Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: andrew robinson <ldxar1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: AUT: re: housework


Hey MJ, it was partly a slip of the tongue/pen/keyboard and partly a result of my worries that H&N are still concentrating on waged work as the core of production.  Though in some respects, if housework is imposed by patriarchy rather than by capitalism, this would make it non-work (if capitalist production processes are taken to be definitive of work).  Actually my whole point was that H&N still seem to concentrate on quite a traditional definition of production when it comes to their examples - "production" as waged employment - even though in the abstract they think that all social activity is productive.
 
Still, why is it so important that housework be defined as "work"?  Can't something be coercive and objectionable without also being "non-work"?
 
 

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---