[Fwd: Re: AUT: Re: Selma James Name Change]

[Katha Pollitt <kpollitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> The attraction of Wages for Housework for some male leftists is no
> great mystery. For them it  is a way of "expressing" the "woman
> question" which satisfactorily reduces it to styles of political
> rhetoric, and to forms of  economism, which don't challenge the
> leftist hierarchy of struggles, and which fit in with a general
> political project of organising and/or educating the working class
> via. manipulative transitional demands.
>
> dave
>  of not for John Gray Website
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
   Dave! You are my hero.You've said what I've been stumbling around
trying to express for months. I would  add that wages for housework
appears to assert that housework is valuable, important, socially
productive,necessary -- which is what men always say when women are
doing it. It attempts to defang the feminist critique of housework by
claiming to acknowledge its social value and brushing its gendered
character. The truth is, women do housework because they are subordinate
to men, not because this is a wonderful way to serve humanity.
Besides, if housework is so socially valuable, why don't men do more of
it?


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---