Ms. Waring argues, “For me the patriarchal economic paradigm is the theory and practice of economics that says that women unpaid work is not worth anything at all. It’s not that I want to estimate its monetary value. I want to make it visible for policy-making, purposes, for fairness and equality. If you’re not visible as a worker, then you’re not visible in the distribution of benefits.”
Dr. McDonald goes on to concur with her and explains "If women as housewives and mothers were more visible economically, if the prodigious volume of devoted work they do day in and day out was given official recognition, do you think, for instance, that such valuable actors in society would have to use up as much as 85 per cent of their daily calorie intake to fetch water and suffer, as they do in many rural areas of the world, from anaemia and spinal and pelvic deformities from carrying heavy pails for miles before their families rise in the morning? In such a case, if their true value was factored into national accounts, there is no doubt that the location of public sources of water would be very quickly improved. The fact is that if a woman’s work is given no value she will be treated worthlessly."
At the risk of seeming disrespectful of my uncle I must disagree with this and propose that there is a much deeper root to the lack of value given to women and to people in general who are so often treated as chattel, disposable and worthless. I would also like to suggest that this view not only risks to further devalue women but devalues parenting on a the whole.
First I do not believe that we can put a value to the role of motherhood and homemaking monetarily or as recognizable economically, be it by a mother or father. I believe the minute we try and put a price tag on it and make it a market variable we reduce it and objectify it like we do some many things today. How can you put a value on love, nurturing, caring, forming, supporting the ones you love? Does this not seem a little obscene? And what are we saying to those parents who are out of the home earning an income, that their parenting is done once they have finished their days work, or that they too should be compensated for coming home and caring for their wife and children, cleaning up messes, preparing meals, helping in the ongoing formation of their children and families? And how would we incorporate such things in an economic model?
Next I think that by saying that once we have given a monetary value or economic recognition to the work women do this will open oppressive, objectifying eyes to the worth of women does not go to the root of why women are abused, neglected, and "undervalued". In order for people to be respected and treated with dignity there must first exist a recognition of that human dignity and where that human dignity comes from. If a culture, community, nation does not acknowledge and protect the intrinsic God given human dignity of each and every individual soul, man, woman, and child, then how can we hope to nurture it. Quantifying a persons worth does not enhance dignity it objectifies human beings.
I think that the greater contributor to abuse, neglect and objectification of women and human life altogether is explained more aptly in looking at the contraceptive culture we live in which encourages women to become even more objectified. The minute we see pregnancy and child rearing as a burden rather than a gift we have devalued woman's dignity and human dignity. When we separate sex from its God given gift as a procreative activity we have reduced each other as mere objects of pleasure and have cemented even further the use of women, children, and even men, as less than human things to be discarded when they are no longer useful or wanted.
And let us not forget abortion as a contributor and tool to further devalue human beings. What does it say about a culture that can extinguish innocent lives at the rate of thousands a day. Is this a culture that really understands and protects the dignity of human life? If life at its most vulnerable and innocent stage can so easily be snuffed out why are we surprised at the wide scale under valuing of life at any stage? A culture that encourages women to abort children who may potentially be "handicapped", a culture that neglects its aging population and over medicates and under supports its elderly is not a culture that understands the dignity of human beings, and will not treat those weakest with caring and compassion, but rather with indifference and disdain.
God Bless,
Dominique
Nice post, and yes, of course I would like to contribute :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd that you disagree with your uncle is not disrespectful - one is allowed to disagree without causing disrespect, right?
I agree with your points regarding the economic valuing of parenting. Waring also mentioned that (that the point was not to put an "number" on it). An underlying feature of what both she and your uncle seem to be trying to get at is a comment about how things are valued in our society as a whole - a materialist, capital-driven society tends to value things in monetary terms, and therefore they seem to want to acknowledge the hidden work of women in the terms that are defined by such societies (women's work is hidden by definition then, because it has no "money" behind it, and therefore does not exist). Attempting to give value to the "hidden" work of women (in the family/private sphere) is nothing new of course, and has been the focus of many studies looking at the relationship of women to the state, the economy, etc. And the work continues . . . .
The next question is whether or not the lack of monetary value for women's work contributes to an overall devaluation of women. It likely does not help, but I would not consider this to be a core cause. Nor would I consider abortion or a contraceptive culture to be a core cause either - these can contribute to the devaluing of women (or humans in general), but the devaluing of women did not "start" here. Women have been devalued across societies (that do or do not have contraception or abortion cultures), across space (global), and time (history). It is remarkable in fact. If there is something that appears universal across space and time, that is the lack of respect for women.
Women have been, and continue to be in some/many parts of the world, property. Something to control (I use "something" instead of "someone"). Even the fact that women are necessary for producing offspring is not valued, apart from the fact that they are just a vessel. If it (a woman) is harmed or dies, it is possible to just get a new one. Violence is easy against something that is not valued. Even the economic value of this property is insignificant if it is easily replaceable. the work done at home by these "units" is taken for granted, is expected, not praised or valued.
So the question is why do we have a universal, historical, global devaluing of women?
Took the words out of my mouth! I was reading your Uncle's article, and while a very good piece, I kept thinking about how the radical feminist movement and the entire contraceptive mentality that it typically puts forth is the biggest contributor to the devaluing of women. When the natural role and ability of a woman is regarded as a burden, costly and unwanted, then the women that choose to live the God-given role, will, unfortunately be regarded the same. The feminist culture says we must be child-free, hard working professionals to be considered worth while. We can not even have children and be hardworking out in the world without their criticism. Looking at, for a quick example, Sarah Palin. She should be the hero for the Feminist Movement. Hard working, politically involved, polished woman!! Ah, but she has children, and a disabled child at that! And, therefore couldn't possibly be in favour of women's rights, right??? And so they criticize her as much as any 'lower-class' mother....
ReplyDeleteAnyway, just wanted to say that I agree with a number of things your Uncle wrote about, but most definitely agree with you in that the cure for this is not placing a numerical value on the work that mothers (and fathers) do for their children, families and society as a whole. That is something only the true appreciation for what women are naturally made for, can do.
God Bless!
Thank you for your comments ladies.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Dominique!
ReplyDeleteWhile you say you have disagreements with your uncle's point of view, there is a complimentary aspect as well. I see your view and his view as addressing a problematic issue with a common value system, but using a different language to target a different audience.
I agree that the intrinsic value is with the dignity of the person and that value cannot be quantified without in effect, "cheapening" it or making it "obscene". We, of course, have a common belief system that places the dignity of a human and the role of parents as "priceless" or above economic value.
Unfortunately, many do not share our beliefs; their ideology is different and the language they speak requires quantifiable illustrations that demonstrate an ultilitarian value that they understand. To convince the opponents of our commonly shared value (the inherent dignity of women and the role of parents in society) and to reduce the problem identified (the devaluing of women and parents), we must sometimes resort to the opponent's language to make the point required. This still does not change the original belief that this inherent value is beyond quantification.
I've come across Dr. Waring's work several times during my undergrad studies, and I was impressed by it as it does make one think of these issues in a new way. Her methodology is to solve practical political-economic problems. Her approach is not to directly change the belief systems of the population but to demonstrate that the "hidden economy” of homemakers, parents and subsistence farmers is not adequately represented in the capitalist system and that this hidden economy accounts for a significant proportion of that society’s livelihood.
Bear with me while I use the old cultural anthropology terms of infrastructure, structure and superstructure to demonstrate how I see a layering of sorts of both yours and your uncle’s views. These 3 levels of a culture influence one another and at times overlap. The Waring/Mcdonald argument addresses the infrastructure to structure levels of a culture: the home and the culture’s economy. They identify that the devaluing of women and parents is due to the role of these as being only relegated to the infrastructure level in a modern capitalist culture that values paid work, while these roles if given references to the structure level would then become considerably more valuable in such a culture. Not all valuable work is paid work and our modern capitalist culture fails to recognize this. Your argument then goes to the superstructure level: the belief systems, ideology, religion, etc., of the culture. You argue a greater value than strictly an economic, utilitarian one. This value comes from our common faith and the truths we know from it. You seem to be arguing that the devaluing of women and parents is due to misconceptions we know at this level of culture, the belief systems, and this in turn affects the lower 2 levels of culture, the home and the economy. To change the problem, the value of the individual must be respected as our faith has revealed this to us: that God has given women and parenthood an inherent dignity that no human system can measure.
I see how both yours and your uncle’s arguments can be correct and complimentary at the same time, as all references in all levels affect the other levels. Home affects economy and belief systems, as it also does in reverse. The audience for the Waring/McDonald argument is dealing with the problems at the lower levels, while you are addressing an audience concerned with the highest level. (Sorry, that was very wordy, but it’s how I was trained to think.)