While I think the intent is right-on, I can't help but be troubled by this... once again, we place the blame on WOMEN. Isn't it time we started shaming MEN for some of the burdens inflicted on minorities? As they say, it takes two to tango.

ahh i dont get it! does it mean non white women are the reason why women can have jobs with men? if thats what it means, i still dont really get it haha

It's Caitlin Flanagan redux: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/flanagan
I don't think the intent is right-on; I think Flanagan uses middle-class white guilt to leverage her fundamental argument: women belong in the kitchen and in the bedroom. Any place else, and they're throwing off the natural balance of the world. She's exploiting the (all too true) exploitation of domestic workers to bolster her argument, but that does not make her argument correct.

To clarify, I presume the intent to be to draw attention to the plight of non-white women, and to ensure that their specific needs are not ignored in the cry for women's equality. I absolutely think this is legitimate and good.

What is NOT good is placing the blame on women/feminism... the blame falls squarely on a society that values the white male above all. Political minorities shouldn't be fighting amongst ourselves for the scraps. We should all be challenging the status quo and insisting our own full meals, TOGETHER.

It's a reference to the fact that as more women have entered paid employment, the market has taken control of what was once women's domestic work in the home. Poor and minority women overwhelmingly work in low-paid service jobs as cooks, nannies, maids, careworkers, etc. Though the jobs are extremely necessary and hugely profitable to the global economy, the work and the women who do it are completely devalued. The wealth of the world is being made on the backs of poor minority women. It's a feminist issue, but a result of global capitalism.

In other words, men's participation in the workforce is a right. Women's is a privilege gained by exploiting others to avoid the domestic work that they, and not the men, should rightfully have to do.

NOT feminist. Not feminist at all.

I'm with Jenn on this one. I think yes, it's an argument that is used to shame some women who work, by the likes of Flanagan and other such tools. But that doesn't take away from the truth of the statememt.

I think this is a ridiculously important feminist issue...I may write a separate post on it, actually...

This is the argument Caitlin Flanagan made in her controversial Atlantic article "How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement." While I agree that that there is racism that segments the job market, I don't understand how this is white women's fault in particular. Besides, even many working white women can't afford to hire others to do domestic labor--they either partner up with a fair-minded person, or they slog out the second shift alone. It all harkens back to patriarchy for me--after all, don't men achieve their higher status position on the backs of women of ALL colors?

The ideas expressed on this sign are misogyny dressed up in labor movement rhetoric, and I won't believe any differently until I see equal outrage directed at male lawyers, executives and scientists who aren't out in the field growing their own food and hauling their own lumber.

pram, that's not really any reason to shift the blame. This actually reminds me of a conversation that's going on at Pandagon about how your personal conservation habits are no excuse for leaving the work of organizing a larger, more influential environmental movement to someone else. Similarly, you can pat yourself on the back for having a successful career and beating new paths in the workplace for women to follow, but the fact that you have a Honduran nanny taking care of your child isn't meaningless. Go ahead and do what you can, but feminists clearly can't wait for your husband changing diapers to be the final straw placed on the camels' back.

Was she at Disneyland's Main Street Electrical Parade? Because at least then it would have some dadaist value.

Thank you Jessica and Jenn.

I come from a working class family and having class issues dismissed by other feminists has always been...distressing. Even after going to college on scholarship and graduating w/ honors, people still wanted me to be "working class," and the struggle was amazing. The most frustrating part was having middle-class women act as if they had a RIGHT to treat me/have me as a servant (they were equal to men, and I was equal to whom?).

I don't want to see women blamed for this, but I do want to see women begin to realize that until class issues are considered, feminism isn't all it can be.

the 15th said: "In other words, men's participation in the workforce is a right. Women's is a privilege gained by exploiting others to avoid the domestic work that they, and not the men, should rightfully have to do."

Not at all.

1) How are women supposed to feed, bathe, and care for their kids when they are out working 40, 50, 60+ hours a week? Child care is the number one issue here. It is poorly paid, extremely time consuming, and necessary for any woman who works and has children, regardless of class. It's "the crisis of care".

2.) You have to think beyond just the elite--we all eat fast food, go to restaurants and order take-out. We go to the grocery store and pay a cashier. We (not all, of course) go on vacations and stay in hotels. We try to save our hard earned money and by buying what we need as cheaply as possible, inadvertantly supporting oppressive labor.

3.) I don't know the context of this sign--if the person holding it is anti-feminist or what--but the problem is tied to economics, not misogyny and is in relation to women entering the labor force, not women. Women entered the labor force predominantly out of economic necessity, though they gained better access and opportunities due to feminist struggles. Capitalism is exploitive, not working mothers.

4.) Side note: Not all women think it is a privilege to be in the paid workforce. Some groups, black women in particular, have always worked and might have preferred a choice in staying home.

Susan Thistle wrote a fantastic book on this called "From Marriage to the Market". Arlie Hochshild also has a good article in a 2000 issue of The American Prospect called "The Nanny Chain".

And I'm with Jessica-- Caitlin Flanigan is a complete tool.

Child care is the number one issue here. It is poorly paid, extremely time consuming, and necessary for any woman who works and has children, regardless of class.

Mm. But not any man who works and has children, apparently.

Perhaps this kind of rhetoric (in the sign) is so offensive to me because I'in in a science field. Feminist blogs often host discussions about why women scientists become discouraged. The usual culprits: subtle discouraging cues. Lack of mentoring. Stereotype threat. A tenure timeline created for men with stay-at-home wives. I'm going to go out on a real limb here and say that I don't think feminists should be adding "the belief that your career makes you, but not your male colleagues, responsible for the injustice of a capitalist system" to the list.

i personally think shes probably not a n anti feminist and she is stating what is a very true and very good point. she probably hasnt thought it thru to the extent of how it is anti feminist bc its not blaming men for not picking up the household slack. her position on this is a huge feminist issue, a very post colonial one at that.

Is this an issue of work being undervalued as it is in the “female� domain, or is it simple supply, demand and price elasticity? I mean, I agree that society undervalues some service employees, particularly child care, hence people (ah hell who am I kidding, me too!) whimper and moan over $150 - 250 a week for child care, but are aghast at the idea of spending less on cars, houses and entertainment. But in the modern economy is this because it is “female� work or a simple macro reality that other higher paid positions require far more education and have less people who can do the work or provide the service, compared to people who can do basic cleaning and child care? If basic service staff, child care workers or cleaners became un available then thier wages will go up. In parts of Alberta where the oil economy is booming you can't get employees to work for less than $20 an hour....anywhere.

If the market is the problem, which is possible as the invisible hand is most assuredly not perfect, and the work is undervalued across the board as it is “female� how do we explain that people can start their own cleaning services and charge upwards of $20+ an hour (at least in major cities in Canada, not sure about US or rural locations)? For example, a friend of mine who ran a home daycare got fed up dealing with parents and started to clean peoples’ homes. She is happy as a clam making about $25 an hour and has to turn down jobs. At first I thought my friend was an isolated case, and that she was well paid because frankly she works DAMN hard and is more trustworthy than anyone I know, but it is not only my friend. I have been trying to hire a cleaner who works independently and frankly I can’t afford their hourly rates (I value my labour less than they value theirs).

we've had similar discussions here about classism and racism in feminist movements -- that it's a primarily white, middle-class movement. tink, jenn and jessica's points basically reflect that. my black female advisor said in one of my classes that the second wave goals of equal pay, child care and reproductive rights benefitted middle-class white women and did nothing for black women. yeah that shocked me. wages went up for middle-class jobs, they already worked outside the home so child care was taken care of in other ways and reproductive rights was not the top priority as it is for white women since the government used to sterilized many latina, black and native american women. alot of maids and nannies come from asia, latin america, etc. and work for white women.

nonwhite women fear feminism will bring middle-class white women up to the level of white men and leave everyone else behind.

the second wave brought many middle-class white women into white and pink collar jobs so their wages went up but it did little for the wages of nonwhite women.

I'd like to know what her solution is.

Apparently, wages did go up for black and Hispanic women, even though wages for low-income Americans in general went down.

yellow#5, why is hiring the Honduran nanny being put back on the woman? If the kids dad would take care of it, there would be no nanny needed. And if the dad hired the nanny, would he somehow do it in a non-expoitative way? And what exactly are the alternatives, not only for middle class women, but for the domestic workers themselves? Is it hypocritical to organize against racist exploitation of immigrant women and still give a Honduran nanny a job?

This is why in Sweden and other countries, where very few middle-class people employ maids or nannies, women rarely work beside their male 'counterparts'.

...oh, wait, that's complete BS.

pram, maybe you misunderstand. I was saying that it's naive to believe you're (and when I say "you" I mean anyone, not you specifically) doing a lot of good for women by creating an environment where you can move fairly free of patriarchal roadblocks but you still rely on women being underpaid to do "women's work," etc. to make your bubble of freedom work. Men are obviously part of the problem, but that doesn't mean that white middle class feminists are unwitting victims. In our little scenario, it's not the woman's fault that her husband won't stay home and take care of the kids, but both Mr. and Mrs. are contributing to the situation where they underpay their nanny. Also, see Ephemeral's comments.

yellow#5 I still think the way you are phrasing your analysis is putting the onus on women rather than jointly on women and men. I would also argue that if men did their share, there would be a lot less need to hire outside workers. And I still stick to my original point, which was that women who work often have no outside help, so it's not as if it is all working women are the ones who have replaced their labor with poor women of color (not to mention that the poster assumes that all working women wealthy enough to hire help are white--yikes!). When I lived in Los Angeles, every stay at home mother I knew had household help, ranging from semi-weekly cleaners to full time nannies plus a cleaner and a gardener. It's not necessarily having a job that allows this sort of exploitation, it's personal wealth and power--along with a lack of consciousness/conscience.

I don't get why people see this as anti-feminist. If anything, I see it as a critique of liberal feminism. Much of the liberal feminist activism that I've seen has focused on women's equal participation in the workforce without addressing intersecting forms of inequality and oppression (class, race, disability). While being able to work might feel liberating and empowering for those people who feel that they have meaningful and interesting jobs, for many women work is boring,difficult, physically taxing, poorly compensated, and sometimes dangerous. I think it goes without saying that poor and working class women and women of colour are the ones who are doing these jobs. And that's not the fault of women or feminists, but part of the logic of capitalism and the way it intersects with race, class, and gender.
The problem is that feminism as a movement is supposed to address women's inequality, and it seems like that's not happening when some women reap the benefits (like having jobs that pay relatively well) by undercompensating other women to do domestic labour that in previous generations, they would have been responsible for. My mother hired nannies and cleaning ladies because she was working as a lawyer, something she was only able to do because of feminism. But what has feminism done for the nannies and cleaning ladies she hired?
This is an issue close to my heart as someone who is currently a domestic labourer. I have a BA in International Relations, which is pretty meaningless in today's job market. I resent the idea that my job is easy, that the reason is poorly compensated is somehow unrelated to the devaluation of women's work. My job requires knowledge of child development, basic psychology, first aid, and nutrition amongst other things. I'm on my feet all day, cooking, feeding, cleaning, changing diapers, taking kids for walks, playing, and just about everything you could imagine. It's physically taxing, often gross (changing diapers, being puked on, blowing noses), emotionally exhausting, and low status work. The work I do enables others to go to work, and to do so without worrying about their children's health and safety.

donna darko,
My last post as I am supposed to be working - I appreciate your posts big time. Feminism and the fight againt racism and class inequity are all intertwined.

I am one of those discouraged scientists, but not just for the reasons mentioned in the15ths post. I am Native American/White. How I am perceived depends on who is looking. I also apparently "look" working class (I suspect that must be the "not 100% white" look). I have the education, the skills... but until I had been in my field for 20 years, people (including feminist colleagues) were all TOO eager to put me on the phones, making the copies, cleaning, etc. It wasn't a lack of skill - I was often BETTER at our core jobs than these people. The class divide is very real in the USA and it's tougher to get past than most people want to believe...

Oh, now I just sounds all whiny. Sorry...I hope my point comes through. I am doing quite well now career-wise, but it's at least in part because I finally found a company where the GUYS (still all guys) at the top are not white and that's too small for people to pretend (not effectively anyway) you are good at what you do.

I resent the idea that my job is easy, that the reason is poorly compensated is somehow unrelated to the devaluation of women's work.

I'd say it's related to labor supply and collective bargaining more than anything. People don't pay what they think you deserve; they pay the least they can get away with and then rationalize it when they feel too guilty.

that was supposed to be are NOT good...

ah well, either I am going to get back at it or go play w/ my kid

I'd like to know what her solution is.

The best way is changing cultural attitudes towards women, minorities, the poor, gays, etc. Blogs like Feministing help change these attitudes.

I resent the idea that my job is easy, that the reason is poorly compensated is somehow unrelated to the devaluation of women's work.

I'd say it's related to labor supply and collective bargaining more than anything. People don't pay what they think you deserve; they pay the least they can get away with and then rationalize it when they feel too guilty.

Sorry for the double post. For some reason my net connection went down when I posted my 22:56 comment.

I don't get why people see this as anti-feminist. If anything, I see it as a critique of liberal feminism.

Right, debbie, this is pro-feminist because it sets a high bar for women. Sexism is anti-male because it sets a low bar for men.

Setting a high bar isn't necessarily a pro- thing. The Israeli government sets very high bars for Palestinians.

I've been making a similar criticism of some gay men I've known in the recent past--they really refuse to see the link between opression of gays and the opression of women, because they'd really like to keep their male privelige, and just lose the anti-gay discrimination.

Those kinds of gays are in a world unto themselves. After all, they don't need women professionally or personally.

Donna darko, reproductive rights is not just about the access to birth control and abortion. It's also about the right to your fertility, so that no one should be able to force anyone else to be sterilised.

Windy, Swedish women work. A lot of Swedish women work in childcare, elder care and health care, doing the work that stay at home mothers used to do during the first half of the last century. These women are poorly paid and have miserable working environments. The issue is not as clearly tied to race as it is in America, though; it's more an issue of class.

the 15th: "...the belief that your career makes you, but not your male colleagues, responsible for the injustice of a capitalist system"

Not what I said and I'm not sure how to get you to hear what I am saying. Maybe if I tell you that I think some of the solutions include subsidized childcare, shorter work weeks, an end to "at the poverty line" wages, ceasing international economic policies that force people to migrate for these types of jobs, recognition that carework is all of the things and more that debbie described and should be valued as such and...here's where I get labeled a communist...a redistribution of wealth. The service sector has earned enormous wealth for the global economy and will continue to do so until quality care is considered a human right...and even then it'll be a fight. But let's be clear: I absolutely DO NOT blame working women and mothers for the plight of oppressed workers--I blame the system of which we are all unfortunately a part.

debbie: Right on.

Happy Holidays! Peace to all living beings.

>> I'd like to know what her solution is.

>The best way is changing cultural attitudes towards women, minorities, the poor, gays, etc. Blogs like Feministing help change these attitudes.

I'm for that. But I'm not giving up my job, and I already had my kids.

I also wonder whether she's bothered to actually talk to the women who do this work. My nanny was a High School graduate who immigrated from El Salvador, and jumped at the chance to work for us rather than do housecleaning. She bought a house (in LA!) on her salary, and qualifies for Social Security because we insisted on paying over the the table.

I think she might be a bit miffed if she heard someone say her work wasn't valued or that we should have figured out some other path-- but, I don't know, you'd have to ask her.

not me. college students and folks who barely squeaked through high school of both genders and various colors keep me fed and caffeinated. they'll watch my yuppielings, too, when those take place.

you want to move up, brown and white ladies? grab education and hang on for dear life.

"Windy, Swedish women work."

Of course they do, I was being snarky.

"A lot of Swedish women work in childcare, elder care and health care, doing the work that stay at home mothers used to do during the first half of the last century. These women are poorly paid and have miserable working environments. The issue is not as clearly tied to race as it is in America, though; it's more an issue of class."

That's unfortunately true, but I was thinking also of maternity and paternity benefits that perhaps allow more women to continue working without having to exploit sisters of any colour quite as much. Or one can hope.

I see people here making really good points on both sides of the discussion, but here's what I personally keep coming back to.

Yes, her sign might be true, and white (when her sign says "American" I assume she means white?) women's improved position in society is on the back of their minority sisters... But white men's continued good position in society is on the backs of their minority brothers as well.

Fact is that our society is discriminatory, it thrives on the sweat and blood of minorities. That IS a problem, but it's a problem of society as a whole, not white women.

It seems to me pointing the finger as white women is counter productive, we're still trying to get on equal footing with white men, of course minorities are too. That's not to belittle the struggle, nor am I trying to say that middle class white women haven't at times forgotten their minority sisters, we have, but, yah, it just seems counter productive to me.

Only from the vantage point of the West is it possible to define the Third World as underdeveloped and economically dependent. Without the overdetermined discourse that creates the Third World, there would be no singular and privileged First World. Without the "Third World woman," the particular self-presentation of Western women would be problematical. One enables and sustains the other. --Chandra Mohanty (2003)

What I am disturbed by about this poster is the implication that "American Women" and "Brown Sisters" are two separate groups of people. "American" does not and should not equal white (or, as here, not brown).