a
(
\

f

(6)

where work would not have the inherently exploitive nature it does now. Once women
are freed from private production in the home, it will probably be very difficult

_ to maintain for any long period cf time a rigid definition of jobs by sex. This
illustrates however the interrelationship between the two preconditions given a-

housework and the industrialization of housework is unlikely unless women are leav-
ing the heme for jobs. — : oe ha

The-changes in production necessary to get women out of the home might seem to
be, in theory, possible under capitalism. One of the sources of women's liberation
movements may be the fact that the alternative capitalized forms of production ex-
ist now. Day care is available even if it is inadequate and perhaps expensive; con-
venience foods, home delivery of meals and take-out meals are widespread: laundries

and cleaners offer bulk rates. However, cost usually prohibits a complete dependence

on such facilities and they are not available everywhere, even in North America.
These should probably then be regarded as embryonic forms rather than_completed
structures. However, they clearly stand as alternatives to the present system of do-
ing such work. Particularly in North America where growth of “service industries”
is important in maintaining the growth of the economy, the contradictions between
these alternatives and the need to keep women in the home will grow.
. The need to keep women in the home arises from two major aspects of the pres-
ent system. First, the amount of unpaid labor nerformed by women is very large and
profitable to those who own the means of production. To pay women for their work,
even at minimum wage scales, implies a mssive.distribution of wealth. At present,
_the support of a family is a hidden tax on the wage earner = his wage buys the labor
power of two people. And second, there is the problem cf whether the econemy can
expand enough to put all the women to work as a wart of the normally employed la-
bor force. The war economy has been adequate to draw women partially into the econ-
omy but not adequate to establish a need for all or most of them. If it is argued
that the jcbs created by the industrialization of housework will create this need
then one can counter by pointing out (1) the strong economic forces operating for
the status quo and against capitalization discussed above and (2). the fact that the
present service industries, which scmewhat counter these forces, have not been able
to keep up with the growth of the labor force as presently constituted. The present
trends in'the’’service industries simply create “underemployment” in the home; they

do not’ €réaté new jcbs for women. So long as this situation exists women remain a

_ very convenient‘and elastic part of the industrial reserve amy. Their incorpora-
tion into the labor force on terms of equality -- which would create pressure for
capitalization of housework ~~ is possible only with an economic expansion so far
achieved by neocapitalism only by a full scale war mobilization. _ Je
In addition, such structural changes imply the complete breakdown of the pre-~

sent nuclear family. The stabilizing/ccnsuming functions of the family, plus the
ability of the cult of the home to keep women out of the labor market, serve neo-
capitalism too well to be easily dispensed with. And, cm a less fundamental level,
even if these necessary changes in the nature of household production were achieved
under capitalism it would have unpleasant consequences ; that of including all hun-
an relationships in the cash nexus. The atomization and isolation of people in West-
em society is already sufficiently advanced to make it doubtful if such ccmplete
psychic isolation could be tolerated. It is likely in fact that one of the major
negative emotional responses to women's liberation movements may be exactly such a
fear. If this is the case, then possible alternatives ~- cooperatives, the kibbutz,
etc., -- can be used to show that psychic needs for community and warmth can in
fact be better satisfied if other structures are substituted for the nuclear familv.

At best the change to capitalization of housework would only give women the
same limited freédem given most men in capitalist society. This doses not mean, how-