The Political Economy of Male Chauvinism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Political Economy of Male Chauvinism by Tom Christoffel and Katherine Kaufer 'Women!-give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile!' -Grumpy, in Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs The past few years have shown a growing awareness of a most important problem: the degrading way in which women are treated in our society. That awareness has given rise to organized attempts to fight against male chauvinism. Part of this attack is the growing literature which seeks to identify and analyse the ways in which male chauvinism orerates to hurt women-and men. An important part of this literature has described the social and psychologica aspects of male chauvinism-the existence of distinct male and female roles which we are condi tioned to accept, fill and endure; the social and personal interactions which are built around and founder on sex ist attitudes; the pervasiveness of those attitudes and the damage they do; etc. In this essay we wish to explore the problem from a different angle, exploring the economic aspects of male chauvinism. For the secondary role of women in our society is not solely a cultural phenomenon~ to fully under stand it we must understand the nature of the economic system under which we live. Women in our society are especially exploited and oppressed by being paid less for equivalent work, channeled into more undesirable jobs, or simply excluded from the labor force. As a result they form a gigantic reserve labor pool, are forced into de pendent relationships with men, and are condemned (without pay) to household drudgery. In our capitalist so ciety, being born female automatically calls down special penalties and restrictions. The growing struggle for fe male equality is therefore necessarily a part of the anti-capitalist struggle-and vice versa. Any system of exploitation can survive only if those who are exploited fail to rebel against their situation. The crudest and most direct barrier to such rebellion is force; less direct, but more efficient means are the granting of concessions and the manipulation of ideology. Capitalism, while ready to use force whenever it is deemed neces sary and willing to offer concessions within the limits of exigency and practicality, prefers to win voluntary accep tance through a broad complex of ideas and values which divide and weaken the working class by distorting its understanding of reality. Anti-communism, racism, nationalism, sectionalism, anti-intellectualism, anti-scientism, religion, liberalism and male chauvinism are among the ideologies that serve capitalism in this way, and to under stand how capitalism maintains itself, it is necessary to understand how these various ideologies work. This essay deals with one such ideology - male chauvinism - which in its simplest sense involves the belief that men are innately superior to women in many ways. It is a belief widely held by both men and women, and is used to justify inferior treatment of women, including their economic exploitation under capitalism. Chauvinism justifies treating men and women differently on the basis that 'natural' differences between the sexes inevitably determine the roles that are appropriate to each. In this view, women are 'naturally' intended to com plement men, who are 'naturally' intended to work, provide and command. Thus women 'belong' in the home, and it is th_eir biologically determined nature to be full-time mothers, housekeepers, and helpmates. Cleaning, cooking, shoppmg, sewing and child-raising are 'inherently' women's work, and 'real' women fmd these tasks far more self fulfilling than work outside the home, which is 'inherently' a man's domain. Perhaps the most compelling 'natural' role of woman, according to the chauvinist view, is that of the sex mate - who fulHlls her husband's sexual needs as seductively- but unaggressively- as she possibly can. This ~ale chauvinist view of the proper relationship between men and women is pervasive and powerful. It molds our vte-:vs of oursel~es and others, dictates our tastes and buying habits, shapes our attitudes and, to a large degree, determmes our soc1al and work patterns and controls the sex and nature of our labor force. The majority of wo men don't work outside the home unless there is an economic need. And when they do they most often gravitate to 'women's jobs' - housekeepers, clerks, secretaries, social workers, nurses, teachers- rather than working as .· ....... The Political Economy of Male Chauvinism, p. 2 mechanics, riveters, truck drivers, doctors, administrators or college professors, all of which are considered male jobs. And while some men may sew, cook or clean professionally, most consider it demeaning to do so in their own homes. So pervasive are the influences of chauvinist thinking that; even when some aspects are recognized as wrong and harmful, others continue to be accepted, despite the fact that such thinking condemns one-half of the population to a more restricted, less respected, less interesting, less independent way of life and robs society as a whole of the skills, talents and creativity that half of the population might otherwise contribute. What accounts for the tenacity of chauvinism in the face of ever mounting evidence that it is costly to most men and women and is based on a lie? There is, of course, a real difference between the sexes: women bear children; men do not. During earlier stages of social organization this difference provided a rational basis for various divisions of labor. In pre-industrial society it made sense for childbearing women who were needed to nurse their babies to work in or near home and for men to venture away from home to hunt or fight.l But in an industrial society such a division oflabor has become senseless because the 'maternal' role - insofar as it is biological and not otherwise parental- has become very much less time demanding. 'In the 1890s in En~and a mother spent 15 years in a state of pregnancy and lactation; in the 1960s she spends an average of four years.' And the secondary physical differences between men and women - size, strength, muscularture, cyclicity- have at most marginal effects on workers' participation in the larger economy. The United States Public Health Service reports that employed men aged 17 years and over lost an average of 5.3 days from work due to illness during the period from July 1966 to June 1967, while employed women lost 5.4 days.3 If the homebound and economically dependent woman is anachronistic and irrational in modern society, why does the practice survive? A partial but insufficient answer is that it is part of our heritage. Sex role divisions have existed for millenia and have had a profound effect on our history. But the same may be said of witchcraft, cannibalism and many other ancient beliefs and practices; yet these have died out as science and technology have left them behind. To understand why chauvinism remains socially and economically powerful, we must look at the role it plays in mo dern capitalist society. Viewed from this perspective it b~comes clear that the role of women in our society and the ideology that supports it play an important part in capitalist exploitation of the working class. First, as long as society continues to accept the notion that a woman's primary place is in the home, women will con stitute a large available source of unpaid domestic labir, economically dependent on the men who support them. Se cond, the assumption that women are inherently less capable than men at tasks outside the home makes it possible to keep those women who are in the work force at the more menial jobs and to pay them less for doing the same work men do. Third, since women are considered peripheral members of the work force, they provide capitalism with a flexible supply of labor which can be drawn upon as needed. And fmally, the socio-economic division between men and woll).en encouraged by the chauvinist ideology makes it much more difficult for the working class to unify in · opposition to capitalist exploitation. Let us discuss these four points in order. The unpaid work of women in the home is considered far less important than their husband's paid labors. It can be made a secondary function during periods of labor shortage, but becomes the woman's main role when jobs become scarce. In addition, the fact that housewives are not expected to be paid for their labors in the home makes it possible to keep the wages of their husbands far lower than they would have to be otherwise. The fact that women are not paid directly for their work at home makes them dependent on their husbands for any improvement in their working conditions. To lighten their housekeeping load they must convince their husbands to reapportion the limited family income toward that end, or to make increased funds for housekeeping an issue in bargaining. But male chauvinism makes it hard for working men to demand a wage increase for housekeeping ex penses, with the result that housekeeping costs and conditions more often become family issues than the wage issues that they really are. Thus, women are uncompensated domestic workers often pitted against their husbands, an ex ample of how male chauvinism benefits capitalists by dividing the working class. Furthermore, the capitalist profit level is supported in' an important way by reliance on 'unpaid' women ~ho provi~e the household chorework for the society; i.e., keeping these jobs off the market. The value of such unpa1d domestic labor has been estimated at one-fifth to one-third of the total ~ass national p~~duct, or ap~roximately $150-250 billion.4 Finally, the work of women in the home actu:Jly builds I?~e chauv~m~m by makmg wo~en.