Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Sexual liberation and male chauvinism
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 98 15:59:10 -0000
From: Bill Cochrane <bc1961-AT-xtra.co.nz>


Yoshie writes
>Capital may attempt to commodify the family + domestic labor, but there are
>limits to such commodification. I think social reproduction under
>capitalism crucially depends upon unpaid labor of women.
I would not dispute that ultimately capitalism is dependent upon the 
reproduction (biological) of humans however this limitation only imposes 
very weak restrictions upon the possible forms that capitalism might 
take. I found Linda Mcdowells "Life Without father and Ford: the new 
gender order of post-Fordism" very interesting in this regard, 
particularly her comment that feminists have under estimated the capacity 
of male workers to survive on fast food and casual, perhaps commodified, 
sex.  The implication being of course that the domestic labour input 
required to reproduce the fordist worker is historically contingent, it 
being perilous to essentialise the fordist family as the only possible 
site for the reproduction of the male workers.
I suppose in my usual round about way that I am arguing that associated 
with the reproduction of the male worker under fordism was social norm of 
domestic production. This was necessary for the reproduction of the 
'fordist' worker however what level of unpaid domestic labour input will 
be the norm under fordisms successor (provided one materializes) is an 
open question.

Bill Cochrane
Ngaruawahia
New Zealand



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---