Report,
New York: Norton, 1991.
316
Who is Served by Denial?

I started thinking seriously about nuclear radiation in
1976 after hearing a talk by the Australian pediatrician
Dr Helen Caldicott. A mother myself, and worker in Aboriginal communities at the time, within days I was helping
set up a Sydney branch of the Movement Against Uranium Mining and within months we had 100,000 people
marching down George Street. For a while, the Australian
Labor Party spoke with the peoples voice, but its political
will gave way eventually to the mining lobby. In the US,
Caldicotts efforts at public education were also targetted
through the energy cartels media outlets. As she points
out in a recent letter to the New York Times, the nuclear
industry can only survive by misleading the public.5
Physicists talk of a permissible dose of radiation, but
biologists know there is no such thing. The fact is that
radiation damage in the body takes time to reveal itself.
Nuclear denial takes place in private and public sectors. Installation accidents at Windscale in Cumberland,
UK, 1957, and at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, US,
1979, were largely contained by public relations expertise.
Following the meltdown at Chernobyl, USSR, 1986, an
embarrassed Soviet government failed to guide its citizens with health advice. Caldicott observes that today,
both Belarus and the Ukraine have group homes full of
deformed children. After the Chernobyl cloud crossed
Turkey, leaders were so determined not to panic the peo5
Helen Caldicott, Unsafe at Any Dose, New York Times, 30 April

2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html (accessed 11 August 2011).
317

ple that relevant information was censored. Doctors who
helped mothers terminate pregnancies were jailed, and
journalists who tried to report this, were jailed too.
In terms of cancer outcomes, Peter Karamoskos, a nuclear radiologist, and medical doctor Jim Green, offer the
following assessment of Chernobyl.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a
total collective dose of 600,000 Sieverts over 50 years from
Chernobyl fallout. A standard risk assessment from the
International Commission on Radiological Protection is
0.05 fatal cancers per Sievert. Multiply those figures and
we get an estimated 30,000 fatal cancers.
But they go on to add that:
In circumstances where people are exposed to low-level
radiation, studies are unlikely to be able to demonstrate
a statistically significant increase in cancer rates. This is
because of the statistical noise in the form of widespread
cancer incidence from many causes, the longer latency
period for some cancers, limited data on disease incidence,
and various other data gaps and methodological difficulties.6
Formulae for calculating nuclear casualties vary, but
the problem of denial is a constant.7 Since the Fukushima
meltdown, Japanese citizens have become increasingly
6
Peter Karamoskos and Jim Green, Do We Know the Chernobyl

Death Toll?", Chain Reaction, 2011, No. 112, 23.
The Australian firms, Toro Energy, Uranium One, and Heathgate
Resources have sponsored lecture tours by scientists who dismiss
public concerns about radiation. Peter Karamoskos, Radiating
Risk and Undermining Public Health, Online Opinion, 13 December 2010: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11358
(accessed 13 August 2011).
318

disturbed by an absence of transparency from both the
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and government
officials. And neither the World Health Organisation, nor
International Atomic Energy Agency, has provided women
with information about radiation exposure effects on their
reproductive function.8
If anything, dis-information is order of the day. A Wall
Street Journal article quotes Genichiro Wakabayashi from
Kinki Universitys atomic-energy research institute, claiming that wearing masks or staying indoors during summer
will harm children more than radiation will.9
So too, Japanese people have been encouraged to support their country by eating local produce. Yet as Roger
Pulvers tells us:
No one knows how badly the sea around
Fukushima has been contaminated, and we
are only beginning to assess the effect that
radiation has had on the land. Several hundred
kilograms of tainted beef from Fukushima have
been sold to markets as far away as Kagoshima
on the southern island of Kyushu. This beef
has registered up to 2,300 becquerels of radioactive caesium per kilo, more than five times
the government-set safety limit. 648 head of
cattle in Fukushima, Yamagata and Niigata
Prefectures have eaten contaminated straw. It
8
Whitney Graham and Elena Nicklasson, Maternal Meltdown from

Chernobyl to Fukushima, Global Movement for Children, San
Francisco, 26 April 2011: (accessed 11 August 2011).
9
Mariko Sanchanta and Mitsuri Obe, Moms Turn Activists in
Japanese Crisis, Wall Street Journal, 17 June 2011 (accessed
11 August 2011).
319

has been shown that the feed itself contained
up to 57,000 becquerels of radioactive material
per kilogram.10
Oppression is Economic and Cultural

The self-interest of those who deny nuclear risk is both
capitalist (economic) and patriarchal (cultural).11 Psychological denial protects a structural hierarchy of wealth,
power, and bonding opportunities between men. But near
the lower rungs of this narrow ladder of rewards stand
youth, indigenous peoples, and housewives the others of
neoliberalism and its hegemonic masculinity. These others exist in direct contradiction to the military-industrial
complex, and they each bring complementary insights and
skills to its political transformation. However, my focus
in this essay is on women, mothers, housewives, many
of whom are also indigenous, giving double-strength to
their political work. People whose labour sustains human
bodies and links to natural habitat prioritize social reproduction over economic production. This observation gives
rise to a distinct political analysis known as eco-feminism.
It emerged fifty years ago, from thinkers and activists on
every continent, and the nuclear question was central to
it.12
10
Pulvers, op. cit.

Chigaya Kinoshita, The Shock Doctrine of Japanese Type:
Neoliberalism and the Shadow of America, 29 May 2011,
http://www.jfissures.org/: (accessed 14 August 2011).
12
The section that follows draws on Ariel Salleh, Ecofeminism as
Politics: Nature, Marx, and the Postmodern, London/New York:
11
320

What is unique about womens resurgence in ecological struggle is how they combined it with their
self-understanding as women. Their focus on pollution
was both inner and outer, personal and political. Women
demeaned by mens objectification of their femininity
felt a need to purify and rebuild a self-identity on their
own terms. Ecofeminists rejected what they saw as 3,000
thousand years of mal-development in the social construction of sex-gender relations. Their political activity
went hand-in-hand with attention to psychological growth
in mutually supportive consciousness-raising sessions.
This revolutionary strategy is a profound existential
commitment. And women would come to be disappointed
to find so few environmentalist brothers entering into a
parallel reflection on selfhood under the predatory model.
After a short review of the formative years of this radical resistance, I will touch on the rise of management
environmentalism and its cultivation of liberal feminists,
before coming home again to the urgent situation in Japan.
The Birth of Ecological Feminism

In the US, as far back as 1962, law suits against the corporate world were coming out of the kitchens of mothers and
grandmothers - Mary Hays v Consolidated Edison, Rose
Gaffney v Pacific Gas, Jeannie Honicker v Nuclear ReguZed Books, 1997, chapter 2. For sources on Japanese ecofeminism:
Keitaro Morita, For a Better Environmental Communication: A
Materialist Ecofeminist Analysis of Global Warming, Rikkyo University, Tokyo: www.eca.usp.br/caligrama/english/06_keitaro.pdf
321

latory Commission, Kay Drey v Dresden Nuclear Power
Plant, Dolly Weinhold v Nuclear Regulatory Commission
at Seabrook.13
Japanese women were also foot soldiers in campaigns
against local pollution. One, Ishimure Michiko founded
the Citizens Congress on Minamata Disease Countermeasures in 1968. Others set up the path-breaking producerconsumer cooperative known as the Seikatsu Club - which
economic model would grow to some 200,000 or more members.14 Parisian writer Francoise dEaubonnes book, Le
feminisme ou la mort, and US Democratic Socialist Rosemary Ruethers New Woman: New Earth gave early intellectual impetus to ecofeminism. A conjectural history
of the self-deforming practices of western mastery was
drawn. If the Greek word oikos was etymological root of
both ecology and economics - the latter had lost its way.
In 1974, the unquiet death occurred of whistleblower
Karen Silkwood, a unionist at Kerr-McGees Oklahoma
plutonium processing factory. In 1975, women blockaded
land clearing for construction of a nuclear reactor at Wyhl
in Germany. More than economic loss of vineyards, they
said, it was a matter of our human-being-in-nature. By
1976, in Australia, women Friends of the Earth in Brisbane were conferencing on women and ecology, and some
taking a co-ordinating role in the new Movement Against
13
Dorothy Nelkin, Nuclear Power as a Feminist Issue, Environment,

1981, Vol. 23; Mary Goebel Noguchi, The Rise of the Housewife
Activist, Yomiuri Shimbun, 1992, July/September.
14
Mike Danaher, On the Forest Fringes?: Environmentalism, Left
Politics and Feminism in Japan, Transformations, 2003, No. 6.
http://transformations.cqu.edu.au/journal/issue_06/pdf/danaher.pdf
322

Uranium Mining. Even the mainstream womens magazines were printing pieces on women and the anti-nuclear
issue. In 1977, a consciousness-raising group Women of
All Red Nations (WARN) emerged among tribal Indians
in South Dakota. They were especially worried about
weapons tests, aborted and deformed babies, leukaemia
and involuntary sterilisation among their people.15
Women circulated articles on artificial needs and consumerism, animal exploitation for cosmetic manufacture,
recycling, indigenous health, and of course, uranium.16
Separatist anti-nuclear groups were established in Australia - Women Against Nuclear Energy (WANE) in the
eastern states, and a Feminist Anti Nuclear Group (FANG)
in the west. Womens ecology collectives started up in
Paris, Hamburg and Copenhagen, and ads for feminist organic farming communes appeared on every noticeboard.
Susan Griffins Woman and Nature: the Roaring Inside
Her was published in 1978. Elizabeth Dodson Grays Green
Paradise Lost followed in 1979. Each author in her own
way described the self-alienation of the andro-centric egoconstruct; the obsession with control of other peoples, the
fascination with militarism, and its counterpart in instrumental logic and scientific calculation. Women wanted
nothing less than a new language, reintegrating reason
and passion.17
In the late 70s, the US League of Women Voters began
lobbying for a moratorium on nuclear plant construction
15
Carolyn Merchant, Earthcare, Environment, 1981, Vol. 23.

Friends of the Earth, Chain Reaction, 1978, Vol. 3, No. 4.
17
Susan Griffin, Woman and Nature: the Roaring Inside Her, New
York: Harper, 1978; Elizabeth Dodson Gray, Green Paradise Lost,
Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press, 1979.
16
323

licences; the YWCA initiated an anti-nuclear education
campaign; while the National Organisation of Women
(NOW) instituted a National Day of Mourning for Silkwood. A further group - Dykes Opposed to Nuclear Technology (DONT), organised a New York conference on the
energy crisis a patriarchally generated pseudo-problem,
and a Women and Technology Conference was held in Montana the same year. Delphine Brox-Brochot of the Bremen
Greens called for an end to high-tech aggrandisment while
millions around the world still starve. Everywhere in the
so called developed world, womens political lobbies and
protests over effects on workers and children of pesticides
and herbicides, of formaldehyde in furniture covers and
insulation, of carcinogenic nitrate preservatives in foods,
of lead glazes on china, were gaining momentum. But
there was a weary road ahead - to quote Joyce Cheney:
I am annoyed that I feel forced to deal with the
mess the boys have made of the earth. It is a
hard enough struggle to survive and to build
and maintain a life-affirming culture....18
In 1980, a collective called Women Opposed to Nuclear
Technology (WONT) organised a Women and Anti-Nuclear
Conference in Nottingham, UK. Women in Solar Energy
(WISE) began meeting in Amherst, Massachusetts, and
Ynestra King mounted the first Women and Life on Earth
Conference. By November 1981 a 2,000 strong body of
women marched on the US capital, symbolically encircling
the Pentagon. By now, Helen Caldicott, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, had started a Womens
18
Joyce Cheney, The Boys Got Us into This Mess, Commonwoman,

1979, quoted by Nelkin, op. cit. p.38.
324

Party for Survival in the US, with some 50 state and
local chapters. This was subsequently broadened to become Americans for Nuclear Disarmament.19 In India,
the Manushi collective published their influential piece
Drought: God Sent or Man Made Disaster?20
Historian of science Carolyn Merchants classic The
Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific
Revolution began to make itself felt in academic circles
from this time on.21 By the mid 80s, the following networks were operating in the US: Lesbians United in
Non-Nuclear Action (LUNA) v Seabrook Reactor; Church
Women United; Feminists to Save the Earth; Feminist
Resources on Energy and Ecology; Dykes Opposed to
Nuclear Technology (DONT) v Three Mile Island and
Columbias TRIGA Reactor; Women for Environmental
Health demonstrating in Wall street; Mothers and Future
Mothers Against Radiation v Pacific Gas and Electricity;
Women Against Nuclear Development (WAND); Spinsters
Opposed to Nuclear Genocide (SONG), and Dykes Against
Nukes Concerned with Energy (DANCE) v United Technology. Womens environmental conferences were held at
Somona and San Diego State universities.
In Japan, a kamakazi encampment of grandmothers
known as the Shibokusa women were running continual
guerilla disruptions on a military arsenal near Mt Fuji,
while a further 2,500 women marched on Tokyo in the
19
Helen Caldicott, correspondence with the author, 1982.

Manushi collective, Dought: God Sent or Man Made Disaster?,
Manushi, 1980, No.6.
21
Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the
Scientific Revolution, San Francisco: Harper, 1980.
20
325

cause of world peace.22 By 1981, Women Opposed to Nuclear Technology had grown into a string of non-violent
direct action cells around the UK; many began what would
become the perennial encirclement of Greenham Common
missile base; and in Germany 3,000 women were demonstrating at Ramstein NATO base. In Australia, Margaret
Morgan drew together a rural anti-nuclear organisation at
Albury, and the Sun Herald newspaper was reporting on
Labor Party and Democrat womens decisive inter-party
policy stand against lifting bans on uranium-mining.
In 1983, a new collective, Womens Action Against
Global Violence was encamped at Lucas Heights Atomic
Energy Establishment near Sydney. This was followed by
a protest in the desert with Aboriginal men and women
outside the secret US reconnaissance station at Pine Gap.
A first ecofeminist anthology, Reclaim the Earth, was
brought out by Leonie Caldecott and Stephanie Leland.23
An Environment, Ethics and Ecology Conference in Canberra opened up debate between women ecofeminists and
not so gender aware deep ecologists.24 British elections
saw a combined Women for Life on Earth & Ecology Party
ticket; and a year later, ecofeminist Petra Kelly led Die
Grunen into the Bundestag. Kellys passionate biography,
translated as Fighting for Hope, told how her anti-nuclear
22
Lynne Jones (ed.), Keeping the Peace, London, Womens Press, 1983;
Alice Cook and Gwyn Kirk, Greenham Women Everywhere, London:
Pluto, 1983.
23
Leonie Caldecott and Stephanie Leland (eds.), Reclaim the Earth,
London: Womens Press, 1983.
24
On the deep ecology debate see the journal Environmental Ethics
1984-94.
326

politics began as she watched her young sister die of
leukaemia.25
The soviet reactor accident at Chernobyl in 1986 alerted
women to the lack of accountability in capitalism and
socialism alike. Across Germany and Eastern Europe,
a birth strike expressed outrage, as governments from
Turkey to France suppressed vital facts about environmental radiation levels for fear of damaging national
economies. Sami people to the north of Scandinavia met
official lies about post-Chernobyl radiation with a firm
resolve for land rights. From the other side of the earth,
Joan Wingfield of the Kokatha tribe flew from the Maralinga site of 1950s British bomb tests to address an International Atomic Energy Agency conference in Vienna.
German sociologist Maria Mies published Patriarchy and
Accumulation on a World Scale, the first substantial socialist ecofeminist statement.26 A more New Age rejection of
high-tech progress was US bioregionalist Chellis Glendinnings Waking Up in the Nuclear Age. In 1987, Darlene
Keju Johnson from the Marshall Islands and Lorena Pedro
from Belau, both Women Working for a Nuclear Free and
Independent Pacific, went public about the jelly fish babies
born to islander women and cancers in ocean communities
following US atom tests.27
The First International Ecofeminist Conference was
held in 1987 on campus at the University of Southern
25
Petra Kelly, Fighting for Hope, London: Chatto and Windus, 1984.
Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, London: Zed Books, 1986; Chellis Glendinning, Waking Up in the
Nuclear Age, New York: Morrow, 1987.
27
Women Working for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (ed.),
Pacific Women Speak, Oxford: Greenline, 1987.
26
327

California. North, south, east, and west, womens commitment to life on earth now spanned the nuclear threat,
reproductive technologies, toxic chemicals, indigenous autonomy, genetic engineering, water conservation, and animal exploitation. Depleted uranium would become a focus
with the Balkan and Middle East wars. Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Code Pink,
Madre, and the World Womens March continue to pursue many of these concerns.28 It is now two generations
since ecofeminists came to politics, the movement continues to grow in experience, cross-cultural networks, and
theoretical sophistication. Debates over gender literacy
in environmental ethics or eco-socialist formulations have
become standard fare for university courses, academic
journals, and publishing houses. International initiatives
by Vandana Shiva have even been recognised with an
Alternative Nobel Prize.29
The Liberal Backlash

Ecofeminism is at once an autonomist socialism, an ecology, a postcolonial movement, and a case for respecting
womens initiatives in designing another world. This said:
ecofeminist work has been affected by changes in the political character of both feminism and environmentalism.
Occasionally, one-dimensional thinkers unaware of the
depth and complexity of womens eco-political renaissance,
judged it to be little more than a public extension of the
28
29
See WILPF and other feminist organisational websites for details.

Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development,
London: Zed Books, 1989.
328

housewife role. Articles from liberal feminists used patronising and demeaning titles like Still Fooling with Mother
Nature and Calling Ecofeminism Back to Politics.30 But
a glance at the now extensive literature of ecofeminism
shows its reach from epistemology to economics. My sense
is that the establishment had become uneasy about this
radicalism quite early on, because as women were writing their herstory, transnational corporations stepped up
proactive measures structural and ideological for taking global control of the environmental agenda.
In the structural domain, the principle of neoliberal competitiveness would be legally embedded in international
treaties and bureaucratic agencies like the UN. First the
1982 Brundtland Commission routinised a materially contradictory policy of growth with trickle down benefits for
sustainability. Then the 1992 Rio Earth Summit leveraged
this up, setting the politics of Bio-Diversity and Climate
Change Conventions in motion.31 Soon the Kyoto Protocol and a rolling agenda of international COP meetings
would have movement activists running to keep up with
the newly institutionalised discourse of environmental
management, and the public was carefully marginalised
and disempowered by the academic complexities of risk
analysis and biosecurity.
30
Chris Cuomo, Still Fooling with Mother Nature, Hypatia, 2001,

Vol. 16; Sherilyn MacGregor, From Care to Citizenship: Calling
Ecofeminism back to Politics, Ethics and the Environment, 2004,
Vol. 9.
31
Stephan Schmidheiny (ed.), Changing Course: A Global Business
Perspective on Development and the Environment, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1992.
329

The globally orchestrated politics of liberal environmentalism enlisted UN, private foundation, and government sponsorship of special womens ecology organisations to mainstream womens views in international policy. Womens citizenship became the new liberal mantra.
Womens Environment and Development Organization
(WEDO) founded by the late US Congresswoman Bella
Abzug in the early 90s, played a big role in this. Thus,
at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
COP13 in Bali, December 2007, Women in Europe for a
Common Future are found hard pressed keeping nuclear
power out the Clean Development Mechanism. The depth
analysis of hegemonic masculinity gives way to ironing
out its incoherencies.
Interminable international environmental meetings focus on women as victims or objects of natural disaster
and women who play the liberal feminist card to this policy
are rewarded as professionals for not rocking the androcentric boat to much. There is no place for an ecofeminist
diagnosis of the cultural context of such crises. Nor is
the knowledge of indigenous women from say Oceania,
acceptable as an existing model of low carbon provisioning.
Instead, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (?) will
draft women from the global South into capacity building
workshops for climate adaptation and mitigation. While
such neoliberal operations are ostensibly about justice
and sustainability, the orientation is always framed by
business as usual.
In the ideological domain, management environmentalism relies on several techniques for the pacification
of citizens and governments. Public relations firms are
330

employed to greenwash or minimise local damage from
capitalist industrial enterprises.32 Again, the packaging
of ecology as a media commodity thins out the reporting
of grassroots voices in favour of a few colourful and iconic
feminist personalities. A further silencing of ecofeminist
politics has occurred as a result of public reliance on the
internet as chief recorder of radical movements since 90
per cent of web based material is selected and posted by
men radical youth notwithstanding. A final ideological
assault on womens ecological struggles has come through
the universities. In the 90s, as Left analysis was overtaken
by a new field of cultural studies, many women students
took to the deconstructive study of political texts, an innocent but elitist move, leaving the concerns of threatened
communities far behind.33
The Indigenous Turn

While the institutions of eurocentric globalisation insured
themselves against critique from within, peoples at the
geographic periphery began celebrating the 500th year
of Columbus. Then, at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, grassroots environmental politics would implode,
taking a distinctly postcolonial turn. The articulation
of this perspective by South American activists is very
rich. In 2009, as anti-nuclear activists from the Arrernte,
32
Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno, Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism, Penang: Third World Network, 1996.
33
For an overview, Ariel Salleh, Embodied Materialism in Action,
Polygraph: special issue on Ecology and Ideology, 2010, No. 22:
www.duke.edu/web/polygraph/cfp.html (accessed 7 August 2011).
331

Tuareg nomads, and Acoma Pueblo, spoke truth to power
in Washington, a First Continental Summit of Indigenous
Women in Peru produced a Manifesto in the cause of all life.
The preamble to the document shows the women weaving
together a seamless politics of sex, class, ethnicity, and
species justice.
We are the carriers, conduits of our cultural
and genetic make-up; we gestate and brood
life; together with men, we are the axis of the
family unit and society. We join our wombs to
our mother earths womb to give birth to new
times in this Latin American continent where
in many countries millions of people, impoverished by the neo-liberal system, raise their
voices to say ENOUGH to oppression, exploitation and the looting of our wealth. We therefore join in the liberation struggles taking place
throughout our continent.34
In short, from the Mujeres Creando of La Paz: You cannot decolonize without de-patriarchalizing.35 In Bolivia,
this deeply integrative indigenous politics opened into
The Peoples Alternative Climate Summit at Cochabamba,
April 2010, advancing a substantive economy based on
the principle of living well, to replace the death risking
formal economy of the mega-machine.36 In 2011, the circle
34
First Continental Summit of Indigenous Women, Lucha Indigena,

Llapa Runaq Hatariynin, 34-Inti Raymi 2009. Translation by
Marilyn Obeid, Sydney.
35
Personal communication Silvia Federici, 15 February 2011.
36
Ariel Salleh, Climate Strategy: Making the Choice between Ecological Modernisation or Living Well, Journal of Australian Political
Economy, 2011, No. 66.
332

closes with Vandana Shiva and Maude Barlow seeking
UN ratification of a Declaration of the Rights of Mother
Earth:
affirming that to guarantee human rights it is
necessary to recognize and defend the rights of
Mother Earth and all beings in her and that
there are existing cultures, practices and laws
that do so ...37
Putting Life Before Profit

In the current crisis of global warming, the international
nuclear industry presents itself as a clean, green, alternative to fossil fuel based power generation. But not only
is it a threat to all natural processes, the engineering of
installation components and their daily operation draws
massive amounts of electric power. Nevertheless, Japans
ruling class with US corporate partners aims to put nuclear power back on track with more science and better
technocratic management, even as Silvia Federici and
George Caffentzis point out:
... the damaged nuclear reactors can hardly be
blamed on the lack of capitalist development.
On the contrary, they are the clearest evidence
that high tech capitalism does not protect us
against catastrophes, and it only intensifies
37
Cormac Cullinan, The Universal Declaration of the Rights of

Mother Earth in Maude Barlow et al, Does Nature Have Rights?
Ottawa: Council of Canadians, 2010.
333

their threat to human life while blocking any
escape route.38
It is not rational to pursue a fantasy of ecological modernisation by means of this arsenal. The Fukushima
meltdown may be a bonanza for reconstruction companies
like Haliburton once theyre done in Iraq, but the revolving door of men in suits know well that business is merely
war by other means.
Can the crisis of Fukushima become a political turning point? Japanese women and men have pioneered nuclear resistance. I think of the late Women and Life on
Earth activist, Satomi Oba, president of Plutonium Action, Hiroshima.39 And the perennial warnings of Kenji
Higuchi, much sought after for the lecture circuit now.40
Hisae Ogawa and others in the international ecofeminist
peace organisation Code Pink are working all over Japan.
Friends of the Earth is attending the special needs of
women and children, demanding wider evacuation zones,
and sackings in high places. Greenpeace is encouraging
the public to mobilise, and in the months since March,
mass demonstrations have rolled across Japan urging the
end of nuclear power. Suddenly politicised, angry mothers
38
Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis, Must We Rebuild Their

Anthill?: http://jfissures.wordpress.com/2011/04/22: (accessed 6
August 2011).
39
See the Women and Life on Earth website for an obituary of Satomi
Oba: http://www.wloe.org/Remembering-Satomi-Oba.513.0.html
40
Michael Chandler, In Japan, New Attention for Longtime AntiNuclear Activist, Washington Post, 11 April 2011 (accessed 7 August 2011).
334

and housewives have taken to the streets in their thousands.
This nuclear disaster has re-energised international
opposition to the industry and here too, womens organisations are highly focused. The Asian Rural Womens
Coalition meeting in Chennai has condemned plans for
nuclear power plants in India, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. The Gender_CC Network is contesting nuclear power through its regular climate change
campaigning.41 In the US, the National Organization of
Women (NOW) and United Farm Workers are looking into
the possibility of bioaccumulation of radioactive cesium
from Japan in California cows milk.42 In Australia, indigenous women continue fighting the governments proposed
nuclear waste site on their land at Muckaty, Northern
Territory.43
The Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, an NGO with consultative status to the UN, recently wrote to the Prime Minister of Japan, observing
the unique vulnerability of women in post-disaster situations as objects of violence, as part-time employed, and
as those doing most of the countrys care work. They noted
only one woman among the 16 members of the Reconstruction Design Council. They referred the Prime Minister
41
See www.Gender_CC.org; also Meike Spitzner, How Global Warming is Gendered in A. Salleh (ed.), Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice:
Women Write Political Ecology, London/New York: Pluto Press,
2009.
42
NOW, Media Release: Spike in Infant Mortality in the Northwest
Linked to Radiation Fallout from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
Disaster, 16 June 2011: www.canow.org (accessed 13 August 2011).
43
For more information: www.beyondnuclearinitiative.com.
335

to Japans obligations under the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW). They urged that gender disaggregated statistics be collected to prepare gender specific budgets. And
the letter requests the Japanese government to exercise
accountability by consulting with local womens organisations and promoting womens participation as planners
and decision makers at prefecture, municipal, and town
council levels.44
How can a country call itself a democracy when it does
not give women equal seats on its Reconstruction Design
Council? Yet would the achievement of this liberal feminist
objective actually turn Japan around? Like the affirmative action for women at big international environment
meetings, it would simply paper over an unjust and unsustainable order. An ecofeminist politics is essential to
expose and neutralise the deeply cultural androcentric interests that let Fukushima happen. A balanced committee
is one thing, but it is even more essential to redefine its
terms of reference putting life before profit. Workers
responsible for the labour of social care think differently
about value and security this is why women must take
leadership in Japan now.
44
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, Letter to

Prime Minister Mr Naoto Kan, Prime Minister of Japan, 7 July
2011: www.apwld.org (accessed 8 July 2011).
336
16. Energy and Social

Reproduction
Kolya Abramsky
Listen! We ought to be in a wood choppers
union! Chop wood for breakfast! Chop wood,
wash his clothes! Chop wood, heat the iron!
Chop wood, scrub floors! Chop wood, cook his
dinner!
(Miners wife in Salt of the Earth 1954)
When oil prices rise. . . the costs of variable
capital will also increase as the costs of subsistence for labor are tied to the costs of oil and
other energy sources. Because cheap energy
inputs have been able to reduce the subsistence
costs for the worlds working class, an increase
in energy prices caused by oil production peaking will see a dramatic rise in food, electricity
and transportation costs, all of which the capitalist class will try to get the working class to
pay for through a significant decrease in real
wages (Keefer 2005: 55).
There has been little written about energy and labor. Even
less has been written about energy and social reproduc-
337

tion, either from those analyzing social reproduction or
from those analyzing energy. George Caffentzis The
Work/Energy Crisis and the Apocalypse (1980) a classic
connecting the crisis of the Keynesian mode of accumulation with the struggles against work both in the factories
and in the kitchens and bedrooms and fields of the world,
is one of the few, outstanding exceptions. Given that energy is a vital means of subsistence, as well as means of
production, this is somewhat surprising. In this paper,
I argue that to understand the current so-called energy
crisis and a possible future transition to renewable energies and/or post-petrol future it is crucial to consider the
question of social reproduction, and the related questions
of primitive accumulation and dispossession. How might
changes in energy production, trade and consumption effect relations of reproduction (and vice versa)?
There are three broad (and interconnected) areas which
I will discuss here: a) energy as a means of reproduction/subsistence b) energy resources exist on land, c) unwaged labor in the non-commercial energy sector. Following these three sections, I will go on to discuss some
questions and uncertainties relating to a possible transition to a post-petrol energy scenario, and/or a transition
to renewable energy.
338
Energy as a Means of
Reproduction/Subsistence
Energy is a crucial means of subsistence, due to its importance for food production and preparation, shelter, lighting
and heating especially.
Energy is the fundamental prerequisite of every life. The availability of energy is a fundamental and indivisible human right. . . It is
violated billion-fold (WREA 2005).
This poses the question of ownership, control and access to
energy production and consumption, and which purposes
it serves. Namely, does it serve the needs of accumulation
of capital, or subsistence needs? As with land and other
means of subsistence, the degree of separation between
the producer and consumer becomes of great importance.
On the one hand there is the question of whether energy
is a resource held in common outside of market relations
or whether it is commodified, on the other hand is, to the
extent that it is already commodified, to what degree is
this the case. It is important to understand the processes
through which this separation is established, reproduced
and expanded, or is resisted, subverted and reduced.
According to De Angelis (2001) differing degrees of separation between workers and means of production may
exist, and this separation is neither permanent nor given,
but is the subject of a continual struggle. Primitive accumulation... was capitals effort to regain and reassert
control once it had lost it due to limits set by workers
struggles.
339

To the extent class conflict creates bottlenecks
to the accumulation process in the direction of
reducing the distance between producers and
means of production, any strategy used to recuperate this movement of association is entitled
with the categorization. . . of primitive accumulation (De Angelis 2001:13-15).
Common or public energy resources, from forests to oil
fields, are facing increasing privatization, and energy markets are being liberalized world-wide through regional
and multilateral free trade agreements, such as NAFTA,
FTAA, EU, or WTO. This is greatly affecting prices and
peoples ability to access reliable sources of energy, regardless of whether it is clean or dirty. Privatization of forests,
through the WTO (World Trade Organization) forestry
and logging agreement, is of particular importance since
forests until now have been communally owned throughout much of the world, and most of the worlds population still depend on (non-commodified) biomass fuels for
heating, cooking and lighting. This [privatization] process is reminiscent of the enclosure of commonly owned
and managed woodlands in Europe over the course of
several centuries, that was integral to the emergence of
the European-centred capitalist world-economy. (Marx
1842; 1976: 877-896)). This world-wide process is greatly
undermining peoples capacity to be self-provisioning
(Perelman 2007).
Once energy is commodified its pricing plays an important part in social reproduction. Key issues are the
magnitude of the price and who pays for it. Does capital
or labor pay for it ? Waged or unwaged labor? Throughout
340

the 20th century, especially in the post-World War II period, the availability of cheap oil has greatly influenced
the cost of reproducing labor. On the one hand, in high
wage countries such as the USA, the cost has been much
reduced through cheap food, heating, electricity etc, enabling a massive increase in the ratio between surplus
and necessary labor.... On the other hand, energy intensive (and consequently money intensive) Green Revolution
agriculture has contributed to processes of dispossession
throughout much of the world (especially in Asia), undermining subsistence agriculture, and pushing people
towards migration to cities or production for the worldmarket. These mechanisms have been vital in ensuring
capitalist forms of labor reproduction and containing class
struggle.
However, at times, it has been advantageous for capital
to increase the cost of reproduction, as this has enabled
it to indirectly attack wages. In the mid 1970s, following
an intense period of social struggle throughout the world,
including the USA, in which the struggles of waged and,
above all, the non-waged workers converged provoking
an accumulation crisis (Federici 2006), inflation was used
to indirectly attack wage levels. Raising oil (and consequently food) prices was a crucial part of this process
In the current inflation this kind of manipulation of money has been joined by another
the administered increases in the prices of oil. . .
have been achieved by restricting the availability of [this] commodity to back up the price increase. . . The resultant price increases, that is,
the increase in the amount of money required
341

to obtain a given amount of commodity value,
have acted to undercut working-class wages all
over the world and are part of a world-wide
counteroffensive by capital to stem the wage
offensive (Cleaver 1979: 168).
Such an attack on wage levels had the effect of shifting the
costs of reproduction further onto unwaged work, mainly
carried out by women in the form of domestic work.
The problems that women are facing appear
particularly serious given the economic alternatives we are currently offered, as they emerge
from the current debate on the energy crisis
and the feasibility of a growth versus a nongrowth economy. It appears that no matter
what path will prevail, women will be the main
losers in the battle to control inflation (Federici 2006:75).
But despite the renewed expansion of the world-market
and worldwide privatization and enclosure process, seeking to shift the balance of power in favor of capital (Midnight Notes 1990; Von Werlhof 2000), resistance has not
been missing. As De Angelis (2001) writes:
any discussion of alternatives within the growing global anti-capitalist movement must pose
[the question] of direct access to the means of
existence, production and communication: the
issue of commons (2001:20, italics in original).
Next to the struggles for control over land, there is perhaps no area in which such struggles for commons ...
342

are more central than in relation to the two interrelated
processes of the expropriation of common energy resources
and increased energy pricing. Many if not most of these
struggles have been internationally networked, with local
struggles inspiring and informing one another, as well as
supporting each other through a range of global networks.
Anti-privatization struggles seeking different forms of
common, collective, cooperative or public ownership are
currently one of the major characteristics of the energy
sector worldwide.... There has also been a marked increase
in the resistance to energy pricing hikes. Early examples
of this resistance occurred in Italy in the 1970s, through
the movement for self-reductions, in which entire neighborhoods organized to decide how much they would pay of
their utility bills, their rents and, at times, transport costs.
These struggles were explicitly linked to wider struggles
over social reproduction and the social factory including
wages for housework campaigns (Ramirez 1975).
Since 2000, rising oil and fuel prices have also been the
source of major street protests, blockades and rioting in
Indonesia, Nigeria, UK, France, Belgium, Germany and
Italy (Keefer 2006). In Karnataka, India, there have been
intensive struggles between peasant communities, electrical companies and police over electricity pricing. Similar
processes have been occurring since 1992 in indigenous
communities in Chiapas, Mexico. In the USA, welfare organizations, such as the Kensington Welfare Rights Union,
have begun resisting rising utilities bills. Many of these
struggles have been led by women, who frequently bear
the brunt of rising energy costs through an increase in
unwaged domestic labor....
343
Energy Resources Exist on Land

Most energy resources exist in rural areas. To harness it
capital must expropriate land, or at least control it. As
companies are given expanded investment rights over an
increasing geographical area throughout the world, as
environmental constraints on investment are removed
and ownership is forcefully transferred from peasants to
capital, the territorial autonomy of rural communities is
undermined (Midnight Notes 1990; Von Werlhof 2000)...
[Lands] that contain energy resources are particularly
central to this process.
Oil, gas, coal and uranium exploration and extraction,
as well as large scale hydro-electric dams are all having
a major social and environmental impact on communities in the vicinity of the energy sector activities. This
is producing major social conflicts relating to land rights,
pollution and displacement. In the case of oil extraction,
there are struggles over displacement, pollution and associated violence in Nigeria, Colombia, Ecuador, as well
as several other countries. Particularly affected are: peasant, indigenous, Black communities (in Latin America)
and fishing communities, many of which still have communal land ownership structures. Tactics used in such
struggles have ranged from parliamentary struggles, to
autonomous community organizing, street protests, nonviolent civil disobedience, and (in Nigeria) armed struggle
and kidnapping of oil company employees. In Colombia,
the Uwa Community even threatened to commit mass
suicide in the face of continued activities from OXY (Occidental) Petroleum. The construction of the worlds biggest
oil pipeline, the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC), pipeline has
344

also provoked protest from land rights and environmental
activists, both within the affected countries, and by their
international supporters. In Venezuela, indigenous peoples are facing displacement from coal mining activities,
from a range of state owned and foreign multinationals.
In the USA, Navajo communities are being displaced in
Black Mesa, in Arizona, by the coal giant Peabody Coal.
Millions have been displaced throughout the world by the
construction of large hydro-electric dams, in India, China,
Brazil and Indonesia, amongst others. As the nuclear
industry gears up for a renewed expansion, anti-nuclear
struggles have also grown in strength, both in areas where
power stations are to be sited, as well as areas where uranium is mined, like the Indigenous territories within the
Nevada/Arizona desert of the USA or the uranium dumps
and mines on aboriginal land in Australia. As with struggles over the ownership of energy resources, these, and
many other struggles associated with energy-related conflicts over land use have successfully sought international
allies.
Unwaged Labor in the

Non-Commercial Energy Sector, the
Pillar of Cheap Reproduction of Labor
Since [WW2] nations of the global south have
been transferring energy resources to nations
in the global south at a steady rate. A number
of oil-exporting countries have achieved impressive levels of economic growth on the basis of
345

this trade. However, the main effect has been
to intensify long-standing global inequalities in
levels of energy consumption. . . throughout the
modern period core states have attained much
higher levels of per capita commercial energy
consumption than their semi-peripheral or peripheral counterparts. . . the average citizen in
the United States consumes five times as much
as the world average, ten times as much energy
as a typical person in China, and over thirty
times more than a resident of India. Even in
such major oil exporting nations as Venezuela
and Iran, per capita consumption of commercial energy resources is less than one half and
one quarter of the US average, respectively
(Podobnik 2002: 254, 255).
In addition to being a result of the expropriation of energy
resources described above, the existing inequalities in the
rates of energy consumption are also the product of a
hierachically defined global division of labor in the energy
sector. The reproduction of labor in the US, subsidized by
cheap energy, is also subsidized by the exploitation of
labor in other parts of the world. This includes both waged
and unwaged labor, much of it womens labor. Although
Mies (Mies 1986) does not talk specifically about energy,
her general arguments nonetheless apply to this specific
situation.
The complement and essential pillar of commercial energy in the world-market is non-commercial energy combined with non-waged labor. Throughout much of the
world, especially in rural areas, people do not satisfy their
346

energy needs for subsistence exclusively, or even predominantly, through the commercial use of energy, but rather
through the non-commercial use of dung, wood and other
biomass that provide heat, lighting and cooking fuel, as
well as animal traction. More than one third of humanity,
2.4 billion people, currently rely on these fuels for their
daily energy needs. In Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding
South Africa), between 40 and 90% of all energy consumption is from biomass fuels, and it is common for rural
areas to have electrification rates of less than 5%, all of
which greatly impacts on the work (and health, due to
long walks, smokey kitchens etc) of women (Mapako and
Mbewe 2004:16, 20, 23). Collection of such fuels is most
commonly done by women and children, as part of domestic work without recourse to wages and the (limited)
protection that the so-called formal economy and its
trade unions, or other organizational forms, may be able
to offer, as exemplified by the quote from Salt of the Earth
at the beginning of this essay (Warwick and Doig 2004).
The cost of reproduction of labor in these areas is
brought down even further by this unwaged labor, a
double edged sword. On the one hand capital pays nothing
for it, by extracting women and childrens unpaid labor,
on the other hand the people concerned are paying the
costs of their own reproduction while not maintaining
independence from the money economy, but rather resting
at the lowest, most excluded layer of the hierarchical
global division of labor (Perelman 2007). The importance
of privatization of forests must be seen in this context.
The privatization of forests means that journeys to fetch
firewood and other biomass materials increase in distance
and hours required, and so do the legal risks, as access to
347

these materials requires encroaching on newly privatized
land (i.e. poaching), all of which is borne by unwaged
workers, mainly women and children. At the same time,
communities which formerly relied on non-commercial
energy sources are increasingly forced to rely on energy
and fuel inputs purchased with money.
Questions and Uncertainties with

Regard to Renewable Energy
All of the above raises important questions for any possible
transition to renewable energy. Crucially, on whose terms
will the process be and to what ends? If the cost of energy
rises, who will pay for it? Will capital be able to shift
the increasing costs of reproduction onto labor (especially
unwaged domestic and agricultural labor, predominantly
carried out by women) or will labor, and in particular
women, refuse to accept this? What new struggles are
already emerging and likely to increase in the future?
How will changes in the energy sector change the relation between capital and labor? Between waged and
unwaged labor? How will different sectors of the worldwide division of labor relate to one another?
Rural communities are, in theory, ideally located to benefit from renewable energies and to lead the way, since it is
precisely such areas that are richest in natural resources
such as wind, sun, biomass, flowing rivers, animal wastes
etc. Yet, in practice the situation is very different. As
already described, the current period of expansion of the
world market, is an attack on rural communities through-
348

out the world, a renewed process of primitive accumulation
and incursory investments. Given that renewable energy
resources exist throughout most of the countryside, and
not just in specific geographical areas as is the case with
oil or coal, it is possible that renewable energy at the service of capital accumulation could result in even harsher
patterns of displacement and appropriation of land than
those brought about by other forms of energy. Black Communities in Colombia are being forcibly displaced from
their land by paramilitary violence so that the land can
be used for monoculture plantations of African palm to be
used as fuel oil. Communities in Indonesia and Malaysia
are facing ecological destruction for the same reason. Industrial wind farms serving capital accumulation have
displaced peasants, provoking resistance in Mexico and
China. In China three peasants were killed by police in
the course of such resistance.
Finally, there is the issue of food agrofuels compete
with food crops, provoking a whole new process of struggle
around land use and ownership and around food prices
(e.g. the current tortilla crisis in Mexico is related to corn
use for ethanol, and in Brazil landless movements are
taking on the sugar industry (also related to ethanol).
Will new energy sources be able to serve capital accumulation in the same way as existing energy sources have,
in particular in its role in social reproduction, or will they
provide a material basis for the long term construction
of alternative social relations of reproduction based on
commons and reduced dependency on the wage?
349
Bibliography
Biberman, Herbert 1954 Salt of the Earth Independent Productions/International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers
Caffentzis, George The Work/Energy Crisis and the
Apocalipse. First published in Midnight Notes, N.3,
1980. Republished in Midnight Oil. Work, Energy,
War 1973-1992 (pp.215-2723).
Cleaver, Harry 1979: Reading Capital Politically The
Harvester Press, Brighton
Dalla Costa, Mariarosa Reruralizing the World in
The Commoner No.12 2007
De Angelis, Massimo 2001 Marx and Primitive Accumulation: The Continuous Character of Capitals
Enclosures in The Commoner, No. 2, September
2001.
Federici, Silvia 1980 The Restructuring of Social Reproduction in the United States in the 1970s in The
Commoner No.11, Spring 2006
Keefer, Thomas 2005: Of Hand Mills and Heat Engines: Peak Oil, Class Struggle, and the Thermodynamics of Production MA Thesis, York University,
Toronto
Keefer, Thomas (2006) Marx, Machinery and Motive
Power: the Thermodynamics of Class Struggle
350

Mapako, Maxwell and Mbewe, Abel 2004 Renewables
and Energy for Rural Development in Sub-Saharan
Africa Zed Books & African Energy Policy Research
Network
Marx, Karl 1842 On the Law on the Theft of Wood in
Rheinische Zeitung
Marx, Karl 1976 Capital Volume 1 Penguin Books in
Association with New Left Review, London
Midnight Notes 1990 Introduction to the New Enclosures in Midnight Notes 1990 New Enclosures
Autonomedia, Massachusetts
Midnight Notes Collective 1992 Midnight Oil. Work,
Energy, War. 1973-1992. New York: Autonomedia.
Mies, Maria 1986 Patriarchy and Accumulation on a
World Scale Women in the International Division
of Labour Zed Books, London
Perelman, Michael 2007 Primitive Accumulation
from Feudalism to Neoliberalism in Capitalism Nature Socialism, 18:2, 44-61
Podobnik, Bruce 2002: Global Energy Inequalities:
Exploring the Long-Term Implications, in Journal of
World-Systems Research, VIII, 2, Spring 2002 (252 274)
Podobnik, Bruce forthcoming: Global Energy Shifts :
Fostering Sustainability in a Turbulent Age Temple
University Press
351

Ramirez, Bruno 1975 Self-Reduction of Prices in
Italy in Midnight Notes Collective 1992 Midnight
Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992 Autonomedia,
Brooklyn
Von Werlhof 2000 Globalization and the Permanent Process of Primitive Accumulation: The Example of the MAI, The Multilateral Agreement on Investment in JWSR Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein, Part II JWSR, Vol. VI, Number 3, Fall/Winter
2000 Special Issue
Warwick, Hugh and Doig, Alison 2004 Smoke the
Killer in the Kitchen: Indoor Air Pollution in Developing Countries Intermediate Technology Development
Group, London
World Renewable Energy Assembly (WREA) 2005:
Final Communiqu: The Human Right to Renewable
Energy WREA Bonn November 26th-30th 2005
352
Part III.
Documents/Interviews
353
17. Domestic Workers

United
Following is an adapted version of information
taken from the website of Domestic Workers
United (DWU), one of the main organizations of
domestic workers in the United States, which
recently scored a crucial victory with the passing in November of 2010 of a Bill of Right
DWU had fought for many years to achieve.
[See Domestic Workers United website, at
http://www.domesticworkersunited.org.]
Tell Them Slavery is Done

After 400 years in the shadows of slavery.....
75 years of invisibility and exclusion under US
labor law.....
6 years of a hard-fought struggle in the New
York State legislature....
Domestic workers are finally gaining rights,
respect, and recognition.
The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights has been
signed and will officially go into effect on
November 29th, 2010!
354

Founded in 2000, Domestic Workers United [DWU] is an
organization of Caribbean, Latina and African nannies,
housekeepers, elderly caregivers in New York that has
been organizing to obtain fair labor standards and to build
a movement addressing the root causes of injustice and
exploitation facing domestic workers. DWU recognizes
however that the domestic workers struggles are tied to
those of all workers, poor people, migrants, immigrants,
people of the global South and all oppressed communities.
Its objectives are:
to break the isolation and to build the power of the
estimated 200.000 domestic workers in the New York
metropolitan area whose work literally keeps the city
going.
to educate the public to the importance of domestic
work, a work now generally devalued as unskilled
and taken for granted.
to expose the racial and gender inequality in the labor market, and fight for the recognition of domestic
work as real and skilled work.
to obtain fair labor standards.
Until less than a year ago domestic workers in NY state,
as in most of the United States, were excluded from many
of the most basic protections afforded to other workers
including The National Labor Relations Act, Title VII
discrimination protection, and Occupational Safety and
Health protections. For over six years domestic workers in
NY have struggled to reverse this situation and make the
355

NY State Assembly pass a Bill of Rights placing them on
equal stand with other workers. After much campaigning
and educational work, on August 31, 2010, an unforgettable day for DWU and domestic workers, Governor
Paterson signed the bill into law, the first of its kind in the
United States.
The new law represents a momentous advance for New
Yorks domestic workers housecleaners, nannies, elder
companions, and other home-based workers who have
historically been excluded from state and federal labor
laws. Thus, the passing of the Bill has been described as
an incredible victory. It is the nations first Domestic
Workers Bill of Rights and it is guarantee to spur similar
efforts across the country. [In California this year, the
sister organization Mujeres Unidas is concluding a two
years drive to have a similar bill placed on the States legislation]. Nevertheless, the law falls short of mentioning
several of the provisions that were included in the original
draft. While it represents improved labor standards, the
final version of the law did not include five critical benefits
that would confer job security and stability, and better
enable domestic workers to stand up for their rights to fair
wages and workplaces free of harassment. These are:
1. paid sick days;
2. paid personal days;
3. paid vacation days [it only provides 3 paid days off
after one year of employment];
4. advance notice of termination;
5. severance pay.
356

It also does not include annual cost of living adjustments,
health benefits (except for temporary disability benefits).
All these provisions have still to be fought for. Another
challenge now is how to make the law count in employersworkers relations, not an easy task given the individual
nature of the contract and the isolation in which most
domestic worker find themselves. To this end DWU plans
to work with the Department of Labor on devising a new
form of collective bargaining fit for domestic work and
care work, recognizing that due to the specific conditions
typical of domestic work, there is a need for an innovative,
alternative framework for collective organization.
To this end, DWU is leading a mass Know Your Rights
campaign among workers with the aim of engaging employers in community-based dialogues on improving employment practices. DWU has also been conducting extensive interviews with domestics in the NY metropolitan
area, documenting the hardships the majority still faces
due to the systemic devaluation of this work and the specific condition of domestic work. The study has revealed
that:
1. Domestic workers work more hours for lower wages
than other workers. [The average number of hours
per week was 44.4, with 73% of respondents employed between 40 and 70 hours per week. Domestic
workers also work more hours than other workers in
comparable industries].
2. Many do not earn enough to meet their basic needs.
3. Domestic workers lack paid sick and personal days
and are unable to choose vacation days. 57% of do-
357

mestic workers surveyed do not receive any paid sick
days, as compared to 48% of all working New Yorkers.
4. Domestic workers lack notice of termination and severance pay. The Bill will certainly improve labor
condition, but due to the isolation, the individual
nature of the relation only a major effort not only by
domestic workers but also by other civic organization
will succeed in altering their work situation.
The New NYS Domestic Workers Bill of

Rights Summary
On July 1, the New York State Legislature passed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (A1470B/S2311E). Governor
Paterson signed the Bill on August 31st, 2010, and the law
will go into effect on November 29th, 2010.
Work Hours
establishes 8 hours as a legal days work
overtime at the rate of 1 of the regular rate of pay
after 40 hours for live-out domestic workers and 44
for live-in domestic workers
358
Day Of Rest
one day of rest in each calendar week (should try to
coincide with a workers day of worship)
overtime pay if a worker agrees to work on her day
of rest
Paid Days Off

After one year of employment, entitled to 3 paid days
off
Workplace Protection
Protection against workplace discrimination based
race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, marital status, and domestic violence victim
status.
Protection against sexual harassment by employer.
Protection against harassment based on gender, race,
national origin, and religion.
Covers full-time and part-time (pending legislative
revision) domestic workers for temporary disability
benefits.
359
18. Interview with Priscilla

Gonzalez
Silvia Federici: In your website you describe the recent
passing in New York State of the Bill of Rights that Domestic Workers United (DWU) has been fighting for as a
historic victory. Can you explain why this bill is so significant? What is at stake in this Bill? What does it change
in the conditions of domestic workers in New York and in
the country? And why it had been so difficult for domestic
workers in the US to win the right to be treated as other
workers?
Priscilla Gonzalez: The domestic workers bill of
rights is historic because it is the first comprehensive law
in the history of the United States to not only recognize
domestic workers as real workers but also to guarantee
basic rights and protections that most other workers won
75 years ago when the first labor laws were enacted in
the U.S. Domestic workers, having been primarily African
American women, were excluded because of a strong
Southern Democrat lobby that fought to prevent African
Americans from being able to assert any kind of political
power, which gaining labor rights would have afforded
them considering the legacy of slavery that domestic work
is rooted in.
360

So, for 75 years, this exclusion has continued to remain.
[As a result] what we have seen is rampant abuse and exploitation that really has not changed much since the turn
of the last century. Behind closed doors [domestic/care
workers] are facing all kinds of abuse and exploitation:
verbal, physical, emotional, even sexual violence and the
law has not reached into these households, because it is
never considered that someones home could be someone
elses workplace or that these workers are real workers
deserving of rights and protection like any other worker.
It is significant also because it is the first time that
domestic workers are recognized. The first paragraph
of the legislation says, "Domestic workers are..." and it
describes who they are. It recognizes the race and genderbased discrimination and the exclusion that workers in
the sector have been suffering. It spells out the important
contributions that domestic workers make to our society by
caring for the homes and families of countless people. The
womens movement obviously highlighted the importance
of recognizing household work. In this sense, it is also
significant that we won rights for a sector [of workers]
who are based in the home and perform domestic services
that have always been devalued because it is work done
by women. Of course, the other significant aspect is that
this workforce, in the 21st century, [consists] primarily of
immigrant women from the global south, who have fled
the devastation of globalization, free trade agreements,
structural adjustment programs and the like to come here
only to find themselves [living and working] in exploitative
conditions. Many are undocumented. To have fought
a campaign that was led by immigrant women of color,
many of whom were undocumented, that was about the
361

expansion of [their] rights, was really significant in the
absence of an immigration reform in this country.
[Add to] all these reasons the fact that we have included
over 200,000 domestic workers -which is what we estimate
we are in New York- under the labor laws, which is a labor
victory that we had not been able to obtain in decades, and
affects specifically excluded workers who are primarily
women. All of these factors are what make the passage of
the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights so significant. What
also is significant is what is at stake. Whats at stake
in the fact that we were able to gain inclusion for this
otherwise excluded and invisible workforce, is that it is
going to have an impact and repercussions on many other
excluded sectors and could potentially be meaningful also
for other workers regardless of whether or not they have
been excluded from [labor rights] until now. One of the
things that we won in the bill was paid leave. Granted it
was a minimum: 3 paid days of rest a year after the first
year of employment, which is literally the bare minimum
and certainly less than what domestic workers deserve.
But it is the only sector [of domestic workers] in the entire
country that has been able to win paid leave. Having
paid leave included in the statute sets a precedent and
could potentially give us an opening, maybe not within this
decade but certainly in the future, as we are continuing
to work toward an expansion of rights at a time where
the rights that we have gained in the labor movement are
continually being eroded. That we were able to win this
victory in this period of crisis is really significant and is
certainly a sign of what is at stake, because we have to
keep pushing and we have to keep winning because it has
significance for all working people.
362

SF: Can you explain how have you organized your campaign? What kind of tactics/ strategies have you used?
What help/support have you received from other organizations (feminist, for instance) and other workers?
PG: The story behind the campaign is that in 2003 we
organized a convention called the "Have Your Say Convention" where we brought together over 200 domestic
workers from across the city to share with each other off
of the playground, off of the park benches where they are
sometimes within ear or eyesight of their employers- to
share conditions, to identify similarities and to imagine
what being treated with dignity and respect would look
like.
For that convention we did mass outreach, so there were
people there who were connected to the organization and
there were workers for whom that was the first event.
That was the event that I went to with my Mom, and my
Mom had never gone to a DWU event before, and I had
just barely gone to one or two meetings before that. So it
was really open because what we realized as an organization was that our first couple of years were focused on
building the base and we were also doing a lot of cases for
individual workers and what we realized was that going
case by case by case was never going to address what was
fundamentally a systemic problem and that we needed
to take an industry wide approach. So we organized the
"Have Your Say Convention", and this list of demands
came out that was pointing toward changing the labor
laws in the state of New York that would have an impact
on the entire industry.
The list of demands that emerged at that convention
would later become the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights
363

and that s what we introduced into the state legislature
in 2004.
The first couple of years after that we spent a lot of
time doing education. Public education, both among the
legislators and the public, about the exclusions, about the
[work] conditions. We were focused on building our base
so that we would have enough power to move the legislation forward. After that we realized that there was no
way domestic workers were going to win alone and that
we needed to engage more people, and different kinds of
sectors. So we started engaging unions and policy advocates and students and employers. We structured the
campaign in such a way that it was open enough for every
sector, every individual to participate from their location
and could engage in the campaign with their whole selves.
For example, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, who
organized the employers were coming into the campaign
grounded in Jewish traditions, grounded in Jewish values,
grounded in a progressive, Jewish social justice world view
and commitment, and organized from that place. Students
organized as the sons and daughters of domestic workers.
Unions organized as the relatives of domestic workers or
as fellow workers in the same neighborhoods and locations.
The story that we always like to tell is SEIU 32BJ who organized the doormen. The doormen are the gatekeepers in
the buildings where members work. They are the ones who
know who the good employers are, who the bad employers
are. They are the ones who call the taxi for our member at
one or two oclock in the morning for our members when
they are going home after work. When we did outreach for
any number of activities, including the convention, they
helped us do the outreach. They distributed the postcards
364

and flyers to the domestic workers in their buildings. It
was like this real class solidarity that was organic, that
was not orchestrated or manipulated but that came from
the real on the ground conditions. These workers were
interacting with each other and the campaign gave them
the opportunity to actually work together on something
that was about dignity and respect and a set of values and
principles that they shared.
In building the coalition we thought about the messages
of the campaign. There are these organic relationships,
how do we broaden them? How do we bring in more sectors? So we framed the campaign in such a way that
literally anyone who believed in dignity and respect and
was educated on the history of exclusion and the value of
domestic work could find a place in the campaign. The
three key messages were one: "Reverse the history of discrimination and exclusion," which was about educating
people including the employers- taking it out of the personal and putting the conditions of the work in a historical
context. The second was "Respect the work that makes
all other work possible." So we asked, What is a day in
the life of a domestic worker? What is the value added
in our society? How is it that these workers actually allow all other work to happen? And then finally, the third,
which was "Standards benefit everyone," which was key
for the legislators and for everybody. Who doesnt want
to have a stable work force? Who doesnt want to have
clarity in employment relationships? So those were the
three key messages in the campaign that anybody could
find resonance with.
In terms of the strategy, the heart and soul of the campaign, in addition to building a cross sector coalition of
365

multiple voices and having a broad enough frame that
[other workers] could meaningfully participate in, what
we also did was to anchor the campaign by the stories.
Domestic workers being front and center, sharing their
stories, bringing their stories to light. Contrasting and
challenging the invisibility of the workforce to say "This
is what I go through", "This is what has happened to me",
and "This is why I am part of this campaign. This is why I
am fighting for this."
In that process we were doing leadership development.
Supporting the workers, their families and their communities to recognize the dignity and value of their labor. It
was also about training them to be spokespeople for the
campaign and to lead campaign strategy and development.
To go up to Albany [New York States Capital] and become
expert lobbyists. They led the lobby teams. We would
have these huge Albany days when we would bring two,
three hundred people. We structured the teams so that at
least one member of the team had to be a domestic worker
who would go in there and lead the team with her story,
with the conditions, with the history of exclusion, and with
the reasons why the bill of rights was the only possibly
solution for this industry, which had been made invisible
and by default and by design did not squarely fit into existing labor laws which had been created in the context
of an industrial US. The campaign was this beautifully
transformative opportunity for everyone who participated.
For the workers and the supporters and the allies.
RJ Maccani: What years does the campaign span?
PG: The fall of 2003 was when the convention happened.
We introduced the bill in 2004. From 2004 to 2006 we
were devoted to doing education and base-building. From
366

2006 to 2008 was about building a broad-based coalition
of support. We won in 2010. Those last couple of years
were really about scaling up the organizing and testing our
power and making that visible. So we scaled up our actions.
We did the marches, the huge lobby days, and we really
brought our power to bear not just with the workers, but
making visible the coalition that we had built around this
campaign, that technically concerned a particular sector of
workers but ultimately inspired and transformed so many
people. There was a hearing we had when we were trying
to get the bill passed through the labor committee in the
Assembly. There were female employers who testified, who
were also womens rights advocates, and they said that
one of the central struggles of the womens movement was
to strike a work/family balance, and that the bill of rights
campaign gave them this incredible "ah ha moment", when
they realized they could achieve that by depending on the
labor of another woman. And because of it, they said they
needed to participate in the struggle, because this was
about lifting up household work and lifting up the value
of another womans labor, lifting up the value of womens
work in the home as wage labor, needing to be protected
and afforded the same rights as any other form of wage
labor.
RJ: Were there other ways that feminists or womens
rights advocates participated in the campaign as an organized force?
PG: The organized feminist presence in the United
States is more middle class, upper-middle class and white.
Thats the traditional feminist identity in this country.
The ways they were engaging were as female employers
that had these reflections and these experiences and also,
367

simultaneously, as womens rights advocates recognizing
that the bill of rights wasnt just a labor rights struggle
but also a womens rights issue, because it was about lifting up the value of household work and recognizing the
reproductive value of that labor that has also been a long
struggle in the womens movement.
I feel like it [feminist participation in the campaign]
cant be separated out because it was rooted in that experience. That the policy advocates and feminist lawyers
that were testifying were reflecting on their experience as
employers of nannies, housekeepers and elder caregivers
for their parents.
RJ: How many trips would you say you took to Albany
[New York States capital] over the years?
PG: We estimate about 40 (laughing).
RJ: Whats the typical trip to Albany look like?
PG: It depends. We count literally all of the trips. The
trips could range between a van full of ten people, mostly
workers and a few employers and other allies, to busloads
of workers and a broad range of allies and supporters.
Essentially the trips were about being a presence. The
first few years it was just about creating a buzz in Albany
about domestic workers and about domestic worker rights.
We realized when we went up there that a lot of legislators
claimed not to know anything about who domestic workers
were, about the conditions, about the history of exclusion.
So our charge was really to educate them: These are the
conditions they are working in, this is who they are, these
are the professions we are representing, this is the demographic, here are the particularities of the industry:
its totally diffuse, completely dispersed, workers behind
closed doors. The government doesnt recognize these
368

households as workplaces. And then you have employers
who dont recognize themselves as employers because the
work has never been valued as work.
So those trips were about educating and being a presence. When we started scaling up our tactics then it became about making our power felt. That included yellow
t-shirts (laughing). Being a sea of yellow in Albany. It
also included really creative methods to engage our constituents and engage the legislature. We did so through
art and culture. Our members composed a calypso about
the bill of rights. They adapted the electric slide [a popular
dance] to the "domestic slide" and put in lyrics that were
reflecting the conditions and the struggle for dignity and
respect and recognition. One of the highlights, and one of
these moments of transformation that was significant, was
the president of the AFL-CIO [the largest labor federation
in the US] at the time, John Sweeney, came to Albany for
the first time in over a decade to lobby for the domestic
workers bill of rights. The first two statements that he
made to the delegation that we had brought up there of
about 250 people were, "Ten million workers are behind
this legislation because we think that it is one of the most
critical pieces of legislation in the history of this country"
and "I am here because my mother was a domestic worker
for 40 years."
This campaign had so much heart and integrity, and
was so led by the workers themselves, that it resonated in
a different way with our targets so that on July 1 [2010],
on the night that the bill made its way on to the Senate floor, every single Democratic Senator including the
one Republican who voted for it- stood up and made a
speech. They made speeches addressing the 100 work-
369

ers that we had brought up to Albany that night directly.
They said, whether they were reflecting on their mothers
or grandmothers who had been domestic workers, or their
constituents that included domestic workers, or they were
just talking about how this was the just and right thing
to do. Almost every one of them thanked domestic workers, and the campaign they had led, for giving them the
opportunity to be part of history and to correct a wrong
that was decades overdue. All of us, I think for a moment,
saw this genuine heartfelt gesture in the legislature at a
time when the Senate was in complete chaos in New York.
The most dysfunctional Senate in the history of the state.
They were at each others throats. There was no consensus
on anything. They werent unified on anything and this
was the one thing that brought them all together and it
was unanimous. You could see that there was this genuine
reflection that, "This was why I got in to public service. To
pass these pieces of legislation."
When we were reflecting back on the campaign. We
thought about passing this law but also, in the process,
built a movement that was really grounded in dignity and
respect and that those words actually meant something
substantial to everyone that participated, even marginally.
Our lead organizer on the campaign, Ai-jen Poo, has said
that there is no such thing as unlikely allies when you
are fighting for dignity and respect and when it is clearly
spelled out what that looks like. And when the people
that are fighting for that are friends, are sharing their
stories and leading the movement, there is no such thing
as unlikely allies. All you have to do is create an opportunity for people to participate and do the right thing.
That is ultimately what grounded the campaign. We went
370

into it with this genuine belief in the ultimate goodness
of people. That employers, given the opportunity, want
to do the right thing. They want to have clarity in the
employment relationship, they want to have guidelines.
That is what they said time after time in Albany when
we lobbied together. Just as the workers wanted rights
and protections, they wanted guidelines. They wanted to
know, "What is a fair number of vacation days to give?
What does severance look like? What kind of notice do I
need to give before my conditions change and I have to
terminate the relationship?" Those were real questions
that people grappled with, and that they reflected on, and
the campaign provided that opportunity for them to do. In
the same way, or perhaps a much more powerful way, it
did so for the workers too. To have a space to come out
and say proudly, "I am a domestic worker."
RJ: What reasons, if any, did those who voted against
the bill of rights give for that decision?
PG: Throughout the campaign the pushback was always,
"You are fighting for special rights. Why should domestic
workers get these rights legislated when everybody else
actually has to form a union or negotiate a contract to
obtain?" Part of the education was about how our sector
is not like any other sector. You have isolated workers.
You have a power differential that is 2-to-1 because they
are often employed by a couple in these households. You
have got these labor laws that were created with different
industries in mind. They were not thinking about households. They were thinking about a minimum number of
employees in a factory on the shop floor. The labor laws
do not readily apply to our sector. We need a specialized
solution for the problems that domestic workers are facing.
371

At the beginning we said that we are not asking for
special rights, we are just asking to be put on equal footing with every other worker. Maybe not all workers have
these things but they have the ability to secure them. But
then at a certain point we realized that if we were special enough to be excluded than we need to be special
enough to be included in a way that actually responds to
the particularities of our sector. So that was the challenge
throughout. Where the union voice, the voice of the labor
movement, was critical was that as workers we were a
united front. It was just as much in the interest of unionized members to have this piece of legislation passed as
it was to the excluded members to have this legislation
passed. Because we needed the victory, we needed to have
an impact on labor laws. Working people are suffering all
throughout this country and we needed a ray of hope. This
legislation had every possibility of passing because we had
solid campaign strategy, good leadership and we had a
good message that spoke to any number communities.
On the Senate floor on the night of the vote that essentially got it out of the legislature and in to the executive
chamber, the arguments that were made were not surprising. One that stood out in particular was, "Parents need
to be able to let go of someone who does not give them
a good feeling." The discourse was all about parents. At
no point was the word employer mentioned. [It fit with]
everything we had been saying: that employers do not
identify as employers, and that this is why we need this
law to make it clear that this is actually an employment
relationship that is formal and, as such, needs to have all
the corresponding labor laws apply.
372

That was one argument. The other was that this "is a
loophole for illegals to get rights that they dont deserve"
and that "these workers are probably doing a lot better
than they would in their home countries." So, these arguments exposed the bigotry and ethnocentrism, and a
whole slew of views that, at the end of the day, just didnt
pass muster.
Those were the primary arguments. But the other thing
that is also significant in some ways, which is also the
irony, is that we didnt have an organized opposition. Like
the farm workers have the farm bureau, a really well
funded agribusiness lobby. We didnt have an organized
opposition because employers dont identify as employers.
And that actually worked for us. Where we continue to
be positioned is that we are positioned to set the terms
in our industry. We want the employers to identify as
employers. And they didnt, which was fine, because it
allowed us to just have to engage with the legislature on
their arguments that we could easily respond to.
SF: I understand that the main focus of your organizational efforts now is to find means to ensure that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are implemented and expanded.
You are also exploring how the right of collective bargaining can be extended to domestic workers. How do you
propose to achieve these goals? What kind of communitybased structures are envisaging as necessary to make
collective bargaining relevant to the situation of domestic
workers?
PG: One of the things that we are doing is revamping
our base building structure, which basically means formalizing the current, informal networks that exist among
domestic workers. The workers are already connected
373

to each other. Whether it is in the neighborhoods where
they live or in the neighborhoods where they work, on
the park bench, in the playgrounds, they are already in
conversation with each other.
So this year, after the bill of rights victory, what we
want to do in order to expand our capacity to reach the estimated over 200,000 workers in the metro area is to train
a few dozen worker leaders to be the front line of defense.
To be the organizational contacts for workers in a given
area. So were gonna be training these worker leaders in
"know your rights", in negotiation, and also to be grievance
intake specialists where they can respond quickly to cases
of abuse and exploitation in a given area. In doing that
not only will we be raising the visibility of DWU among
workers but also among employers, [letting them know]
that there is someone in the neighborhood that is keeping
a watch on any potential cases where workers rights are
being violated. As part of that, we are hoping that this
program will build our capacity to engage in collective
bargaining where we can build our power to sit at the
table across from employers. One of the things that we are
planning to do is with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice to launch what we are calling the "Domestic Justice
Dialogue Project". Given that so much of our strategy has
been about also doing transformative organizing, what
we want to do is to bring groups of workers and groups
of employers to talk about the challenges in the employment relationship, to get educated on the history of the
industry in the United States, and to start thinking about
an agreement or terms that would be of mutual benefit.
[We need] to think about incentives that would be useful
for employers, whether it is investing in a health care
374

pool, where they would have to pay two dollars an hour to
pay for full health care for their worker, together with a
bunch of other employers in the neighborhood, or organizing workers around the idea that it would be possible for
them to negotiate as a group, and not have to individually
walk into a household, given the power differential that
we have in this industry, to have to negotiate terms that
could or could not lead to a job. [We need] to create the
conditions where we could identify what our standards
are in the industry, what we are not willing to go under,
and to present that and have an honest negotiation with
employers to try to establish an agreement that families
in a given neighborhood will follow, and where we try to
organize as many households as possible to follow that.
With the ultimate vision of using these local agreements as
industry-wide standards that we can take back to Albany
and say, "Look. This is what we were able to accomplish
on the ground. It has the color of law. We have some
real recommendations to make about collective bargaining
and how negotiations in this industry look." That is our
vision for next couple of years and what well be organizing toward. The majority of workers are downstate [New
York City and the bordering counties], so our focus will be
downstate. When we have the capacity we can investigate
what it looks like statewide.
SF: Is the campaign for a Bill of Rights taking place also
in other parts of the US? What has been so far the impact
of your victory on the struggles of other domestic workers
across the country? And what kind of help/support have
you received from other workers?
PG: One of the things that were doing through the National Domestic Workers Alliance that we helped build and
375

form three-and-a-half years ago, is a national research
project that will be anchored in several different cities
where well try to take a snapshot of what the conditions
look like for the over two-and-a-half million domestic workers that we estimate are employed in this sector. And with
that build momentum and provide additional data to advance similar campaigns in other states. So California and
Massachusetts are two states that are launching domestic
workers bill of rights campaigns. They are ready to go
and will be modeling their campaigns on the New York
victory. And also one thing that was interesting that we
learned recently is that the California domestic workers
bill of rights actually has the right to collectively bargain.
So it is possible that we could pilot collective bargaining,
or standard negotiation agreements, in tandem and be
able to share lessons learned and employ similar tactics
and create the momentum beyond one state.
Were also uniting forces with other excluded sectors through what were calling the "Excluded Workers
Congress" where were bringing together about nine
different sectors of workers: domestic workers, farm
workers, guest workers, day laborers, taxi workers, restaurant workers, formerly incarcerated workers, work-fare
workers to work on the expansion to labor protections for
these sectors that have been excluded by either default
or design or both. One of the key things that were gonna
be focusing on is precisely collective bargaining because a
lot of our sectors share similar characteristics of workers
being really isolated, many of the workers not having
papers and being in these really vulnerable conditions and
our labor laws just not being up to par with the realities
of the 21st Century workers. It is one of the things that
376

were really excited about and were hoping that our pilot
projects in New York will be able to help create data,
experience and lessons learned.
SF: DWU is an impressive umbrella organization
made of workers from every part of the world, from the
Caribbean Islands to Nepal to Brazil. How have you been
able to achieve such multinational composition, cutting
across language/cultural, ethnic differences?
PG: We found that the bill of rights campaign served
as a really critical tool to unify a really diverse workforce
because no matter where people came from, the conditions
they shared were really similar and that the demands
that had been established or identified at the "Have Your
Say Convention" really resonated with workers who had
not been there. So we could go to a playground and we
could talk about sick days and holidays and vacation and
notice and severance and a living wage and across the
board so many workers, regardless of where they were
from, regardless of the language that they spoke or the
different religious traditions that they came from, really
identified with the fact that as workers they were being
denied these basic rights. In a lot of ways the industrywide approach that we took is ultimately what brought
together all these different workers. In the same way that
the Excluded Workers Congress and the campaigns that
were identifying as critical for our bases is also unifying
folks from across many different sectors, from across many
different racial and linguistic backgrounds.
RJ: Are there other things that might be relevant to
share that might be helpful for other organizations that
might try to launch campaigns that involve bridging such
diverse communities?
377

PG: I think prioritizing story-telling is really a critical
component of any organizing because that is where you
can identify the similarities in the experiences that would
allow you to tell a story that resonates with people of
many different walks of life. Being able to create those
opportunities where people can come together, hear from
each other, talk about the conditions they are facing and be
able to develop a common analysis about the root causes,
that is what is gonna unify people. It is being educated
about the history of how something evolved. About why
we are where we are right now and just being able to just
hear from each other and identify the experiences that
they share in common. I feel like that is something that is
really critical and often not done, where you sort of do it in
reverse. Somebody else identifies what the problem is and
what the solution needs to be. But it needs to be from the
ground where people actually have face-to-face time where
they can speak from the heart and say, "This is what I have
to go through every single day. And if I can see myself in
you then we can struggle together." And it is in the process
of that struggling together that transformation happens
and where you actually create the possibility for building
movement that ultimately is about uniting people that are
ostensibly from different, that occupy different spaces.
SF: What are the main problems, economic/social/emotional, that domestic workers are facing in their everyday
work-experience, in their relations to their employers, as
well as the authorities and the law? Does working in a
global city like NY hinder or facilitate organizing?
PG: I think it is probably both. Easier in that people
are in close proximity to each other even though it is still
a city that is pretty segregated. Also it is harder because
378

you are dealing with so many different types of people.
What I was saying earlier about being really intentional
about bringing different individuals face-to-face with one
another and creating opportunities for those interactions
to take place and for that sharing to happen. There is
a lot to be said about that. There is a lot of potential
that gets created by bringing people together. We always
tried really hard in the bill of rights campaign not to
make assumptions about anybody. The campaign was
intentionally structured in a really open way. Sure, at
times, we needed to question, "Well, we dont agree with
this particular group on the other stuff that they work
on, right? But we can agree on this." And for us that was
OK because the priority was identifying shared interests
and shared values and if we could start from there then
we have hope for transforming those other areas where
there is no overlap, where there is difference. But you
have to create the opportunity for people to interact and
participate.
SF: It is often said that domestic/care work is like no
other work because its product is the well-being of the
people cared-for, this being especially true in the case
of child-care and eldercare. It is said that the forms of
struggle and resistance that have been typical of industrial
work do not apply here, because it is work dealing with
human beings. At the same time, many care-workers,
nurses in particular have rejected the blackmail used by
employers claiming that they cannot strike because people
is lives depend on them. How do you see this contrast?
PG: I think that is a false assumption. Our experience
has been that our members identify as workers, first and
foremost. In the industry in which they work, sure, the
379

problems are embedded in the fact that it is largely informal. That it is a pretty intimate relationship that is
different from other employment relationships. But ultimately this is work that we are fighting to have considered
real work. Our members identify as workers and have no
qualms about one day going on strike if we can build to
that level where it would make a meaningful difference
where we could turn out thousands and thousands and
thousands of workers. Our members will often talk about
how we say, "This is the work that makes all other work
possible." If we stop, New York City would stop running.
We want to test that. We want to be able to build to a scale
that would allow us to put that to test because ultimately
it isnt about that blackmail or that false assumption. Our
domestic workers are workers just like the steel workers
or any other factory worker. They will be ready to go on
strike when the time, place and conditions are right for it.
SF: How do you see the relation between paid and unpaid domestic work? Do you think that if all domestic work were paid the condition of domestic workers
would improve? Do you agree with the position taken
by women in the Wages For Housework Campaign that
was launched internationally in the 1970s which argued
that the unpaid condition of housework, its naturalization
as "womens work," is the main cause of the devaluation
of paid domestic/care-work as well?
PG: I think that ignores the very explicit racial history,
particularly in the United States. It is identifying the
devaluation of womens work as being a principal factor
when in the United States what we also have to consider
is that domestic work has its roots in slavery. Enslaved
African women were the first domestic workers in this
380

country. In the 1930s, when labor laws were being negotiated, because domestic workers were primarily African
American they were denied these rights. To ignore that
history is not taking into account why domestic workers
have been in the position that they are in, because it is
a multitude of factors. It is the fact that they do work
that is been considered "womens work," it is the fact that
there is this really clear lineage to slavery, it is work that
in particular brown women and immigrant women have
always done, that as a form of wage labor- has always
been exploited, [and treated as] expendable. When we
talk about why domestic work is ultimately devalued and
excluded we have to talk about all of those factors together
in order to really get at the root cause and to think about
solutions that would actually address and get at all that.
So if we were to have this cultural shift where you start
valuing womens work in the household it still would not
fundamentally transform the domestic work industry. We
would still have a long way to go in terms of thinking about
the work that immigrant women of color in particular in
this country have done for the last couple of decades as
a form of wage labor that deserves to be protected and
respected and valued.
SF: What is your relation with feminist organizations?
What do you think of the position that some feminists take
that women should not hire domestics or care-workers because it creates an unequal power relation among women?
What would you say to these feminists?
PG: I am thinking about how our members would respond to that question actually. Ultimately our struggle
is about valuing and lifting up the dignity of this profession, understanding it as a profession. Everyone has to
381

work, right? Many people have employers. Many people
have supervisors. Many people work in workplaces that
are hierarchical. So domestic workers arent necessarily
fighting to be treated differently. They are fighting to be
on equal footing with all other works. If there is a woman
that wants to hire someone to work in her home, if the
conditions are dignified, if the conditions really reflect the
value of the work, the contributions that that working is
making to the home, of raising a child, of having to employ
a variety of skills, everything from basic pediatrics to child
psychology to health and safety to language instruction,
and they are getting a living wage, a wage that really honors all of the different things that theyre doing then there
is no reason for that to be shameful, right, or to be wrong,
or to necessarily be unequal. Ultimately what we want is
fair working conditions and to get pay for an honest days
work. It is not as simple as saying, "Well, I am a feminist,
I am not gonna hire somebody. If I have kids Ill just take
care of my kids." Folks need work and they want to work.
This is a profession. It is skilled. There is a career ladder,
contrary to popular belief. There is a way for this to work,
you know?
SF: How can women and men best support the struggle
of DWU and domestic workers in general? What concretely
each of us can do to expand domestic workers rights?
PG: We are at the place now where, at least in New York,
were launching a Know Your Rights campaign, which we
understand has to have a really strong communications
infrastructure because our industry is so disperse. What
were looking for our allies for support around is to help
spread the word about this law in New York. If theyre
not in New York, to help spread the word about the value
382

of domestic work because what we want to do in terms
of fundamentally transforming the industry, in addition
to expanding basic labor rights and protections is also to
change the way that people think about domestic work. To
shift from this thinking that it is invisible, unskilled, inexpert work to this thinking that is really reflective of what
the work actually is, which is skilled, expert, professional
and contributing significantly to the overall functioning of
society and to our economy. That is not a concrete call to
action but it is encouraging people to have these conversations, to think differently about the brown woman who is
pushing the white kid in the stroller that for so long has
been a really visible presence in New York City but that,
for the reasons that we know, have been really invisible
and it is about us recognizing it, making it visible, talking
about the law in New York, talking about the movement
of domestic workers nationally, talking about it internationally. The ILO, the International Labor Organization,
is dedicating the next five years to investigating domestic
work around the world and in June of 2011 will be passing
a convention on the rights of domestic workers. It is on the
international radar that this is a burgeoning movement
that is setting precedent, not just for domestic workers
but for all excluded workers and ultimately for all working people in terms of redefining the value of labor and
challenging the traditional instruments and frameworks
that we have relied upon to protect our rights as workers
in the world.
RJ: Thinking about the international context of the
readership of this interview, something that you mentioned within the interview was the notion of "transformative organizing." Do you have a few words to say about
383

what that means to you or Domestic Workers United or
what that means in the context of organizing in the United
States?
PG: It means a lot of things. Transformative organizing
is about challenging structural inequities but it is also
about personal transformation and unlearning all of the
values that we have inherited through capitalism and
through existing and surviving in capitalist society. It is
about shifting our consciousness around building community in a different way and looking beyond individualism.
In our particular context around domestic work it is been
a lot about making visible the invisible. It is a lot about exposing histories of racism and discrimination. It is about
self-reflection and revaluing human relationships in the
context of struggle. You create campaigns with a movement building perspective, that it is not just about the
ultimate win and what you can gain in the short term but
that ultimately it is about the struggle you engage in with
people you never thought you would engage in struggle
with, who would be standing by you and who you, just
by virtue of struggling together, you are transformed by.
Your worldview is changed, your consciousness is shifted
and that, by having participated in something like that,
in a campaign that had that perspective, you will change
the way that you engage in the world as a conscious, just
human being. That to me is "transformative organizing"
and that to me is what the bill of rights campaign gave to
us and gave to everybody who ever participated in it.
For campaign information and updates regarding
the implementation of the NY Domestic Workers
Bill of Rights and collective bargaining, please visit
384

http://www.domesticworkersunited.org and
http://www.knowyourrightsny.org.
385
19. A Male Domestic

Worker
An Interview With RJ Maccani1
Silvia Federici: What is it like to be a male nanny? What
are the main differences from the viewpoint of how you
are treated by employers, what is expected of you, what
tasks you may be asked to do or not to do, and the power
relations generated by this work? Were you treated with
more respect? Were you better paid?
RJ Maccani: I supported myself for three years by
working as a nanny. Ive just recently transitioned to other
paid work. Over the course of those three years I cared
for seven different children from four different households
here in New York City.
The vast majority of my peers in this work were immigrant women of color. Sometimes I would run into a young
white American woman who was working as a nanny. On
only one or two occasions did I meet another man who did
so. I was the only 30-year-old man that I knew working as
a nanny.
1
Interview by Silvia Federici with RJ Maccani, on his experience

working three years as a child care-worker, in New York. RJ is a
member of the Regeneracin Collective.
386

Amongst the other nannies, even those I was closest
with, differences of gender, race, class and citizenship
always felt greater than our shared experience as domestic
workers. This difference held not only in the rest of our
lives but within our experiences of domestic work as well.
My peers were often expected to clean their employers
homes, cook for the family or do their laundry in addition
to caring for the children. At most I was responsible for
ensuring that the home was in the same condition as
when I began the workday, and that the children had well
prepared food.
Having worked as a union organizer, I was comfortable
initiating frank conversations with other nannies regarding pay and conditions. I discovered that I was usually
better paid than most of the other nannies, not always,
but sometimes much more so and for less work.
In one case a nanny with whom I was particularly close
confided in me that she earned just $10 an hour, which is
a paltry sum given the cost of living in NYC. She worked
long hours caring for two children who were in different
places developmentally, which is important to note and
generally more difficult than taking care of two children
of about the same age/ability. She did their laundry and
often cooked dinner as well. She was from Mexico, without
papers and with little facility in speaking English. The
family she worked for was well regarded amongst the
network of middle class families in the neighborhood for
whom we all worked. Perhaps more troubling, the father of
that family had himself immigrated to the United States
from Central America, albeit under much more favorable
conditions.
387

So in some ways I believe that other factors turned out
to be as decisive as gender with respect to how employers
treated me. The distance between my class background
and education level, and that of my employers, was trivial
next to the chasm between them and the other nannies.
I was like a value added commodity: an articulate,
youthful and earnest white man to take care of your kids.
From the most cynical of perspectives, I was the perfect
solution for middle class parents who didnt want to see
an oppressed person working in their home. I can safely
say that none of the families I worked for were so cynically
calculating. And in most cases we had, and maintain, a
rich connection to each other.
I occupied this undefined, in between position in the
neighborhood. Over a couple of years living and working
in the same place, socializing outside of work hours with
nannies and employers alike, I was inside of conversations that one side or the other, nanny or employer, is not
normally included in and yet I was still not privy to the
entirety of either groups discussions I suspect.
SF: How has working in a typically female, gender/cast
job affected your relationship with your friends, family,
and the people you interact with in the course of your
work? How do people react on learning you work as a
nanny? What has been the reaction of other nannies towards you?
RJM: Well my grandmother always inquired as to when
Id get a real job. I felt sad hearing this. Not because I
felt ashamed of my work but because one of the major
undertakings of my grandmothers life was raising three
children.
388

In general, though, reactions from people varied greatly.
I got the impression that my employment as a nanny
wasnt the sort of thing to announce at a big social gathering. You know, something must be a bit off with me if this
is what Im doing at my age. The more classed the setting,
the less accepting or interested people would generally be
about my work. My grandmother notwithstanding, women
tended see my being a nanny much more positively, unless
they were sizing me up as a potential life partner.
My political community in New York City, as well as my
Mother, her partner and a few others, all understood my
nanny work as an expression of my pro-feminist commitments.
I met other nannies while on playgrounds and in other
public and semi-public settings where it was common for
us to congregate with the children. They always assumed
that I was the childrens father. I was usually met with
surprise and either appreciation or suspicion when it was
established that I was also a nanny - appreciation for
seeing a man take on this work or the suspicion of my
intentions for deciding to spend so much time around
children.
SF: Care work is often described as a problematic type of
work, because of the individualized relation it establishes
between worker and employers, because of the isolation
in which the work is done, the precise definition of the
tasks expected and also because the work takes place in
the home of the employer and thus creates a situation of
intimacy and at the same time of conflict (about control
of space) that is not present in other jobs. How did you
live this experience? What were the main difficulties and
points of conflict you experienced?
389

RJM: Nannying can be quite nerve-wracking for all the
reasons youve listed. Its better or worse depending on
how happy the parents are, if they are relaxed and down
to earth or overprotective and uptight.
With an uptight parent, or worse, an uptight family,
the stress level of the work can get really high. As a
nanny I often had to make unanticipated decisions without
input from the parents. But its not a question of, What
would I do if this were my kid? Youve got to try to read
their minds. If you choose something other than what
the parents would have done, you can get in quite a bit of
trouble.
Injuries can be terrifying. One day I had an accident
where one of the children fell on their head. I cant remember the last time I felt that much terror. Would this
poor child be permanently injured? I remember when this
sort of thing happened to me while I was a kid with my
mother and her friends. But its different when youre not
the parent. The child was fine, thank goodness, and the
parents were sympathetic; they had had a similar accident
with their older son.
However, there was a family that I worked for where the
isolation of the work, the family dynamics and expectations were particularly hard. After working with their two
children for a year, the mother scolded me so harshly, and
in front of the kids, that I began sobbing. She apologized
later and acknowledged that theyd been very happy with
my work. But there was no one else there to bear witness
to that treatment, or to have a memory of the events that
led up to it.
Upon reflection I realized that the mother had frequently talked down to the father in front of the children
390

as well. The misgivings I had about the way I was
treated wouldnt be validated by anyone elses first-person
experience until a friend of mine also worked in that home
some time later. That kind of affirmation can be a rare
luxury for a nanny. It was through our conversation as
back-to-back nannies that we recognized a pattern when
the older of the two children began talking down to the
father as well. This is the kind of really intimate stuff
that stays with me.
SF: How did you deal with the emotional aspect of childcare: the desire to and danger of becoming too attached to
the child/ren you care for, in a situation in which you can
be suddenly separated from them and have no authority to
shape decisions affecting their lives or preventing negative
treatments of them by the parents?
RJM: I miss all the children that Ive known through
this work. Theyre so cute, how could I not want to see
them? That being said, I dont miss the work itself. It feels
very mundane at times, and yet it often requires your full
attention. I was usually quite happy to return the kids to
their parents at the end of my shift.
I never felt that I had much authority. I could mitigate a
problem, or be supportive of the childs self-determination,
but that was about it. There was a very young boy I took
care of who insisted on wearing dresses. It was great to
be there for him, to affirm his choice, to talk gender with
a four year old, but I had no illusions about my overall
power in the dynamic of his home.
I do want to see all of them again, to see how they
are doing. This is for me more than them, though. The
youngest ones will not even remember who I am.
391

SF: Has being a man enabled you to better control the
conditions of your work or made it more difficult? What
tactics, forms of subversion have you used to resist unwanted tasks, express discontent, force different relations?
Have you joined care workers organizations? What have
been the most effective form of resistance /struggle you
have engaged in?
RJM: Sometimes just my being a man was a service
I provided. In some cases the parents felt their children
needed to spend more time around men, or needed a man
to keep up with their kid. Lowered expectations around my
capacity to provide certain forms of care, such as cleaning
or food preparation, meant that I often got out of work that
female nannies would not. This was a curious reproduction
of part of the problem that I was presumably there to solve:
in three out of the four households it was the mother, in
some form or another, who was more responsible for the
children than the father.
I got involved with care work as political work as early
as 2004, maybe earlier. For example, as members of Critical Resistance NYC, a local chapter of a national penal
abolition organization, Mayuran Tiruchelvam and I would
step out of meetings inside of an alternative to incarceration facility for women to take care of the children so the
mothers could more fully participate. Over the summer of
2005 I joined two other volunteers, Ileana Mndez-Peate
and Radhika Singh, in serving as a bilingual presence
within a childcare cooperative, Pachamama, that was created and run entirely by mothers of color in Brooklyn
most of whom spoke only English or only Spanish.
Pachamama was a political project that grew out of Sista
II Sista and other organizational experiences of women of
392

color in the city. One of the organizers and mothers in the
cooperative, Ije Ude, was the person who first politicized
me around my experiences of sexual abuse as a child. By
the end of 2005 Ileana, Radhika, Mayuran and I formed
Regeneracin, a collective grounded in working with children and relationship building with radical immigrant,
queer and women of color organizations.
Ive found Regeneracin to be an effective form of struggle. Many more people have become involved in the collective since we initiated it back in 05. Weve worked
in concert with local organizations as well as national
gatherings to create space for children to be present and
sometimes directly participate in struggles. For example,
a couple of years ago we worked with one of our partner
organizations, Domestic Workers United (DWU), and Jews
for Racial and Economic Justice as well, to create a childrens vigil in support of the Domestic Workers Bill of
Rights campaign. The children of domestic workers came
together with children taken care of by domestic workers
to draw, sing and demonstrate in front of City Hall.
And, of course, Regeneracin being there to work with
the children has facilitated parents participation in
groups such as DWU, Families for Freedom (fighting
detentions and deportations) or Center for Immigrant
Families (defending, improving and building beyond
public education in Manhattan). It was through working
with the collective that I was first approached to do paid
childcare work, to be a nanny.
Although I was a domestic worker, I never joined DWU
as a member because of that chasm I described earlier
between the relative privileges of my lived experience and
those of the immigrant women of color who are DWUs
393

base. Its been through Regeneracin that Ive found a
space to directly organize around care work.
SF: What are the main lessons you have learned about
(a) the nature of care work, childcare in particular, and (b)
the forms of struggle that are appropriate for this type of
work. It is often argued (also by childcare/eldercare workers) that the forms of struggle that apply to industrial
work do not apply, as you cannot (for instance) sabotage
the people you are caring for. On the basis of your experience how would you want childcare/carework to be
restructured, reorganized?
RJM: Part of the reason that I became a nanny, aside
from the fact that I needed to earn a wage, was to gain
experience in a sphere that felt very unfamiliar. I learned
that childcare is very hard work. Its led me to think hard
about whether or not I want to be a parent one day. As
a job, its harder still for how little money and respect is
granted to those who do the work.
Domestic Workers United is an obvious reference point
here as a form of struggle for this kind of wage labor. Beyond this, taking into account the mostly uncompensated
care work that is happening all the time can lead us to
shift how we struggle. This is one of the insights weve
had within Regeneracin. Whats the pace of a movement
that includes parents, children, elders, people who have
fallen ill or are living with disabilities? These categories
inevitably encompass each of us for at least some period
of our lives. What do we gain when we acknowledge that,
plan for it, build all of ourselves into the plan of struggle?
Id like to see care work reorganized so that it is not always some who are giving and others who are receiving. It
is something to which we all can contribute, in one fashion
394

or another. It can be a pleasure not only to receive care
but also to give it. Care work can be deeply humanizing.
Lets share this work. Lets feel joy, despair, suffering and
relief, together.
395
20. The Regeneration

Manifesto
Regeneracin Childcare Collective
The Regeneracin Childcare Collective is committed to
growing an intergenerational movement for collective liberation, in which people of all ages can participate, learn
from each other, take care of each other, and dramatically
reshape the conditions of their lives. Since 2005, Regeneracin has built relationships with and between domestic
workers, immigrant families, families facing detention,
queer families organizing for racial and economic justice,
and radical parents and caretakers; weve sent delegations
to the U.S. Social Forum, facilitated a childrens program
at the Critical Resistance 10 conference, and been in dialogue with radical childcare providers across the country; weve occupied cafeterias in New York City, swung
on swingsets in Detroit, and played hide-and-go-seek in
Oakland.
As we did all this, we discovered an incredible secret:
the walls that constrain our everyday lives are riven with
fissures, tears and holes. The holes are hard to spot, but
once we notice them, they nourish us with a powerful
magic. We can peer through them and see realities that
396

exist right now, inside this world and inside of ourselves
magical realities in which people fashion their world together, everyone feels respected and loved, and people are
responsible to one another and to a collective vision. The
more we practice our magic, the more were able to notice
these holes, tug at their edges, and begin stepping through
them into what awaits us. Here are some pieces of the
magic weve practiced so far. Use them wisely.
Intergenerational Movements are

Powerful
When movements provide people of all ages a way to participate in their own liberationfrom the very young to the
very oldthey are capable of fantastic things. Intergenerational movements sustain themselves through periods of
intense repression and regenerate over time. They develop
a profound collective memory, which allows each generation to learn from the experiences of those that came
before. They offer more than a scene, which one dips into
and out of on a whim, or a phase, which one ultimately
abandons for more serious responsibilities. Intergenerational movements create cultures of resistance that people
use to understand themselves, their communities, and
collective action in the world throughout their entire lives.
Struggles that embody this vision continue to surge from
the global south, and they remain a huge inspiration for
Regeneracin.
397
Kids Change How we Do Politics

Kids teach us that movement is a processnot a program
and that this process is playful, imaginative and creative,
not just serious and rational. In turn, we teach kids that
their play is a powerful tool they can and should cultivate
throughout their lives, with serious implications for the
world we inhabit. Interactions with kids produce another
kind of politics, one that recognizes play as a crucial ingredient of any movement, and demolishes the walls that
sequester it in childhood or bar it from our adult lives.
Childcare is a Central Element, But

Not the Only One
From its inception, Regeneracin has provided childcare
to low-income parents of color and queer parents, in order
to facilitate their participation in movement groups. This
ally role remains central to our work, but its situated
within a larger vision. Regeneracin also wants to change
and deepen the way groups interact with children. We
want to build connections between radical parents and
caretakers, furthering their self-organization and nurturing movement that is relevant and accessible to folks with
kids. Ultimately, we want to change how individuals and
groups connect: not just through formal meetings and compartmentalized issues, but through all our various forms
of life, including families, caretaking and personal relationships. Connecting in this way enriches our movement,
and at the same time, changes its scope and vision.
398
Childcare is Valuable, Critical,

Beautiful Labor
As a form of work, childcare has been feminized and devalued in our society. All around us, women are expected to
care for children in isolation and without support; schools
and jails produce kids like commodities on an assembly
line; and domestic workers are exploited while raising the
children of the wealthy. Regeneracin wants something
better. We believe childcare is a central part of our creative
activity as a people, a kind of labor that creates and molds
subjectivity, producing human beings who can interact
with others and cooperate with their peers. We believe
childcare is the crucial labor that reproduces human community, generation after generation. We want to draw it
into the open, recognize its true importance, and make it
the collective labor of all.
We are a Cultural Catalyst

We arent capable of organizing an entire intergenerational movement under our umbrella, nor do we want to.
Our primary focus is not to grow our organization, but to
grow our vision of an intergenerational movement for collective liberation. To do this we will model the movement
we want to see, inspire other groups to transform themselves, and provide resources to help the process along.
Our work is about more than just changing political positions, or having people adopt ours. It requires us to make
399

anew our entire culture, and reshape our communities
and movements.
We Are On a Journey, Building the

World We Want as We Go
Our dreams are big, and we still have much to do. But
after some years of growing with kids and their communities, we see many more holes in the walls of the system
than when we first started. They are all over the place,
growing in size and connecting with one another. The
small things were doing now will further these openings,
and the world that awaits us will become bigger, stronger
and more beautiful.
400
21. The Triumph of the

Domestic Workers
Konstanze Schmitt
In the rich countries, we are having a boom of domestic
labour. More and more children, elderly persons and people with disabilities are being cared by domestic workers
who often work under precarious conditions. A new type of
female migration has emerged from these conditions in the
last years. Female migrant workers not only contribute to
the economic growth of their home countries by sending
money home, they also contribute to and maintain economic standards in the countries they are working in. By
leaving the care of their families in hands of other women,
the migration of women leads to the creation of global
care chains. As a disputed political field, care work gives
birth to new gender subjectivities, hierarchies, desires and
resistances.
I met Rafaela from Territorio Domestico at a conference
about care work in 2008. Herself a domestic worker, she
told us how the women of her group presented themselves
as lawyers in order to recover the wage of an undocumented colleague who was kicked out of her work without
getting paid. They succeeded. The women, most of them
401

from Latin American, founded the association SEDOAC
(Active Domestic Work) in 2006. Territorio Domstico
is located in the self-organized feminist center Eskalera
Karakola in Madrid, where women, collectives and activists of various nationalities and with different experiences, who work as domestic workers or are otherwise
connected to this issue, meet once a month. Together and
along with other domestic workers associations and collectives, SEDOAC and Territorio Domstico are fighting for
equal rights of domestic labour, against precarization, and
for the rights of domestic workers no matter what their
residence permit status is.
I began to work with Territorio Domstico in 2009, having meetings with the group and various discussions with
different persons. These discussions formed the main
basis for the performative work we realized together in
February and March 2010. During this time, I worked
with six domestic workers on four short documentary
based scenes that thematize the conditions of a domestic
workers daily life: migration, precarious work conditions,
exploitation and irregular residence. The performance
was part of the International Action Day of the Domestic
Workers that took place in the center of Madrid on the
28th March and at which hundreds of women took part.
The scenes had to be short and easy to understand
even without hearing the words. The most adequate form
for this we found was Agit Prop. The short scenes about
repression and resistance in the daily life of the domestic
workers were written and performed by the workers in
an assertive and forceful presentation. At the time, the
performance fitted in with the other parts of the demonstration. For example, after our last scene, the manifesto
402

of the demonstration was read in front of the wagon and
the carpet in the middle of Plaza del Sol.
The wagon, which was constructed with a painting on bicycle wheels and moving gearwheels, was a very important
part of the performance. It accompanied the demonstration and formed the scenery for the scenes. Territorio
Domstico, Stephan Dillemuth and I painted it together
on a Sunday with grilled chicken and Coca Cola. The
commonly developed painting shows various revolutionary women/icons of the womens and workers movement,
state institutions and the many-headed hydra. The hydra
attacks the judges of the Spanish Higher Court.
The painting is called Triumph of the domestic workers
and it refers to a colonial painting that it reinterprets and
turns upside down: The triumph of the name of Jesus.
Being invited to The Potos Principle,1 an exhibition
about actual and historical forms of colonialism and the
involvement of picture production in this process, we were
asked by the curators to refer in our work as were all of
the participants to a colonial painting.
The Triumph of the name of Jesus shows a chariot
with several floors and the prophets, church fathers, apostles and saints of the Catholic Church on it. The four
evangelists seem to pull the chariot their sashes seem
1
The exhibition The Potos Principle is curated by Alice Creischer,

Andreas Siekmann and Max Jorge Hinderer. It opened in May
2010 in Museo Reina Sofia, Madrid, and moved to Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, in October. In 2011, it will be shown in
Museo Nacional de Arte, La Paz, Bolivia. The installation The
triumph of the domestic workers by Territorio Domestico, Stephan
Dillemuth and Konstanze Schmitt consists of the wagon, a video
of the performance, fotos, texts and various stage props.
403

to disappear into the mouth of the serpent which squirms
around the chariot. Above the chariot, we see Ignatius
from Loyola, founder of the Jesuitic Orden (really important for the missionary work in Latin America), and behind him, John Baptist. On the flag are the allegories of
church, faith and justice. Behind the chariot, there is the
family tree of Jesus. But under the wheels of the wagon,
there are four women who represent the four continents.
A much-discussed question when looking at the picture
was: Who actually sets the wagon in motion? Is it the four
evangelists in front of the wagon, the siren twining around
it, or the four women under the wagon moving its wheels
with their hands?
One of the slogans of Territorio Domestico is: Without
us, the world doesnt revolve. Care and domestic work is
in its different forms the base for social and capitalistic
production. Reproduction work as the central element of
the society dovetails with all other areas of production, be
it companies, universities, hospitals or careers in general.
All work depends in the end of the work of these women
who mainly come from Spains former colonies.
In order to visualise this principle and domestic work
in the society, Territorio Domestico has developed its own
symbol: a system of gearwheels set in motion by a female
domestic worker. Indebted to the wealth of images of the
classical labour movement, domestic work now takes on
the central position in regard to factory labour. These
gearwheels who are very present in the painting, are the
link between the colonial painting/situation and the actual
system of colonialism, and it focuses on the power of the
persons under the wheels answering the question of
Who moves the wagon/world?
404
22. Servicio Domestco

Activo
The Association of Domestic Workers
in Madrid
Konstanze Schmitt
Rafaela, Marlene, and Mary from the Sedoac
association in conversation with Konstanze
Schmitt
Rafaela is from the Dominican Republic, where she did
key educational, social, and cultural work. She has been
in Madrid for twenty years. For four years she had no
papers. Now she has acquired Spanish nationality. For a
few years now she has been working forty-hour weeks in
domestic service for a private family.
Marlene is from Colombia, where she was a secretary.
She fled the insecurity of her own country in search of a
better life and more financial stability. She has been in
Madrid for eight years. Marlene works forty hours a week
cleaning banks for a temporary employment agency for a
monthly salary of C580. She does so to allow herself to
make social security contributions. As her salary is not
405

enough to live on she has to work on an hourly basis in
private houses.
Mary was also a secretary. She left Colombia during
the economic crisis in the 1990s. She spent several years
working in Costa Rica. She has been living and working
as a live-in domestic employee in Madrid since 2007.
Konstanze Schmitt: The association Sedoac was set
up in 2006. What prompted the group to be set up and
how does it work? What are your objectives?
Marlene: We met each other at some workshops organized by another association related to care work. We
started talking to some other domestic workers and we
found we were in some pretty tough situations; there are
some very bad employers and families out there. There
are live-in workers who barely get food to eat. We said
no. And we had the idea of setting up an association for
domestic staff, to make ourselves heard, to make ourselves
seen and to claim our rights. Sedoac has been a legally
established association for a year and a half, and I am the
treasurer.
Konstanze Schmitt: Attending your meeting yesterday, I realized that it is a larger space: it was not only
women from Sedoac, but also Agencia Precaria and other
womens groups.
Mary: The workshop at the La Karakola feminist social center where we meet on the second Sunday of every
month is called Domestic Territory. It is a place where
we listen, provide support and help, and get involved with
all aspects of our work, with what the government wants
to do with foreigners, etc. Domestic Territory is not a collective, but a place for building, with very different women
and groups participating. What unites us is that we are
406

all, in some way or other, involved in care work and domestic service. We want to get stronger and join up with other
groups to make us stronger, and to fight for our rights.
Sometimes there are fifty women, sometimes twenty. And
we come from many different countries, such as Bolivia,
Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Morocco,
Bangladesh, and, obviously, Spain. As there has been a
big crackdown recently some women without papers no
longer turn up, for fear of being arrested and deported. I
have been here for three years as a live-in care worker for
the elderly, and I have no papers.
Konstanze Schmitt: What are your political objectives?
Rafaela: One of the main motives is our working conditions. Domestic service is a very poorly paid profession
and, besides that, we do not get the same benefits as other
welfare systems. We are in a special system that means
we do not have the right to unemployment benefit, sick
leave, a minimum wage, or paid vacations. The law gives
us absolutely no protection. Along with other domestic
service associations, we form part of a national platform of
domestic workers. We want domestic work to be covered
by the general system, for it to be valued as highly as any
other job. I consider myself to be a worker, and my rights
should be respected. We are also fighting for the legalization of people in our sector who have no papers. The
current government has a dual strategy; on the one hand,
they are promising more rights for domestic workers with
papers, and at the same time introducing intermediary
companies to operate as temporary employment agencies.
On the other hand, they are criminalizing workers without papers. But these are the very women who end up in
407

domestic service, not just because it is one of the few options for them, but because employers are always looking
to pay as little as possible, and that is why they look for
women from new countries, not women who are already
organized.
In 2005, the Zapatero government legalized 800,000
people without papers. Now, the climate has changed.
Previously, you could be legalized by being established.
If you had been in Spain for three years and you had an
employment contract, they gave you a residence permit.
Now it is much more restrictive, and we are afraid that
Spain is bringing its immigration laws in line with European regulations. We believe that the policies of the
government and Europe want to split us into the good
ones with papers and the bad ones without. We cannot
allow this to happen.
But our criticism goes beyond that; the Spanish State
and the Spanish economy have profited from us for years,
to do a job that no one paid a real wage for. Now it is
time for them to provide the money required to give us
dignified working conditions. Now is the time for them to
pay to bring us into the general system, and to recognize
our right to sick leave, and to implement the financial
aspect of the Dependency Law. I am also talking about
professional training.
It is thanks to us that Spanish women managed to get
out of their houses. Some people criticize us for perpetuating gender roles. But it is not the domestic workers who
perpetuate them, it is the people who employ us. This is
the work that we were given.
408

Marlene: We also have an education project, mainly
aimed at new arrivals, so that we can raise their awareness and let them know about their rights.
Konstanze Schmitt: What do you actually do? What
strategies do you use?
Marlene: Let me give you the example of Latifa. Latifa
is a girl from Morocco who worked as a live-in, until they
fired her for no reason and refused to pay her wages. At the
Sunday meetings, we told her that she had to report them,
but Latifa was scared. Of course she was. Firstly, because
at the time she did not speak Spanish very well, and
secondly because she had no papers. Then, one of the girls
at Karakola called Latifas former employer pretending
to be a lawyer. They filed the complaint, followed it up,
the settlement process was a success and they had to pay
Latifa. This shows that you can file a complaint, even
if you do not have papers, but you have to know who to
complain to, because if you go to the police without any
papers, they will deport you.
Mary: Without the girls at Karakola we would not be
where we are now. They lend us their space, they advise
us, they help with our projects and our dreams. They are
always with us. They use their influence, for example by
getting lawyers to advise us on the current legal situation.
We are always looking for partner associations and movements to help us fight against precarious employment.
Konstanze Schmitt: You mentioned the issue of domestic work being invisible. What do you do to protest
about this issue, and to raise awareness?
Rafaela: The first time Sedoac went out onto the street
was in November 2008. We were claiming our rights, confronting rumors about intermediary companies, something
409

which was being negotiated in government without our
input. We denounced the fact that undocumented employees are treated as slaves, and we chanted our slogans for
the first time: The world would stop without us! and
No more slavery! We also did some street theatre on the
issue of domestic work. This gave us a lot of strength.
There were not many of us, but we were able to break the
silence. At the same time we issued a leaflet on advice for
powerful domestic workers, which we handed out in the
streets, inviting women to our meetings. On March 8, we
got together as a group for the International Womens Day
demonstration, for the third year running. And on March
28, for International Domestic Workers Day, we took to
the streets with associations and individuals who want to
join in our fight.
Konstanze Schmitt: Mary, what is it like as a live-in
worker with no papers?
Mary: Well, the two things kind of depend on one another. Women without papers do not have many options.
I cannot do cleaning work by the hour like Marlene, it
would be very risky for me. I try not to move around too
much, and I take taxi cabs whenever I can. I do not go out
at night. I always try to go along slowly. I avoid stations
and places where there are lots of migrants. Once I got
caught in a raid in the Metro. They arrested everyone who
looked Latin American, but they did not check me because
I am fair-haired and blue-eyed.
The drawbacks of being a live-in worker are obvious: It
is very difficult to have your own space and time. There
are people who think that because you are there twentyfour hours a day, you can work all the time. You have
to set boundaries, including for your personal life. I am
410

caring for an elderly man. Like other live-ins, I have to put
up with sexual harassment at work from some employers.
But living in helps me to save money. My dream is to
return to my country and to set up a project.
Rafaela: Yes, there are a lot of expenses here. Even I
and I am in the privileged position of earning C950 a
month for a forty-hour week with a contract, insurance,
and vacations spend C550 on accommodation. I cannot
save anything, I work to live and to send something back
to my family. My mother is ill and has no pension.
Konstanze Schmitt: It sounds like you are in one
of the global care chains described by Arlie Russell
Hochschild and other sociologists. Women who emigrate
for work, often as carers or domestic workers, leave the
care and education of their families (children, parents) to
other, poorer women or family members. What are your
experiences?
Rafaela: The people migrating to Spain up until the
1990s were women. The men came in the early 1990s,
with the rise in construction. But all that has passed now.
On the other hand, there has always been demand for
domestic staff in Spain. It was the women who went, they
made the chain in two ways: Your family depended on you.
So all you could do was work. You feel responsible. I paid
for my sister to do an economics degree. She worked for
a little over a year at a law firm, then I told her to come
to Spain. She is here now, working as a domestic worker.
The fact is that she earns eight times more here than in
the Dominican Republic. It is another chain: we bring
our sisters, our mothers, and our aunts here to work. I
also think it is very common for there to be an emotional
chain in domestic service: You leave your children there,
411

and you get really lonely. There is a great deal of solitude
in migration, especially among live-ins, and eventually,
whether you like it or not, your affections are projected
onto the people you are working with, especially if they
are children. There are families that take advantage of
these feelings to further exploit you.
The interview was conducted in Madrid and Vallecas,
October 10/12, 2009.
On March 28, 2010, domestic workers demonstrated
in downtown Madrid for labor rights and rights of residence. The women of Territorio Domstico, a platform
of organized domestic workers, individuals, and activists,
wheeled this wagon through the streets. It was a stage
set for several scenes of an agitprop performance staged
within the frame of the demonstration: Latifas Story,
Sans Papiers in Europe, and Arrested scenes in which
domestic workers give an account of oppression and resistance in their daily lives.
412
23. Interview with Liliana

Caballero Velasquez
Interview conducted via email by Silvia Federici with Liliana CABALLERO VELASQUEZ,
of the Association MADRES COMUNITARIAS
in Bogota Colombia. [February 2011]
This is our situation, us being the COMMUNITARIAN
MOTHERS. We are a group dedicated to caring and protecting young children in Colombia. We look after the
nutrition as well as the physical, social and emotional
growth of the children in general. For the past 22 years
we have been fighting to have the Colombian State recognize this work as a most important work, but apparently
these people could not care less given that we have been
exploited for a long time, first of all with bad remuneration, which affects us to a great extent given that many
of us are heads of our families or rather single mothers
raising our children on our own.
We have had connections with organizations at the national level including farmers and factory workers organizations... and many others. Through these unions we
have motivated each other. Beside looking after 12 kids
every day I have to prepare the food for them and sit down
and feed them myself. And on top of it all there is no
413

space to welcome them and I have to use my own home
where I live with my children, using all of my own services,
like electricity, water, gas, and the cost of all of them is
150,000 Columbian pesos. I have to pay for the cleaning
with the 24,000 pesos that they provide for, and my wages,
if you can call them that, because they are 221,000 pesos
a month which is not even enough to go the market for the
week.
Generally, we work in our homes and we have 13 to 14
kids under our care, but some communitarian mothers
work in groups and cover the rents with their own wages
because the employer doesnt help them in any way. The
working hours are half shift from 5 am to 1 pm, our wages
are called bonuses because none of us are state employees and we cannot say that they are wages. We have no
benefits; we do not have paid holidays; and we dont have
weekly time off, because in our time off we must assist
obligatory meetings and trainings.
The tasks we have to carry out are the following: we
prepare the food to give to the children, we carry out pedagogical activities, ensure they receive a good nutritional
diet, we take care of their health. Apart from these, we
must make sure that the childrens rights are respected,
that we are up to date with the planning of the activities
that we do with the kids. They [the authorities] do not
help us to improve the space where we attend to these 13
or 14 children; the parents are freed from their responsibilities and these are imposed on us, the communitarian
mothers.
Our working conditions are very hard. Some communitarian mothers dont have any social security because
the employer doesnt take responsibility for this. With our
414

struggle we managed to force the state to create a special
regime within social security, which includes the 1023 law
of May 3, 2006. But the employers do not want to take
responsibility to pay for it. Some communitarian mothers
have worked for 22 years without receiving any benefit in
exchange; some are 59-60-65 years old and it is injustice
what they get for a pension. We will end up with nothing.
We also do not have any type of job security. We can be
fired at any time, and many of us have been, unfairly, some
because they were very ill, others for minimal problems.
To these we must add the dismissals or termination of
our services following standard quality checks, when they
evaluate the space in which we attend to the children. If
this is not adequate they close the communitarian homes
down with no second thought; the employers demand all
this but they do not help us make these spaces suitable,
which are our own homes which we offer to provide the
services to the children.
Our main problem is the lack of recognition for our work
and the fact that we working consecutive hours. We also
have problems with the workers who are sent by foundations to manage the communitarian homes, that is, we are
managed by an operator. The relationship with the children is excellent because of the work we do; those who love
what they do keep good relations with all that surrounds
them, we are never scared to look after children, on the
contrary, it is our duty to do so. But we, communitarian
mothers, end up neglecting our own children to look after
those of the community, because they do not allow us to
bring our children to the communitarian homes, because
according to them we would be neglecting the children we
are caring for.
415

Our organization is a union for communitarian mothers,
we organize together with all the other organizations at
the national level, which has prepared us to manage to
defend our own rights and problems. We organize mobilizations, meetings, trainings, and we know people who
are part of the parliament and support us. Our demands?
We want recognition for our work, we want to obtain respect, and a lot benefits because we are the pillars of early
childhood.
The situation I am describing is a general one. Out of
100% of communitarian mothers, 99% of us work in our
own home, while the remaining percentage work in places
called gatherings where the communitarian mother has
to be, according to the employer, the one in charge of paying the rent and the services of such place. The reality
is that we live in a state of labour exploitation that you
cannot even imagine, you know, Rihoacha, la Guajira in
Colombia is a place where indigenous Wayuu live and
many of their women are communitarian mothers, they
are much more exploited, you know, if you saw the depressing conditions in which these indigenous women work you
would immediately publish all of this.
416
24. Interview with Victoria

Mamani
Interview conducted by Silvia Federici with
Victoria Mamani (Vicky) of Mujeres Creando,
at the Mujeres Creando Center, in La Paz, on
February 25, 2011. Victoria, who is a member
of Mujeres Creando, speaks of the struggle
of domestic workers, in which she participated, that led to the passing of a legislation
in 2003 specifying these workers rights and
entitlements.
Victoria: Already in 1952 there was an organization of
women [domestic workers] that struggled to obtains some
rights: the right to rest at least once a week and to have a
vacation, because at the time they did not have the right
to go out. In 1984, the struggle started again. At the roots
of the discrimination against them is often the fact that
domestic workers in Bolivia are indigenous women who
cannot speak Spanish, because they are from the rural
areas; they are discriminated also because of the clothes
they wear, often they have to stop wearing their polleras*
and put on a dress, they are also criticized because they
use too much water.
417

The union that women formed in 1984 was the first
union of women domestic workers in the country. The
struggle began when one woman who was a member of the
Catholic Church was accused of theft. The women then
decided to organize. This is how the first union was born.
Their mobilization eventually led to the passing of the Bill
2450 that regulates domestic work and was approved by
the Bolivian Congress on April 9, 2003.
With the passing of this law domestic workers have obtained 15 days of vacation, some severance pay, calculated
on every year of work performed, the fixing of the hours
of work, which are supposed to be eight. But in many
cases the law cannot be implemented and many women
now work ten hours a day. Why the difference? Because
employers say that the women consume food and enjoy
other benefits. They say it is right that they work ten
hours because they sleep in the house. What most matters to the workers is mutual respect. The new law was
first presented in parliament in 1993. There was some
hope because the vice president was an indigenous person, Hugo Cardenas. But nothing happened. There was
a strong struggle. There were marches. The domestic
workers were the first to enter in Plaza Murillo something
that before had been forbidden. Ten compaeras gathered
and started screaming.
I never told my employers that I was part of the union.
We had a representative who later became the Minister of
Justice under Morales, but in this period was the executive
secretary of the union. We demanded to be able to rest on
Sunday. The police came with gas. We decided to march
also on Monday. We passed in front of the house of the
president; many people insulted us, what are you doing
418

here they yelled why you are not in the kitchen? But
many supported us too.
Today there are four union organizations of domestic
workers. The most important is made of women who do
skilled manual work. They make polleras and mantas.
Still, domestic workers face the problem of where to meet.
First it was in a church, then the squares have been the
places of meeting, they would meet there and bring there
their machines, and this served to unite them and gave
rise to new organizations. As I said, there are now four
organizations, with the same name, but existing in different localities, including in El Alto. We struggle with the
Federacin Nacional de Trabajadoras del Hogar de Bolivia
(FENATRAHOB) [The National Federation Of Domestic
Workersof Bolivia) that gathers 15 unions in Bolivia.1
In Latin America in the 1990s there was a meeting that
was held in Bogot (Columbia) bringing together 15 countries, on the theme of domestic work. The Latin American
Confederation has its main centers in Chile and in Brazil.
The objective now is to obtain a daycare for domestic workers so that they can work more freely. Domestic workers
1
[Note of the editors] FENATRAHOB is a national grassroots union

for women only. Membership is now up to 6,000. Its general
objective is to improve living, working and salary conditions for Bolivian domestic workers (trabajadoras del hogar). FENETRAHOB
comprises 17 affiliated unions active in the departments of La
Paz, Santa Cruz, Cochabamba, Potosi, Trinidad, Sucre, Oruro and
Tarija. Its offices are located in La Paz, Santa Cruz, Cochabamba,
Oruro and Sucre. This federation ensures that its members receive
organizational support and provides them with training. It offers
domestic workers general training to enable them to expand their
areas of expertise, increase their self-confidence and develop their
professionalism.
419

want to work in a more self-controlled, self-managed way.
They pay for the fliers they make by assigning a quota to
their members. But despite the Law there has not been
any success in the matter of health-care, pension, health
insurance. There is a government project to grant domestic workers health insurance, but the problem is always
implementation. We have publicized the law with fliers
to raise consciousness and obtain respect on both sides.
When an employer does not pay we denounce him/her publicly, so, bit by bit, a new attitude is beginning to take
hold. The new generations are more combative, they know
their rights and they demand to be respected, and if they
are abused they denounce it immediately. For our part,
we have done workshops and many meetings to raise consciousness. The government every year decides what is
the minimum wage. Presently it is 670 bolivianos per
month (roughly $100), but few domestic workers earn this
amount. Most earn between 350 and 450 bolivianos.
As migrant women, domestic workers received no support from the government. They are very independent. We
received support from a sister organization that helped us
organize, helped us with a lawyer, to elaborate the law..We
also got support from young students. Now that we have
a general law the problem that we face is how to make
sure it is implemented. The federation now is focusing on
this questions. Now the domestic workers are affiliated
with the Central Obrera Boliviana and other national and
departmental organizations of human rights; they are also
affiliated with a research organization.
420
25. Socialist Feminist

Collective1
We would like to inform you about a campaign
started today in Turkey, in 5 different cities including Istanbul. The campaign will take one
year and will be run by Socialist Feminist Collective.2
The main theme of the campaign is to highlight
womens double shift between unpaid and paid
labor and clarify our demands from men, capitalists and the state. Below you may find the
video of preparations and the public announcement in English.3
Sosyalist Feminist Kolektif

[email protected]
www.sosyalistfeministkolektif.org
Istanbul
Adres. Tel sok. No.20/3 BeyogluTel:0212 243 49 93
2
http://www.sosyalistfeministkolektif.org/
3
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7Wd5wBaf4w2rgl8YDv5KQg
?feat=email
421
Manifesto
We want back the hours, Days and Years we have spent
on housework! We want back our due in the house!
We are calling on women to stop doing any housework
until we are paid back our due. We want housework to
be mens work. Cooking, laundry, ironing, dish washing. . .
Let men do the housework, day in and day out, for hours
on end.
Let the fathers care for their children: Prepare them for
school in the morning, prepare their meal in the evening
and help them with their homework. When the kids are
ill, let the fathers leave work and run home to look after
them.
On the weekend, let the fathers take the kids to their
leisure activities, go searching in the markets for cheap,
healthy, nourishing food, go back to pick them back with
their arms loaded.
Let sons care for their elderly mothers and fathers. Let
them look after their parents when they are ill; let them
remember to remind them when to take their pills; let
them remember to give them baths. . .
While we women are watching TV in the evening, let
men put the kettle on, put the kids to sleep and make the
necessary preparations for he next day.
Let men learn how to share other peoples problems and
to establish proper relations with their own fathers and
sons.
422
We Want Back Our Due in the House!

We are calling on women to stop doing any housework
until we are paid back our due. We want housework to
be mens work. Cooking, laundry, ironing, dish washing. . .
Let men do the housework, day in and day out, for hours
on end.
Let the fathers care for their children: Prepare them for
school in the morning, prepare their meal in the evening
and help them with their homework. When the kids are
ill, let the fathers leave work and run home to look after
them.
On the weekend, let the fathers take the kids to their
leisure activities, go searching in the markets for cheap,
healthy, nourishing food, go back to pick them back with
their arms loaded.
Let sons care for their elderly mothers and fathers. Let
them look after their parents when they are ill; let them
remember to remind them when to take their pills; let
them remember to give them baths. . .
While we women are watching TV in the evening, let
men put the kettle on, put the kids to sleep and make the
necessary preparations for he next day.
Let men learn how to share other peoples problems and
to establish proper relations with their own fathers and
sons.
423
We Demand from the Bosses!

We refuse to work exclusively in low paid, insecure and
flexible jobs. Women also have the right to be unionized
and to have access to social security.
Are men better in weaving, cutting out, sewing and
designing? We want equal pay for equal worth!
We know very well that when parental leaves are transferable and optional, men prefer not to use them. We want
non-transferable leaves for fathers.
We want crches in all work places which hire more than
fifty workers irrespective of sex! We want our children to
go the crche in their fathers work place.
We also demand neighbourhood crches. Bosses hiring
less than fifty workers should make financial contributions
to the neighbourhood crches in proportion to the number
of their workers.
You have been privileging men for centuries. We want
positive discrimination when we apply for jobs, while we
work and in professional training courses. We demand
quotas in male jobs!
The streets are not safe for women. We want safe transportation for 24 hours to and from work.
We Demand from the State!

We demand the right to retirement pension at fifty, in
return for the domestic labour we have spent on our husbands and companions. Retirement pension for housewives!
424

Although we run our households for years on end, when
we go out to look for work, we are counted as unqualified
labour. We want to be paid unemployment fees once we
start looking for a job, until we get one.
We are only offered training courses in female skills.
We demand quotas for women in technical skill courses.
We refuse to be deprived of social security when we do
home-based work, work as care workers or cleaning ladies,
or when we work on land for practically nothing.
We dont want to have to count on our fathers or husbands when we are ill; we do not want to live on the street
with an empty stomach. The right to individual health
security and a decent shelter for all women!
We work both at home and in the work place. We do
double shifts. We want early retirement!
When we say enough is enough and want to get a
divorce, we want unconditional alimony payment: We
refuse to be preached on decency, virtue and morals. The
state should pay the alimony when the divorced husband
fails to do so.
Is it only our responsibility to care for the elderly? We
want professional public care for old people if they prefer
to go on living in their own homes. We also demand good
quality homes for old people.
425
26. Interview with Ana

Rosario Adrin Vargas
Interview conducted by Silvia Federici with
Ana Rosario Adrin Vargas of Mujeres Creando.
[The Interview took place on February 22, 2011,
in Virgen de los Deseos, the Center of Mujeres
Creando, in La Paz (Bolivia).
Rosario Adrin is the person in charge of the daycare
center that Mujeres Creando has set up since 2007, which
now cares daily for an average of 38 children. As she
explains, the center is organized to support women so they
can have time not just to hold a paying job but to expand
their possibilities, to regain some control over their life.
The center is qualitatively different from the standard
daycare in that it is not a parking lot for children, but it
is a place of activities focusing on all the needs of a child,
physical, educational, emotional. The women who work in
the center also try to involve the mothers of the children
in the process. Together they discuss what it means to
raise a child: this is a question that is central to the work
in the daycare and that has forced a constant expansion
and innovation of the activities provided.
Rosario: There are now in Bolivia more than 10 million
people, more than 1 million and a half children between
426

the ages of 0 and 6. They are mostly taken care of by their
mothers. But what does it mean to be a mother, what do
motherhood and paternity mean? What is the meaning
of this social figure? As things are now, women must assume their maternity as their primary, almost exclusive
responsibility, but this is something we want to change.
The Bolivian state so far has not been able to understand
the reality of the mothers and, as a result, it contributes
very little to their and their childrens reproduction. So
far, the state provides a bonus to pregnant women of 200
Bolivianos (Bs) every two month (approximately US$30)
until the child is two years old. It sends a message saying:
have more children that the state will protect you. It has
a view of women as machines for biological reproduction.
It considers women as uteruses. This worries us. Mujeres
Creando is critical of this view of women and the short
term solution the state is offering to mothers. 200 Bolivianos (Bs) is a very small sum, moreover women do not
want or need bonuses, they need to have stable sources
of employment, especially in a situation where there is
a great amount of paternal irresponsibility. Often when
men separate from their wives they separate from their
responsibility for their children as well; but in many cases
they refuse to take responsibility for their children even
when they are at home. In this context, the state has
now approved another bonus for children from their birth
up to two years of age, and then when at six they start
school there is a new bonus which is seen almost like a reward. Recently, the mayor of El Alto has proposed to give
a bonus also to students who complete a college degree
(baccalaureate).
427

The municipality and the Prefecture have popular daycares (guarderias populares) located in the popular markets for the women who are selling there as well as for
the general public. But they are few, there are about 14 in
La Paz, and in El Alto they are only 8. The municipality
has its daycares, each taking 30 to 40 children, from six
months to 5 years of age, but it cannot respond to the demand and what is more worrisome is that the people who
do his work are people who are not prepared, they are chosen on the basis of political interest. So the daycares are
popular, they are cheap, they are accessible also to other
sectors of the populations, but they do not have a vision,
an understanding of what is required for the educational
development of the child.
What do women do when they do not have childcare
available? They try to combine their work activities with
the care for the children; many work in the informal trade
(comercio informal), or in their homes or they leave the
children at home alone. Many women do not trust the
daycare centers because some have been accused of child
abuse and mistreatments. On December 16 an education
bill was passed stating that children from the ages 0 to
3 are the responsibility of the family and the community
(which in reality means they are taken care of by the mothers or grand mothers, or aunts); then, starting from four,
they are taken care by the school system. They cannot
recognize what is the real situation. They do not see that
very often the family nucleus is constituted just by the
mother who must also go to work for money. And who is
the community? There is not communal situation in the
city, there are no community groups. Probably you have
more of a community in the rural areas. In the urban
428

areas people are not organized in a communal way. In EL
Alto all the women go out to work. If there is a problem
with water or light they call an assembly, but there is no
neighbors organization that can take care of the children.
This lack of provisions by the Bolivian state makes us
think that they don not believe in the future generations.
In the very period when children (boys and girls) have the
greatest learning capacity there is no recognition of their
pedagogical potential. There is a need for daycare in every
neighborhood (barrio). The law says that there should
be a daycare in all the workplaces, but this is not what
happens in reality. Last year the public university asked
Mujeres Creando to present a proposal for a day-care center, because they wanted to have their own daycare, to
take care of the children of the Universitys workers. And
MC did present them a proposal. What we see is a vacuum
in the provision of basic/initial education. The Bolivian
state does not open centers with people who are qualified
for their jobs, although there are many professionals out
there who are; for example at the Popular University in
El Alto (UPEA), there are more than 3,500 students in
the Education Department, so there is the possibility of
opening spaces with people prepared for the task.
Mujeres Creando, that was create in 1992 by Maria
Galindo and a team of other women, has developed as a
social movement that looks at society from the viewpoint
of women, and we have seen the need to put pressure on
society on this issue. Starting from 2005, we have had this
space, Virgen de Los Deseos (Virgin of Desire) which we
have built as a place in which to question the role assigned
to women which defines us as one-sided, static individuals.
We are questioning that and want to put an end to the
429

norms that are imposed on us and that stifle us. We have
dealt with many social problems: violence against women,
the construction of our autonomous economy. Our objective is to build an autonomous political subject starting
from a womens perspective. We have seen the need to
enable women to make their voice heard. In 2003, when
Sanchez de Lozada (Bolivias president) left the country,
there was a great mobilization of women, but it was mostly
men who stood up to speak. This is why for us it is urgent
to build this political subject, woman as an active subject.
It was as part of this process that we decided to create a
daycare center, to free womens time. Generally, you need
to get a permit from the municipality and we got it. But
we did not get the permit from the prefectura. But we have
the support of the movement because we do not do anything that violates the dignity of people. This is a space
offered to mothers. Initially, we made it available only to
popular sectors, especially to children of women in situation of prostitution because they live in very restrictive
conditions, and many of them are financially squeezed by
the municipality. But over the years we have learned that
other women too need this space and they have now the
possibility of bringing their children here. So, we began
to open our doors to women from other sectors, women
who are facing a divorce, who are threatened by men. Providing this space was important to make these women
feel safe, to make them feel that they have some political
support because we believe in women. It allows women
not just to work but to grow, to gain some autonomy, to
do things, including helping other women.
The theme of maternity touches all the social systems.
It is necessary to break with the image of maternity as
430

something that is suffered; we need to create other models,
another vision of maternity: a sovereign, creative, rebel
maternity, a planned maternity. We need to question the
type of maternity that has been imposed. We also need
to question the irresponsibility of the fathers, to question
their figure as standard fathers. But increasingly fathers
too are becoming interested in our work. They want to
know what is this space that we talk about.
Our daycare is organized along the lines of the Montessori educational model as well as the vision of education articulated by Paulo Freire. Starting from them, we provide
a non-sexist education that can develop the educational
potential of the new generations. It is a feminist vision.
The objective is an integral, holistic development of the
person. For example, we provide sexual education, something that is not included in the new education law that
that is now into force. Women who teach sexual education
at our daycare center are educators who are prepared, we
have a team which is well qualified to speak of sexuality,
in a way that enables us to reclaim our body as our own
and as a sovereign space. We also deal with the question
of sexual violence prevention. We have handbooks for the
prevention of sexual violence and we work both with the
children and with the mothers. It is a work both internal and external. We have meetings and workshops with
the mothers; it is a whole process to overcome the fear
that women have of this topic. We work above all with
the mothers, but now some fathers too want to join. The
mothers ask us: why dont you organize a workshop on
sexuality for the fathers too? So we have started to have
fathers participating in our workshops as well. In the
workshops we touch on many themes nutrition, recre-
431

ation and the question of happiness, among other topics of
common interest.
432

Commoner Issue 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commoner Issue 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commoner Issue 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Commoner

Care Work And The Commons

In the beginning there is the doing, the

Nicholas Beuret for the essay "Starting from the social

On the top at the center is a painting with small notes

colonial painting by Juan Ramos from 1703. As Schmitt

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

3. On The General Strike

4. Wages Against Housework

6. Reproduction and Emigration

7. Starting From the Social Wage

8. The Unfinished Feminist Revolution

11. Sex as Work & Sex Work

12. Is Housework Soluble in Love?

13. Of Feminists and Their Cleaning Ladies

14. Nuclear Housework

15. Fukushima: A Call for Womens Leadership

16. Energy and Social Reproduction

17. Domestic Workers United

18. Interview with Priscilla Gonzalez

19. A Male Domestic Worker

20. The Regeneration Manifesto

21. The Triumph of the Domestic Workers

22. Servicio Domestco Activo

23. Interview with Liliana Caballero Velasquez

25. Socialist Feminist Collective

26. Interview with Ana Rosario Adrin Vargas

Preface: Care Work and

Preface: Care Work and the Commons

Preface: Care Work and the Commons

Preface: Care Work and the Commons

2. Women and the

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

This happened as part of the massive demonstration of women

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

The Origins of the Capitalist Family

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

This is to assume a whole new meaning for education, and the

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

Wage labour is based on the subordination of all relationships to

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

The Class Struggle in Education

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

The Exploitation of the Wageless

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

We are not at all ignoring the attempts at this moment to make

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

Confirming the Myth of Female Incapacity

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

The Capitalist Function of the Uterus

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

2. Women and the Subversion of the Community

The Homosexuality of the Division of Labour