Washing machine more liberating than pill, says Pope

[Module]

'
THE washing machine has had a greater liberating role for women than the pill, the official Vatican daily said in an International Women's Day commentary on Sunday.
"The washing machine and the emancipation of women: put in the powder, close the lid and relax," said the headline on the article in Osservatore Romano.
"In the 20th cenutry, what contributed most to the emancipation of western women?" questioned the article.
"The debate is still open. Some say it was the pill, others the liberalisation of abortion, or being able to work outside the home. Others go even further: the washing machine," it added.
The long eulogy to the washing machine - for which the first rudimentary models appeared in the 18th century - highlighted "the sublime mystique to being able to 'change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once'," quoting the words of late American feminist Betty Friedan.
While the machines were at first unreliable, technology has developed so quickly that now there is "the image of the super woman, smiling, made up and radiant among the appliances of her house", wrote Osservatore.

'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25158562-1702,00.html?from=public_rss

Wow, fuck the pope. :blink:
I guess if he's the kind of guy who doesn't mind having anti-semetic bishops it's not surprising he's the kind of guy who doesn't mind making a mockery of 'the emancipation of western women'.

[JimmyJazz]

He's trolling.

[Devrim]

I am not making any comment on which was 'more liberating', but for those here not old enough to remember what it was like before washing machines, it should be pointed out that they made a huge difference to women's lives.

I can remember when we didn't have a washing machine*, and doing the washing by hand was a huge amount of very hard weekly work. I can only imagine what it would have been like for a family with four kids.

The washing machine did massivly change women's lives.

Devrim

*In Turkey laundrettes are not common things. There is one in the city of 5,000,000 I live in.

[benhur]

Washing machine more liberating than pill, says Pope

Group sex more liberating for pope than bible, says Benhur.



p.s.
How many believing Christians take this guy seriously?

[JimmyJazz]

The washing machine did massivly change women's lives.

I think this is the part Des is objecting to.

[Devrim]

I think this is the part Des is objecting to.

But it did change women's lives. I find the idea quite hard to believe that I belonged to the only family where the father went out to work and the mother stayed at home with the kids.

It massively changed women's lives.

Devrim

[JimmyJazz]

Devrim. I don't think making housework more efficient/easier is most feminists' idea of women's liberation.

It's like the pope praising some new technology that makes the work of the working class easier, when the goal we are striving for is equal liability of all to work.

[Devrim]

Devrim. I don't think making housework more efficient/easier is most feminists' idea of women's liberation.

It's like the pope praising some new technology that makes the work of the working class easier, when the goal we are striving for is equal liability of all to work.

I think what it was saying is that it was 'liberating' in that it 'liberated' many women from the drudgery of washing by hand. Is it the social change that can develop with communism, absolutely not? Did it massively change women's lives possibly even as much as the pill, absolutely yes?

Devrim

[butterfly]

No it certainly did not in contrast to access to the pill.

[Devrim]

No it certainly did not in contrast to access to the pill.

So you can remember doing the washing by hand,can you?

Devrim

[butterfly]

And you can remember giving birth to four unplanned children with the expectation that you are to take on the primary role in bringing them up?

[Devrim]

And you can remember giving birth to four unplanned children with the expectation that you are to take on the primary role in bringing them up?

No, I am male. I haven't given birth to any children. I was one of 4 children though, not all wanted, my mother though was one of 14 and my father was one of 9 and I would doubt that they were all wanted either.

By the time that the pill came along (in 1960 in the US), use of contraception was quite widespread:


After the war, condom sales continued to grow. From 1955–1965, 42% of Americans of reproductive age relied on condoms for birth control. In Britain from 1950–1960, 60% of married couples used condoms. The birth control pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill) became the world's most popular method of birth control in the years after its 1960 debut, but condoms remained a strong second.

The pill was merely an improvement, even if a big one, in something that was already there.

The washing machine, on the other hand, was a complete quantitative change, in that it literally abolished a huge amount of heavy tedious work at the flick of a switch, and even though I haven't given birth to children, I have done a lot of washing by hand. My mother did a lot more than I did. If you talk to women from the generation that had to wash things by hand, you may find many of them agreeing with the pope on this.

Non of this means that the pope is nothing but a social reactionary who has an anti-woman, anti-sex agenda. Nor did I actually say that it was more 'liberating' than the pill. I just said that the comparison wasn't absurd.

Devrim

[Sean]

Headline should read: "Pope Says Washing Machine the most liberating thing to women. Employee of Rupert Murdoch is told to be disappointed that he made no mention of contraceptives or abortion."
Shock headline. Of course the pope wont mention the pill, forcing people to breed out of fear and donate money to him is how he makes money. He obviously tried to divert the whole question off in another tangent to save face. Might sound offensive but its predictable and Fox put words in his mouth. I'm not sticking up for the pope or being sexist before anyone starts on me, I just hate the idea of having a left wing discusion framed by the lackeys of Fox

[Communist Theory]

Dude, fuck the pope.

[Coggeh]

Is he saying women should sit on washing machines for like stimulation ? ...:blink:instead of using the pill ... I'm very confused .

[Killfacer]

my girlfriend spends most of her time at the washing machine. She said it's something about me being inadequate. I never could wash up very well.

[Devrim]

The washing machine is the one that washes clothes. The one that does the washing up is the dishwasher.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

Devrim is, of course, absolutely right. The washing machine has had a liberating impact in the sense that it has helped ease the intensity of domestic labour, which is overwhelmingly performed by women in capitalist society. The same goes for things like the dishwasher, the vacuum cleaner, the car, and the large supermarket (which has helped reduce the time and effort it takes to buy household goods).

Of course, real emancipation for women will only come about in a society where women play an equal role and do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all -- a prospect which reactionaries like the Pope are probably not all that excited about. But that does not mean that household electrical appliances such as the washing machine, along with many other kinds of technology, have not had a positive impact on women's lives.

[Rangi]

As a man I feel that my own special bond that I have with my whiteware has been diminished by the Pope assigning negative gender role stereotypes.

I would expect more from Jesus' own personal representative on Earth.

[Lynx]

p.s.
How many believing Christians take this guy seriously?
There remain Catholics who won't use contraceptives (or the pill) because the pope forbids it.

[Rjevan]

There remain Catholics who won't use contraceptives (or the pill) because the pope forbids it.
Sure because he's the Fuehrer and we don't have to worry (i.e. don't use our brain) because we all know he's infallible.
So let's forbid women to use the pill and buy them washing machines instead, the Holy Father hath spoken. :rolleyes:

[Module]

Of course, real emancipation for women will only come about in a society where women play an equal role and do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all -- a prospect which reactionaries like the Pope are probably not all that excited about. But that does not mean that household electrical appliances such as the washing machine, along with many other kinds of technology, have not had a positive impact on women's lives.Yes, this is key here. Real emancipation for women will only come about in a society where women play an equal role and do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all.
The pill gave women (the physical potential to have) equal sexual agency to men. Same with abortion, it gives women (the physical potential to have) equal control over their own bodies and ability to reject a pregnancy.
The washing machine? Well, like was quoted in the article, the ability to 'change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once'. That has, clearly, nothing to do with gender equality. The only thing this article is saying is that it made women's lives constrained to domestic chores that much more efficient. Is that the Pope's idea of the emancipation of women? The context of this quote that they used;

In the fifteen years after World War II, this mystique of feminine fulfillment became the cherished and self-perpetuating core of contemporary American culture. Millions of women lived their lives in the image of those pretty pictures of the American suburban housewife, kissing their husbands goodbye in front of the picture window, depositing their stationwagonsful of children at school, and smiling as they ran the new electric waxer over the spotless kitchen floor. They baked their own bread, sewed their own and their children's clothes, kept their new washing machines and dryers running all day. They changed the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once, took the rughoolag class in adult education, and pitied their poor frustrated mothers, who had dreamed of having a career. Their only dream was to be perfect wives and mothers; their highest ambition to have five children and a beautiful house, their only fight to get and keep their husbands. They had no thought for the unfeminine problems of the world outside the home; they wanted the men to make the major decisions. They gloried in their role as women, and wrote proudly on the census blank: "Occupation: housewife."

link (http://www.h-net.org/%7Ehst203/documents/friedan1.html) Was criticising the so-called "liberation" brought about by new household appliances like the washing machine, and the glorification of women's role as 'housewife'. That quote actually being used in such a way can only mean either a total misunderstanding of the entire book and agreeing that the 'suburban housewife' was an image women should actually look up to, or offensive sarcasm (and I'll presume the former because I don't believe the Vatican is capable of any kind of humour).

[brigadista]

i doubt il papa knows anything about either..

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, this is key here. Real emancipation for women will only come about in a society where women play an equal role and do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all.
The pill gave women (the physical potential to have) equal sexual agency to men. Same with abortion, it gives women (the physical potential to have) equal control over their own bodies and ability to reject a pregnancy.
The washing machine? Well, like was quoted in the article, the ability to 'change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once'. That has, clearly, nothing to do with gender equality. The only thing this article is saying is that it made women's lives constrained to domestic chores that much more efficient. Is that the Pope's idea of the emancipation of women? The context of this quote that they used;
Was criticising the so-called "liberation" brought about by new household appliances like the washing machine, and the glorification of women's role as 'housewife'. That quote actually being used in such a way can only mean either a total misunderstanding of the entire book and agreeing that the 'suburban housewife' was an image women should actually look up to, or offensive sarcasm (and I'll presume the former because I don't believe the Vatican is capable of any kind of humour).

I can't say that i disagree with your basic arguments. I'm not downplaying the importance of the pill and abortion rights for a single moment, and i agree that the Vatican's position is motivated by their objection to sexual and reproductive freedoms. What i'm saying is that we can't dismiss the impact that certain other technologies have also had on women's lives, by making domestic work easier and more efficient (it's an objective fact, not mere 'stereotype', that domestic work is more likely to be the responsibility of the woman rather than the man in capitalist society) and thus giving them more time to do other things in the public sphere.

That's not to say that women's equality can be won through technological progress alone -- ultimately social change is needed. Although the former can help facilitate the latter, we do need to concrete on that.

[acc]

While the pill played a huge roll in sexual liberation, I would have to agree with the Pope. The washing machine, and other labor saving devices, made domestic work easier, and shorter, giving women the liberty to pursue other activities. It is no coincidence that shortly after the washing machine became widespread that the suffragette movement jump-started, and feminism became a possibility.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

While the pill played a huge roll in sexual liberation, I would have to agree with the Pope. The washing machine, and other labor saving devices, made domestic work easier, and shorter, giving women the liberty to pursue other activities. It is no coincidence that shortly after the washing machine became widespread that the suffragette movement jump-started, and feminism became a possibility.

Yes but that just makes life more convenient giving more time for leisure activities. While thats no bad thing (in fact its obviously a good thing). It dosent have the social events or grant the independence the pill gave.

Imagine having to either rely on a bloke to provide the contraception which allows him to dictate the terms of sexual relations (in terms of promiscuous sex*) or having to risk giving birth to a kid** (after of course being pregnant for 9 months). That would kind of make sex very uncomfortable. Whilist yes the issue of having sex is an important one I belive it kind of helped set a ball rolling with women working out that they could make gains and that they could become more independent and this would lead to sexism becoming much more socially unacceptable***.

* By dictate the terms of sex i mean women would have to rely on the man to provide contraception and would find it more difficult to have promiscious relationships.

** This would be shit to say the least

*** In my expirence people are rejecting sexism because of pressure from women whom refuse to have anything to do with anyone who treats them like shit.

[Module]

What i'm saying is that we can't dismiss the impact that certain other technologies have also had on women's lives, by making domestic work easier and more efficient (it's an objective fact, not mere 'stereotype', that domestic work is more likely to be the responsibility of the woman rather than the man in capitalist society) and thus giving them more time to do other things in the public sphere.
Yes, I would agree with that.

[acc]

Yes but that just makes life more convenient giving more time for leisure activities. While thats no bad thing (in fact its obviously a good thing). It dosent have the social events or grant the independence the pill gave.


Imagine having to either rely on a bloke to provide the contraception which allows him to dictate the terms of sexual relations (in terms of promiscuous sex*) or having to risk giving birth to a kid** (after of course being pregnant for 9 months). That would kind of make sex very uncomfortable. Whilist yes the issue of having sex is an important one I belive it kind of helped set a ball rolling with women working out that they could make gains and that they could become more independent and this would lead to sexism becoming much more socially unacceptable***.

* By dictate the terms of sex i mean women would have to rely on the man to provide contraception and would find it more difficult to have promiscious relationships.

** This would be shit to say the least

*** In my expirence people are rejecting sexism because of pressure from women whom refuse to have anything to do with anyone who treats them like shit.


You seem to regard the ability to engage in promiscuous sex, (a problem in my opinion, due to health concerns, and my ideal of mankind as something above petty hedonism) as more important the ability to have time to organize, to gain representation, and as a harbinger of the feminist movement. We obviously differ on this issue, and I am afraid I cannot understand how one can hold the ability to fuck above the ability to vote.

[Black Dagger]

What i'm saying is that we can't dismiss the impact that certain other technologies have also had on women's lives, by making domestic work easier and more efficient (it's an objective fact, not mere 'stereotype', that domestic work is more likely to be the responsibility of the woman rather than the man in capitalist society) and thus giving them more time to do other things in the public sphere.

In theory - yes - but in practice? Hmmm.

I think in practice things like the 'washing machine' (which still requires labour time whilst not replacing manual washing entirely either) rather than providing all women with more opportunities for leisure or participation in the public sphere, has rather provided many women with more 'opportunities' for house work!

'Hey i can vacuum whilst the washing is being done!' Such freedoms we enjoy in modern times.

It certainly did nothing to alter the situation where women are burdened with something like 90% of unpaid 'house work', it just meant that female subordination was a little less taxing in one regard, or expanded into new areas with the birth of 'free time'.

Also i think this view implies that there are no other barriers to women's equal participation in society then say, their amount of housework at any given time - what of sexism? It's not like house work assigns itself to women.

That said, i'm not saying automation of something like housework is not a good thing - of course it is - and for women too, but this is only because of the burden of work placed on women in the home. Although this apparent 'advantage' too is in many cases negated by the substitution of one kind of house work for another with 'all that free time'. Technological change of this sort is not a replacement or substitute for social change, and unless this is forthcoming woman's subordination will simply take new forms.

[Vanguard1917]

I think in practice things like the 'washing machine' (which still requires labour time whilst not replacing manual washing entirely either) rather than providing all women with more opportunities for leisure or participation in the public sphere, has rather provided many women with more 'opportunities' for house work!

Domestic tasks aren't infinite; there's a certain amount of work to be done, of cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. If washing and drying clothes took, for the sake of argument, twice as much labour time before washing and drying machines, along with cleaning the floors before vacuum cleaners, along with cooking food before refridgerators and frozen food, and shopping before access to cars, decent public transport and large supermarkets -- then those things have reduced the amount of labour time needed to perform those tasks, and have freed up time for the woman to do other things. A somewhat similar thing happens when cleaners, maids, nurses, cooks, etc., are employed by a wealthy family -- although, of course, the proportion of labour time saved by the wife/mother of that family is vastly greater, hence part of the reason why women from bourgeois backgrounds have so much free time on their hands in comparison with those in working class families and are able to feature more promimently in the public sphere. But the machines play a similar role in that they reduce the intensity of work and the level of labour time needed previously.

What would happen if washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, cars and supermarkets were abolished tomorrow? For those who had access to them, the extent and intensity of labour needed to perfom domestic taks would multiply overnight. Women would be directly affected the most by this due to their subordinate position in society.



Also i think this view implies that there are no other barriers to women's equal participation in society then say, their amount of housework at any given time - what of sexism? It's not like house work assigns itself to women.

That said, i'm not saying automation of something like housework is not a good thing - of course it is - and for women too, but this is only because of the burden of work placed on women in the home. Although this apparent 'advantage' too is in many cases negated by the substitution of one kind of house work for another with 'all that free time'. Technological change of this sort is not a replacement or substitute for social change, and unless this is forthcoming woman's subordination will simply take new forms.


If you read my previous post, i said that 'women's equality can[not] be won through technological progress alone -- ultimately social change is needed.' The subordination of women in society can't be changed just through technological change; social change is needed to bring about a new system. But the technological changes noted above have played a role in allowing women more opportunities to spend more time outside of the home, in the realm of paid work, politics, culture, and other areas of public life. And if a woman is not active in the public sphere, the chances of her contributing to a movement for social change are extremely limited.

[Devrim]

If washing and drying clothes took, for the sake of argument, twice as much labour time before washing and drying machines,...

And it was nothing like twice as much labour time. It was more like two hundred times. It is also about the nature of the work itself. Washing clothes by hand was hard physical labour.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Domestic tasks aren't infinite; there's a certain amount of work to be done, of cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. If washing and drying clothes took, for the sake of argument, twice as long before washing and drying machines, along with cleaning the floors before vacuum cleaners, along with cooking food before refridgerators and frozen food, and shopping before access to cars, decent public transport and large supermarkets -- then those things have reduced the amount of labour time needed to perform those tasks, and have freed up time for the woman to do other things.

Right - of course doing something with the aid of a machine (usually) takes less time than doing it manually - this of course 'saves time'. I never disagreed with that, but none of this post explains why or how this time is automatically replaced with 'free time'. Most housework can't or hasn't been replaced effectively with machines - certainly not in any sense that liberates women.
Yes housework is finite, but its still hardwork, time consuming and voluminous. Whilst things like the washing machine and vacuum cleaner have reduced time spent on some specific tasks (though both still require time and effort) it's a shift in the type of work - not the workload in general. There are always clothes that need folding and putting away, floors that need to be cleaned etc. Shopping to buy etc. I just think you're overplaying the 'freedom' offered by these machines.
Now people probably can get more and different things done in a day or night - but that's not libertatory in any sense. We're not talking about meaningful changes but the substance of subordination.



If you read my previous post, i said that 'women's equality can[not] be won through technological progress alone -- ultimately social change is needed.'

I did read your previous post - which i why i never said 'vanguard thinks that equality will be won by technological change'. I was merely expressing my opinion on the debate of technology/social change more broadly - i.e. to this thread and its readers, rather than you specifically.



But the technological changes noted above have played a role in allowing women more opportunities to spend more time outside of the home, in the realm of paid work, politics, culture, and other areas of public life.

Sure, i agree - i'm just making the point that there is not a causal relationship between the two. 'Opportunities for women' don't just open up when women find themselves idling away at home with the housework done - they are fought for and seized - often by women who are still burdened with an oversupply of housework! Though i would suspect such women would appreciate having this burden lifted, but that has to be done by men - their husbands, not machines. This sort of technological change - helps, but that's it - the washing machine has not liberated women at all, it's just a re-tooling of oppression unless supported by social change. It really can't be anything more than until there is social progress to take advantage of our technological progress.

[Vanguard1917]

Right - of course doing something with the aid of a machine (usually) takes less time than doing it manually - and of course this 'saves time'. I never disagreed with that, but none of this post explains why or how this time is automatically replaced with 'free time'. Most housework can't or hasn't been replaced effectively with machines - certainly not in any sense that liberates women.
Yes housework is finite, but its still hardwork, time consuming and voluminous. Whilst things like the washing machine and vacuum cleaner have reduced time spent on some specific tasks (though both still require time and effort) it's a shift in the type of work - not in workload in general. There are always clothes that need folding and putting away, floors that need to be cleaned etc. I just think you're overplaying the 'freedom' offered by these machines.
Now people probably can get more and different things done in a day or night - but that's not libertatory in any sense. We're not talking about meaningful changes but the substance of subordination - not its dissolution.


I didn't say that it eradicated house work; i said that it made it easier and less time-consuming.


Sure, i agree - i'm just making the point that there is not a causal relationship between the two. 'Opportunities for women' don't just open up when women find themselves idling away at home with the housework done - they are fought for and seized - often by women who are still burdened with an oversupply of housework. This sort of technological change - helps, but that is all - the washing machine has not liberated women at all, it's just a re-tooling of oppression. It really can't be anything more than until there is social progress to take advantage of our technological progress.

But such technological advances have had a liberating influence (unconsciously, of course -- Bosch don't make washing machines with the aim of liberating women, but of making profits) in that they have reduced the amount of labour time needed for domestic tasks and have helped make it easier for women to leave the home and enter public life.

[Vanguard1917]

And it was nothing like twice as much labour time. It was more like two hundred times. It is also about the nature of the work itself. Washing clothes by hand was hard physical labour.

No doubt.

[Module]

This ultimately shows how feminism is a bourgeoisie ideology - real emancipation has NOTHING to do with 'equality' and has everything to do with CLASS. Equality amongst slaves is not emancipation, as feminists will say otherwise. And what sort of a bizarre notion of emancipation - whether you like it or not, some sort of labor is a requisite for all human societies. Certainly, the amount of that labor can be changed qualitatively and quantitatively, and that includes domestic labor. But the notion that it can be rid of for once and for (i.e. cooking, cleaning, washing, whatever) all fall mainly into the category of science fiction, and has little to do with Marxism. Its not a matter of domestic labor being evil per se (although I would argue that all work should be reduced to as little as possible) but on the unequal distribution of domestic labor amongst the sexes. Anyway, I find this doubly amusing since (1) You're a virgin - hence the pill is of little consequence to you and (2) You're a teenager where your mother probably bears the brunt of the domestic labor. Does that mean you're emancipated?! Going by your idiotic definition: probably.... Woah.
"do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all."
If you think I mean that women should do no labour, 'domestic' or otherwise, regardless of perhaps strange wording on my part, common sense, it is obvious what I mean.
But no, for the record, my mother doesn't bear the brunt of domestic labour. Both of my parents work full time and the housework is spread amongst all members of the family.
As for "real emancipation has NOTHING to do with 'equality' and has everything to do with CLASS.", yes, it has everything to do with 'equality', with equality having everything to do with class.
No doubt you're purposefully misunderstanding the entire point of this post; you're just making yourself look unintelligent (/pathetic).
Nothing else to say about this post, really, is there?
You need to find yourself another hobby.

[Yazman]

I think perhaps some of you underestimate how much progress has been made in the "western" or "rich/advanced" countries in regards to the division of domestic labour and gender equality. There is still a fair way to go but in comparison to other places where technologies like washing machines, dishwashers, etc haven't yet been implemented on a mass scale women really do have a hell of a lot more work to do and it generally is the women who do it. I know this because I've lived in the Philippines long enough to observe these trends and compare it to what I've also noticed in Australia; In Australia it isn't something pushed onto women as "women's work" nor does it really take much effort to put a basket of clothes in the machine, take them out, put em in the dryer and put them away. I don't know any men in the younger generations who see that sort of work as something only women should do or as something "below them", however in the philippines where most people don't have machines to do the labour for them, women are generally stuck in the house doing what can be pretty intensive work, particularly when an average house can have quite a lot of people in it and there are a lot of clothes to wash, hang up, iron, etc. Often many people just hire maids from the even poorer countryside areas to do it for them, this is common even for working class families. So there is a domestic labouring "underclass" of sorts which aren't even part of the family, are definitely underpaid, and are 95% of the time females in their early teens.

I definitely agree that machines like: dishwashers, washing machines, clothes dryers, et al have been very liberating in the countries that they have been implemented on a mass (society-wide) scale. If you live in poorer countries where people don't have these devices, for any significant length of time, I am sure you will begin to see just how major their impact has been.

[apathy maybe]

There is a reason it used to be called washing day. It used to take a whole day a week to do.

The washing machine is one of the examples I like to give of how technology has made lives easier. It can't be denied that the washing machine has made lives easier (along with other things, VG gave some examples) for people (generally women) who do housework.

Regarding the pill, that too is liberating, but for women much more so than for men. Whereas men have invariably had an option to control whether they father a child or not (condoms), and could easily skip out if that failed, women have not.

The washing machine has made everyone's lives easier, the pill is much more for women.

Which is more liberating? Well, I would say that is a damn silly question, they are quite different technologies, in two quite different areas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes housework is finite, but its still hardwork, time consuming and voluminous. Whilst things like the washing machine and vacuum cleaner have reduced time spent on some specific tasks (though both still require time and effort) it's a shift in the type of work - not the workload in general. There are always clothes that need folding and putting away, floors that need to be cleaned etc. Shopping to buy etc.


All that stuff would have needed to have been done anyway, before the invention of things like washing machines.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As someone with a good deal of experience washing clothing by hand, I must say that Devrim is absolutely correct. In Alaska we didn't have a washing machine while we were working (which was during the summer months), so I had to take all of my clothes down to the river near my house with a bucket and a plunger.

You never really appreciate having a washing machine until you have to put up with that for months on end.

As for the pill, I essentially agree with what apathy maybe said about the pill and the washing machine being two different examples of liberating technology.

[Mujer Libre]

In Australia it isn't something pushed onto women as "women's work" nor does it really take much effort to put a basket of clothes in the machine, take them out, put em in the dryer and put them away. I don't know any men in the younger generations who see that sort of work as something only women should do or as something "below them"
And yet, according to all statistics- housework is still overwhelmingly performed by women...

Oh and sure, washing machines etc have made housework easier but they certainly haven't liberated women from it. I think that's where the difference with the Pill comes in. The Pill changed the landscape much more than labour-saving devices.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You seem to regard the ability to engage in promiscuous sex, (a problem in my opinion, due to health concerns, and my ideal of mankind as something above petty hedonism)

Apart from your opinion on promiscuous sex means fuck all because its not your business.



as more important the ability to have time to organize, to gain representation, and as a harbinger of the feminist movement. We obviously differ on this issue, and I am afraid I cannot understand how one can hold the ability to fuck above the ability to vote.

Apart from campaigning requires a mindset that change is possible and that women are capable of doing things without male guidance. Yes there were many campagins for womans rights before the pill but none of them managed to achieve what the modern woman has. Quite simply having as little to do as possible with males whom treat them like shit in the same manner men and women would both steer clear of anyone of there own genders who treats them like shit.

An invention that altered social relationships between men and women helped bring this along much better then a device which mearly gave more free time. (In the lucky cases I suspect in many households the women was now "free" to do more housework or whatever).

[Comrade_XRD]

The pope is almost immune to criticism so he could say whatever the hell he wants. The guys almost dead so don't count on him making anymore silly remarks such as that one. Listening to 5 minutes of him will make you an atheist on the spot or at least not a catholic. Seriously I don't know what worse about the catholic church: the widespread silence on the increasing numbers of molested children or the ignorant former hitler youth who is their leader.

[Yazman]

And yet, according to all statistics- housework is still overwhelmingly performed by women...

Oh and sure, washing machines etc have made housework easier but they certainly haven't liberated women from it. I think that's where the difference with the Pill comes in. The Pill changed the landscape much more than labour-saving devices.

Can you please cite these statistics? From my own experience, the amount of work division between men and women is incredible in Australia compared to the philippines (although there's still much progress to be made). I am hesitant to believe that an overwhelming majority of housework in aus (well, in QLD at least, I never lived in other parts) is done by women. A majority sure, but from my own experiences it is more like 60-70% (in australia) or so rather than in the phils where housework is essentially never done by men.

There really is a MASSIVE difference in the two locations in the division of labour according to gender, if you spend any time in a place where washing machines, dishwashers, clothes dryers etc are virtually non-existent you will see this. Devrim, Agora, and apathy maybe's posts re-iterate this point to an extent.

[Mujer Libre]

Can you please cite these statistics? From my own experience, the amount of work division between men and women is incredible in Australia compared to the philippines (although there's still much progress to be made). I am hesitant to believe that an overwhelming majority of housework in aus (well, in QLD at least, I never lived in other parts) is done by women. A majority sure, but from my own experiences it is more like 60-70% (in australia) or so rather than in the phils where housework is essentially never done by men.

There really is a MASSIVE difference in the two locations in the division of labour according to gender, if you spend any time in a place where washing machines, dishwashers, clothes dryers etc are virtually non-existent you will see this. Devrim, Agora, and apathy maybe's posts re-iterate this point to an extent.

Um, I never said that men in Australia are as bad as men in other parts of the world when it comes to domestic duties- but it's still shit.

Here are some quotations.


The diaries show that between 1997 and 2006 everyone devoted more hours to paid work - childless men and childless women, and mothers and fathers. As well, fathers and mothers devoted more hours to child-care activities, despite their longer hours at work. And everyone reduced the time they spent on housework - everyone that is, except for mothers.


"Childless men and women, as they put more hours in at work, cut back on the housework, and fathers also did less housework but mothers did not cut back," Dr Craig said. "There's a push towards men doing more at home, and while they're doing a bit more with the children, they squeezed it out of the small amount of time they spent on housework."
So basically, men are playing with the kids, but taking that time out of domestic chore-time. Oh, and women are left to pick up the slack.



So the amount of domestic work done by Australian men has DECLINED in recent years, because 'men are working longer hours.' Never mind that women are too.




And, as many women might have suspected, the survey shows they’re doing three times as much housework as their male counterparts, and mums are spending almost three times as much time as dads looking after the kids.


Over the past 14 years ABS Time Use Surveys have shown that the huge differences between the time males and females spend on housework have narrowed slightly.

The 1992 Time Use Survey estimated males spent only 37 minutes per day on housework, compared to women’s 2 hours and 27 minutes. By 1997, this had become 40 minutes for men, and 2 hours and 19 minutes for women.


But, back to 2006 figures. Males did spend more time than females on “other” housework such as grounds and home maintenance, but this only clawed back 10 minutes of the 1 hour 15 minute total housework difference. Females also spent more time on childcare (59 minutes compared to 22 minutes), more on purchasing goods and services (58 minutes compared to 38 minutes), and extra on voluntary work and care (24 minutes to 15 minutes). Males spent more time on recreation and leisure (4 hours and 29 minutes, compared to 3 hours and 57 minutes).





Ta-da.

[Yazman]

Well, like I said, there is still much progress to be made there but the fact that men are doing housework at all there; and doing hours worth of it; and that this is a narrowing gap shows to me that technology has definitely contributed to women having to do less housework (not saying they don't still do most of it). Given what its like without that technology where housework is literally drudgery (as opposed to pushing a few buttons) and men generally do not do any housework at all, I think this is quite evident. I guarantee you that the situation in the phils and other places with similar conditions (like India) would quickly begin to see men take up housework if such technologies were implemented on a broad scale.

[Black Dagger]

but the fact that men are doing housework at all there

Yeah, i dunno - that's not really anything to celebrate - 'woo you're not totally treating your partners like domestic servants!'


and doing hours worth of it; and that this is a narrowing gap shows to me that technology has definitely contributed to women having to do less housework (not saying they don't still do most of it)

This is not actually what the article says at all.

The article says that the gap isn't getting any smaller - whilst men have been doing more child care than before (women still do three times as much) this increased effort at home has come straight out of the very small time they would otherwise spend on doing housework,


There's a push towards men doing more at home, and while [men are] doing a bit more with the children, they squeezed it out of the small amount of time they spent on housework."

So the gap in child-caring duties is declining very slightly, but the gap in actual housework is increasing,


"Childless men and women, as they put more hours in at work, cut back on the housework, and fathers also did less housework but mothers did not cut back,"

Anyways, it's pretty sad that it takes automation and other kinds of technologically induced idleness to get most men to lift a finger.

[MarxSchmarx]

In other news, the pope also announces that the cotton gin was the most liberating development for American negroes in the 19th century.

While acknowledging the "Emancipation Proclamation" as a close second, the pope pointed out that life still sucked ass for most former slaves. However, the cotton gin meant that their fingers no longer had to be bloodied processing the king crop. It also allowed slaves to grow to reproductive age, have time for their families (at least until the master split them up), and learn other valuable skills like shoveling horse shit.

[Yazman]

I don't disagree with anything you said there BD, but I think perhaps you missed the whole point of what I was saying in the comparison to women in the phils (anybody who asserts that women in rich countries are oppressed to the same extent as women here is delusional, or just lacking in experience outside rich countries).

Although, that you seem to consider technological progress as a somewhat 'pathetic' route towards social progress, I think there may be fundamental disagreements in terms of preferred method. Technologically induced idleness? There isn't anything "noble" about primitivism, which is what you seem to be alluding to. If technology can contribute to social progress - which it has ALWAYS done, since the origin of our species - then we should be embracing it, not attacking it. Whether the washing machine or the pill, both are examples of massive improvements in social standards through technological progress - especially the pill in terms of allowing women greater sovereignty.

[Angry Young Man]

The sexism is not in the enforcement of kinder, kirche, kuche, but in saying that it is liberating 'to women'. I have to do my laundry at a laundrette more extortionate than Brest Litovsk whose dryers don't get my fucking clothes dry, but next year my house has a washer and a tumbler and I am well chuffed.

[Trystan]

To quote Orwell: "One cannot really be a Catholic and grown up."

[Black Dagger]

I don't disagree with anything you said there BD, but I think perhaps you missed the whole point of what I was saying in the comparison to women in the phils (anybody who asserts that women in rich countries are oppressed to the same extent as women here is delusional, or just lacking in experience outside rich countries).Sure, but hierarchies of oppression are a futile and insulting exercise. Suffice to say that patriarchy is global even if not identical in form and content.



Although, that you seem to consider technological progress as a somewhat 'pathetic' route towards social progress No.

'Technological progress' and 'social progress' are not the same thing. The former cannot be used as a synonym for the latter. Technological progress is merely the perspective that human technology (in some form or another) has improved from one state of affairs compared to another. Social progress is something completely different, and may be propelled, assisted or anchored by technologies or technological progress but in all cases is the product of human action and not the function of 'technology' - which is merely a tool of humanity with no innate politics or social progressiveness (clunky term is clunky).



Technologically induced idleness?Yes? I don't understand your question.



There isn't anything "noble" about primitivism which is what you seem to be alluding toHuh? I'm fairly certain i did not mention or allude to primitivism of any stripe in my previous comments. Please explain why you are accusing me of being a primitivist?

I understand that as a 'technocrat' you necessarily have a high opinion of technology in and of itself but it's just a thing, a tool in our hands. There is nothing inherently progressive in it's cogs or processors. The value of technology is always how it is put to use - in questioning the liberatory value of the washing machine i was not faulting the washing machine's utility or questioning its commitment to the task of washing my assorted garments, socks and things. Rather i was suggesting that technological change and social change have no causual relationship.

Indeed there are many techonologies today (the field of medicine being a prime example) that would do a great deal to alleievate the collective suffering of humanity, but for the fault of human society (capitalism) these technologies remain out of the grasp of most who are in dire need of them. That we should develop a cure for AIDS does not mean that AIDS will be eradicated - as we have surely developed water purifiers, inoculations for many common infectious disease and so forth, and yet every year billions of people drink dirty water, millions contract or die of preventable disease. Technology will not solve these problems - humanity will.

Perhaps you will say, 'Well yes of course naive! Drugs cannot administer themselves you primitivist fool!' Surely, but i think this little step is ignored in the logic of your argument, and in your general perspective of technology (which apparently to include would make you a primitivist).
Indeed, in questioning the automatic 'liberation' that would accompany the production and sale of the washing machine to 'home-makers' everywhere i am 'attacking techology'. You seem to have missed that little step.
I'm not attacking technology, i'm making a rather obvious if important point. It will take more than 'technology' to liberate women, because technology does not desire women's liberation - we do. As i suggested earlier there is nothing stopping a woman from remaining a virtual slave or servant in 'her home' even with the assistance of a few labour-saving technologies, such as the much talked about washing machine. Of course the time gained from this automation is valuable, but what exactly is stopping this time from being dedicated to another onerous task?

Women's liberation will never come down to how much technology is developed to reduce house-work, it will come with social change - like say the abolition of gender roles which assign housework to women. The problem for women is not that 'housework just takes sooo long! I wish i had a robot to help me!' It's that women are getting burdened with this unpaid, unvalued work to begin with.

[Black Dagger]

Also to address the OP for a second - if this was not already apparent from my replies thus far - i think the Pope is wrong in his judgement (i know!).

Though the vatican would no doubt say this is because i am a 'sinner' who lusts for a world of uninhibited sexuality (well that's true but beside the point!) i think it's pretty clear that as far as these technologies are concerned the pill is something that actually empowers women directly. As i have rambled on previously, the washing machine is not inherently empowering to women - it does not allow women to take control of their own lives in any meaningful sense. It is helpful to be sure - hand washing is a pain in the arse - but given the Vaticans perspective on women and 'the womans' role' i think it is quite obvious why the Pope would conceive a household appliance as a tool of womans liberation. I.E. It is something that confirms a womans 'natural' designation as a homemaker but is also nice enough to help her in this regard! Whilst at the same time he is also downplaying the benefits of something that actually empowers women, I.E. birth control (also a sin btw).

Unlike the washing machine, the pill gave women a real opportunity to leave the home and break into the paid workforce (and thus break the financial dependance of wife to husband). Previously women who did try to do this often found themselves wrenched away by pregnancy - often never to return, as they became permanent care-givers. Falling pregnant was also once (i hesistate to say this, because i'm sure this kind of discrimination still exists) a short-cut to the unemployment line.

There really is no comparison between the two.

[Devrim]

Unlike the washing machine, the pill gave women a real opportunity to leave the home and break into the paid workforce (and thus break the financial dependance of wife to husband). Previously women who did try to do this often found themselves wrenched away by pregnancy - often never to return, as they became permanent care-givers. Falling pregnant was also once (i hesistate to say this, because i'm sure this kind of discrimination still exists) a short-cut to the unemployment line.

There was contraception before the pill, you know.

Devrim

[Mujer Libre]

There was contraception before the pill, you know.

Devrim
Yes, but it was nowhere near as effective or easy to use as the pill, and barrier methods are generally cumbersome and require the consent/knowledge of the person the woman is having sex with- not exactly ideal in many situations.

[Jazzratt]

Yes, but it was nowhere near as effective or easy to use as the pill, and barrier methods are generally cumbersome and require the consent/knowledge of the person the woman is having sex with- not exactly ideal in many situations.

Yes, the pill is an amazing example of technological progress creating social progress.

[Mujer Libre]

Yes, the pill is an amazing example of technological progress creating social progress.
See, I think the difference between you guys and the rest of us (I've had this discussion with Sentinel before) is one of emphasis. You'd say "creating" progress- I'd say "facilitating."

The underlying grounding of feminism allowed the Pill to be as liberatory as it was/is, Without a feminist movement any gains made by the introduction of the Pill would have been hollow- after all it's administration would have been in the hands of an overwhelmingly male medical profession. So basically, I think that certain social factors had to be in place for the Pill to facilitate further social change.

It's not like a technology acts on society on its own- it always acts in a social context and influences by the intentions of the person or people using it. Technology in and of itself has no power to directly act on society. People and technology certainly do.

[Black Dagger]

See, I think the difference between you guys and the rest of us (I've had this discussion with Sentinel before) is one of emphasis. You'd say "creating" progress- I'd say "facilitating."

The underlying grounding of feminism allowed the Pill to be as liberatory as it was/is, Without a feminist movement any gains made by the introduction of the Pill would have been hollow- after all it's administration would have been in the hands of an overwhelmingly male medical profession. So basically, I think that certain social factors had to be in place for the Pill to facilitate further social change.

It's not like a technology acts on society on its own- it always acts in a social context and influences by the intentions of the person or people using it. Technology in and of itself has no power to directly act on society. People and technology certainly do. Yes exactly, suggesting the reverse is a complete idealisation/mystification of techonology. Had the pill been developed in a different time and place the social effect would probably have been very different. Social context gives technological progress form. A more conservative religious context would not have allowed the pill to be involved in a 'sexual revolution' - the idea would have been blasphemy! As it turns out the pill rose to prominence in the 1960s, a period of increasing social liberalism and secularism in many places - and a peak period of feminism.


There was contraception before the pill, you know.

Was this comment really necessary?

Yes dev, i realise there was contraception before the pill :rolleyes:

The point is the pill is a huge improvement on contraception techniques, for reliability and the control its gives to women.

[heiss93]

The pope is an economic determinist.

[Louise Michel]

I have a couple of responses to this.

Firstly, I think you could just about fit the pope into a medium sized washing machine if you opened the lid and squashed him in. I would run it on a short wash at a low temperature to be compassionate.

Secondly, gee thanks guys, I always wanted a front loader. I mean I just get sooo much time more time to read Wittgenstein because you know what, I just have to pour in the powder, twist the dial and away it goes. Two chapters later I just take out hubby's fresh white shirts and hang them on the line.

I mean really, reality check, you're agreeing with the pope! Next you'll be saying how much Henry Ford has contributed to the liberation of the working class.

[Vanguard1917]

Secondly, gee thanks guys, I always wanted a front loader. I mean I just get sooo much time more time to read Wittgenstein because you know what, I just have to pour in the powder, twist the dial and away it goes. Two chapters later I just take out hubby's fresh white shirts and hang them on the line.

Yet the truth remains that, if washing machines were abolished tomorrow, the intensity and duration of domestic labour for women would (everything else being equal) multiply overnight.


I mean really, reality check, you're agreeing with the pope!

I don't like the pope; that doesn't mean that i don't think technologies like washing machines have had a beneficial impact for women.

[Black Dagger]

Yet the truth remains that, if washing machines were abolished tomorrow, the intensity and duration of domestic labour for women would (everything else being equal) multiply overnight.

Yes VG but this is because of gender roles. Washing machines aren't doing women a favour, they're just a cog in the machine of gendered oppression. The point is that new fangled techie treats or not washing shouldn't be 'women's work'; the invention of washing machines did nothing to change the gendered nature of house work. That's the point of actual significance here, not some celebratory sentinment about how much labour is saved by washing machines 'these days'.


I don't like the pope; that doesn't mean that i don't think technologies like washing machines have had a beneficial impact for women.

Yes, if you want slaves to do their work well then you should provide them with adequate tools :rolleyes:

It's not a question of whether the washing machine as a technology does its job - of course it does - that's what machines do - their job. The point is the washing machine has done nothing to 'liberate' women - it hasn't and never will change the gendered nature of house work in and of itself. That requires real social change, not electronic floor scrubbers or robotic dusters.

To this end, did you see the article that was posted earlier in this thread? The article said that the gender gap in housework isn't getting any smaller (one would think with all this technology most women would spend their days sipping cocktails by the pool!) - whilst men have been doing more child care than before (women still do three times as much) this increased effort at home has come straight out of the very small time they would otherwise spend on doing housework,


There's a push towards men doing more at home, and while [men are] doing a bit more with the children, they squeezed it out of the small amount of time they spent on housework."

So while the gap in child-caring duties is declining very slightly, the gap in actual housework is increasing,


"Childless men and women, as they put more hours in at work, cut back on the housework, and fathers also did less housework but mothers did not cut back,"

[Vanguard1917]

Yes VG but this is because of gender roles. Washing machines aren't doing women a favour, they're just a cog in the machine of gendered oppression. The point is that new fangled techie treats or not washing shouldn't be 'women's work'; the invention of washing machines did nothing to change the gendered nature of house work.

That's true (in the sense that domestic labour is still overwhelmingly the responsibility of women), but it did make domestic labour less time-consuming and intensive for those women who have access to it.



The point is the washing machine has done nothing to 'liberate' women


Depends how you define 'liberate' in this context. Has it liberated women from backbreaking laundry tasks? To a great extent, yes -- for those women who now have access to them. Read Devrim's personal recollections of what washing clothes was like for women prior to washing machines. I think it's pretty fair to say that it was a great deal more arduous.

Of course, social change is needed to abolish unpaid domestic labour, something which technologies like the washine machine do not do and, on their own, cannot do. That does not mean, however, that technological advances such as washing machines have not had a positive impact on women's lives.

[Black Dagger]

Depends how you define 'liberate' in this context.

Well yes i guess it does - but i would say that your definition of women's liberation ('making a single task of housework less time consuming') would find few admirers in most feminist circles. Generally liberation or in this case 'woman's liberation' would be applied to situations were the oppression of women is actually being swept away (presumably by women themselves). A washing machine doesn't 'liberate' anything because it doesn't challenge or alter fundamentally the oppression of women. I think you are confused about the term, and are applying it inappropriately. Your usage implies that changes to form are equivalent to changes of content - this is not the case. Women would still be oppressed if David Tennant forbid (!) humans stopped washing their clothes altogether. Women's lib is not about how long it takes for women to wash the clothes, it's about this task being assigned to women in the first place.


Has it liberated women from backbreaking laundry tasks? To a great extent, yes --

This is a very loose use of the term 'liberated', laundry tasks are not oppressing women - gender roles - patriarchy are. I guess you could use the phrase 'liberated' in that sense but only for aesthetics, it gives the sentence a grand tone. Other than that? No, it's unspeakably silly to talk about 'liberation' in the same thought as 'yeah i know! You just put the clothes in, hit a few button and it does a wash!' It's almost something you might find in one of those overly excited toilet cleaning ads marketing muppets aim at dutiful housewives. Yes, washing machines are great time and labour saving devices, move on.


for those women who now have access to them.

I'm glad you made this distinction, it's very important and is another example of why the role of technology in progress is limited by social context.


Read Devrim's personal recollections of what washing clothes was like for women prior to washing machines. I think it's pretty fair to say that it was a great deal more arduous.

I did read Dev's posts and i probably have already replied to them. Have you read all my posts in this thread? I've made it quite clear that i agree with what Dev said - it would be non-sense to dispute that and so your repetition of this point is really quite irritating. Again, for the nth time - the reduction or even abolition of a single laborious task of housework is not tantamount to the 'liberation of women' - not even an iota of liberation is found in that achievement. Liberation means the abolition of 'the woman's role', of gendered oppression - not merely a shift in its' content. This a point i've articulated at length probably five times already in this discussion.



Of course, social change is needed to abolish unpaid domestic labour, something which technologies like the washine machine do not do and, on their own, cannot do. That does not mean, however, that technological advances such as washing machines have not had a positive impact on women's lives.

I said that about three pages ago. Please read the thread before repeating things over and over and over and over.

Please don't waste my time again with a reply unless you have made the effort to read my collection of posts in this thread.

[Vanguard1917]

Liberation means the abolition of 'the woman's role', of gendered oppression - not merely a shift in its' content.


Then let's not use the word 'liberate', if that's going to be our only definition of it. Let's argue that washing machines have made women's lives easier, and that, if washing machines were abolished tomorrow, women's lives would be worse. If such devices disappeared, the women who previously had access to them would find themselves in a much worse situation than they're in now.

[Louise Michel]

Yes VG but this is because of gender roles. Washing machines aren't doing women a favour, they're just a cog in the machine of gendered oppression. The point is that new fangled techie treats or not washing shouldn't be 'women's work'; the invention of washing machines did nothing to change the gendered nature of house work. That's the point of actual significance here, not some celebratory sentinment about how much labour is saved by washing machines 'these days'.


Absolutely!

And try to remember that the pope is against the liberation of women. He wants women to reproduce and look after the kiddies. At home. That´s what his comment about washing machines means.


Then let's not use the word 'liberate', if that's going to be our only definition of it. Let's argue that washing machines have made women's lives easier, and that, if washing machines were abolished tomorrow, women's lives would be worse. If such devices disappeared, the women who previously had access to them would find themselves in a much worse situation than they're in now.

Not if there was a social revolution and guys like you had to help out.:cool:

[Black Dagger]

Then let's not use the word 'liberate', if that's going to be our only definition of it. Let's argue that washing machines have made women's lives easier, and that, if washing machines were abolished tomorrow, women's lives would be worse. If such devices disappeared, the women who previously had access to them would find themselves in a much worse situation than they're in now.

Nevermind, you just went ahead and repeated (for the fourth [?] time) the same point, see ya later!


Yes, washing machines are great time and labour saving devices, move on.



It's not a question of whether the washing machine as a technology does its job - of course it does - that's what machines do - their job. The point is the washing machine has done nothing to 'liberate' women - it hasn't and never will change the gendered nature of house work in and of itself. That requires real social change, not electronic floor scrubbers or robotic dusters.


As i suggested earlier there is nothing stopping a woman from remaining a virtual slave or servant in 'her home' even with the assistance of a few labour-saving technologies, such as the much talked about washing machine. Of course the time gained from this automation is valuable, but what exactly is stopping this time from being dedicated to another onerous task?

Women's liberation will never come down to how much technology is developed to reduce house-work, it will come with social change - like say the abolition of gender roles which assign housework to women. The problem for women is not that 'housework just takes sooo long! I wish i had a robot to help me!' It's that women are getting burdened with this unpaid, unvalued work to begin with.


As i have rambled on previously, the washing machine is not inherently empowering to women - it does not allow women to take control of their own lives in any meaningful sense. It is helpful to be sure - hand washing is a pain in the arse - but given the Vaticans perspective on women and 'the womans' role' i think it is quite obvious why the Pope would conceive a household appliance as a tool of womans liberation. I.E. It is something that confirms a womans 'natural' designation as a homemaker but is also nice enough to help her in this regard! Whilst at the same time he is also downplaying the benefits of something that actually empowers women, I.E. birth control (also a sin btw).



Oh and sure, washing machines etc have made housework easier but they certainly haven't liberated women from it. I think that's where the difference with the Pill comes in. The Pill changed the landscape much more than labour-saving devices.


An invention that altered social relationships between men and women helped bring this along much better then a device which mearly gave more free time. (In the lucky cases I suspect in many households the women was now "free" to do more housework or whatever).


Secondly, gee thanks guys, I always wanted a front loader. I mean I just get sooo much time more time to read Wittgenstein because you know what, I just have to pour in the powder, twist the dial and away it goes. Two chapters later I just take out hubby's fresh white shirts and hang them on the line.



Yes, this is key here. Real emancipation for women will only come about in a society where women play an equal role and do not have to bear the burden of domestic labour at all.
The pill gave women (the physical potential to have) equal sexual agency to men. Same with abortion, it gives women (the physical potential to have) equal control over their own bodies and ability to reject a pregnancy.
The washing machine? Well, like was quoted in the article, the ability to 'change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once'. That has, clearly, nothing to do with gender equality. The only thing this article is saying is that it made women's lives constrained to domestic chores that much more efficient. Is that the Pope's idea of the emancipation of women? The context of this quote that they used;



I think in practice things like the 'washing machine' (which still requires labour time whilst not replacing manual washing entirely either) rather than providing all women with more opportunities for leisure or participation in the public sphere, has rather provided many women with more 'opportunities' for house work!

'Hey i can vacuum whilst the washing is being done!' Such freedoms we enjoy in modern times.

It certainly did nothing to alter the situation where women are burdened with something like 90% of unpaid 'house work', it just meant that female subordination was a little less taxing in one regard, or expanded into new areas with the birth of 'free time'.

Also i think this view implies that there are no other barriers to women's equal participation in society then say, their amount of housework at any given time - what of sexism? It's not like house work assigns itself to women.

That said, i'm not saying automation of something like housework is not a good thing - of course it is - and for women too, but this is only because of the burden of work placed on women in the home. Although this apparent 'advantage' too is in many cases negated by the substitution of one kind of house work for another with 'all that free time'. Technological change of this sort is not a replacement or substitute for social change, and unless this is forthcoming woman's subordination will simply take new forms.

Etc.

Next time you want to have a discussion, please - if you don't have anything new to say don't reply. You're just spamming now like you have to have the last word. The fact that i and many others have already accepted your point but moved on to make a further criticism seems to have escaped you entirely. 'But manual washing is hardwork! Washing machines have saved women a lot of time' you lurch over to say - yes i know, you said that already.

[Vanguard1917]

Next time you want to have a discussion, please - if you don't have anything new to say don't reply. You're just spamming now like you have to have the last word. The fact that i and many others have already accepted your point but moved on to make a further criticism seems to have escaped you entirely. 'But manual washing is hardwork! Washing machines have saved women a lot of time' you lurch over to say - yes i know, you said that already.

The problem is that you have been dismissive of the fact that it has had a liberating impact. In you first post, for example, you argued that the washing machine has not provided 'all women with more opportunities for leisure or participation in the public sphere, has rather provided many women with more 'opportunities' for house work!'

My reply has been that access to technologies such as washing machines (along with things like dishwashers, refridgerators, cars, and local supermarkets) has made it easier for women to do things outside of the home by reducing the amount of time that they are forced to spend on domestic work. In that sense, the technology has had a liberating influence.

However, i agree 100% with the argument that technology alone cannot liberate women, and that a social struggle is needed. For example, while the technology can make it easier for women to enter public life, if that public life is filled with barriers against female participation a washing machine will not change that; a social struggle will. What access to such technologies can do, though, is make it easier for women to leave the home in the first place.

[TC]

Devrim is, of course, absolutely right. The washing machine has had a liberating impact in the sense that it has helped ease the intensity of domestic labour, which is overwhelmingly performed by women in capitalist society. The same goes for things like the dishwasher, the vacuum cleaner, the car, and the large supermarket (which has helped reduce the time and effort it takes to buy household goods).

I mean this as a comradely criticism because you clearly have the right ideological line on this issue (which is made clear in the rest of your post) but i think you've adopted too many of the assumptions of the patriarchy in framing the question of domestic labor.

The problem with domestic work isn't just that its necessary labor divided unfairly and done inefficently...part of it is also purely socially constructed busy work that serves the function of keeping women tied occupied with tedium causing them to work in socially productive labor less than their husbands.

The expectation for instance that sheets be washed even once a week is obviously socially constructed. Seriously, how often has anyone in college dorms washed their own sheets? Once a term? Once a year? Never? No more than once monthly surely.

Even the ritual of preparing 'balanced meals' three times a day...a balanced diet, balanced over the course of multiple days, may be necessary or useful in maintaining good health, but is there actually any necessity in preparing balanced meals? It certainly consumes more time to cook and prepare three different items for three meals then one per meal.

Of course it makes it more pleasant for the non-cooking diners...just as clean sheets are more pleasant for the non-washing partner...but that doesn't make them necessary, when people do things for themselves they weigh the costs and benefits of time to comfort...but if you have a wife/mother to take care of your physical comfort then it appears a necessity, an entitlement.

We assume these things are necessary because we live in a society that is still structured around the expectation of patriarchal families, and privileges the perspectives of the patriarchs within them.