Re: Women & Industrialization (was Re: capitalist patriarchy)

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Given that we all have limited time, I assume,  it
>might be much nicer to be informed in advance about what the issue is at
>stake.
>
>Mine

What motivated my original post is my dissatisfaction with a widely
accepted narrative of labor history, which posits white male workers
in rich nations as central protagonists.  To repeat what I said in my
posts, a more accurate historical knowledge of women workers in the
process of industrialization challenges a commonly accepted notion
that "the working class used to be predominantly male [& white], and
female [& colored] workers were brought in to keep male workers'
wages down."  The working class [or employed sections of it] became
predominantly male only in the course of industrial development &
working-class struggles within it.  What were short-term achievements
for the survival of working-class families -- "family wages" for men,
"protective" legislations for women, etc. -- in the long run
undermined the formation of solidaristic, not gender-hierarchic,
working-class culture & movement.  I think this is an important
issue, especially in an age when protectionist sentiments are on the
rise in organized labor in rich nations (recall, for instance,
American trade unions' hostile reaction to China's entry into the
WTO).

Those who replied to me on various lists, however, may have other
issues in their minds.  What is at stake in labor history depends
upon your political persuasion.

Yoshie