Heidi Hartmann
The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism and Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex
Heidi Hartmann has consistently shown a concern with mixing the feminism with marxism in analyzing the structure of male domination - that is, while Hartmann is broadly identified with marxist analysis in the sense that she thinks all forms of structural domination ultimately must be supported by the material basis, she denies the assertion that the form of domination through "patriarchy" is merely the superstructure and instead argues that patriarchy, as class domination, is a form of systemic domination by one sex over the other based on the solid material basis of its own. In fact, for Hartmann the domination through patriarchy is in many senses more fundamental and thoroughly developed than capitalism as a form of domination as it had been there for much longer times historically, and almost all societies have had some division of labor based on sex and differential attribution of status based on that division favoring males (However, how strongly patriarchy operates depends on the structural organization of the society, and Hartmann thinks that capitalism exacerbated patriarchy - in fact, a historical analysis of how this happened is largely the subject of the latter article, which is more specific in focus). Because of this view attributing material basis to both capitalism and patriarchy, Hartmann laments the fact that most marxist feminism so far tended to greatly emphasize the elements of marxism, while downplaying the feminist question by subsuming women as merely the part of the dominated proletariat. In that regard, marxist feminist approach is fundamentally inadequate. On the other hand, Hartmann notes that radical feminist approach is also inadequate in a different sense, for although it focuses foremost on the feminist question, in turn neglects the aspect of historical development of patriarchal structure - rendering all forms of patriarchal domination as if they are identical.
In short, by themselves both marxist feminism and radical feminism are somewhat inadequate. Hartmann's main claim is, then, that we need a more progressive union of these two perspectives - one that treats the feminist question as a substantive problem with material basis, using the marxist methodology to reveal that material base upon which the power for male domination rests upon. What is this material basis for the power of male domination? Briefly, Hartmann maintains that this material basis should be conceived of as all forms of social structures that enable men to control women's labor - whether that be in the "public" sphere of workplace or state, or the "private" sphere of household. In the latter sphere, monogamous heterosexual marriage enabling men to benefit from housework and personal services women perform, as well as all forms of social institutions that buttress it, as the lower wages for women that inhibit women from attaining economic independence, is perceived as particularly effective mechanism that upholds the material power basis of male domination. By the way, being an introductory theoretical text, this article by Hartmann is somewhat loosely written and there is little systemic evidence to support her point. Yet this general framework of the analysis of the structure of male domination as supported by the material basis of men's abililty to control women's labor power is adopted by a number of later works. For instance, the analysis of how exclusion of women took place in the Irish context by Pyle is one of the exemplary works of this nature, focusing particularly on the role of the state to shore up that material base of male domination. On the other hand, Hartmann provides for a brief exposition on how this combination of marxism and patriarchy may be achieved in more substantively empirical terms in the latter half of the article. Here, her primary concern is with the role the family wages played in allowing men to "provide for the whole family economically" yet in turn to control women's domestic labor. It is obvious that this served the interests of male workers, yet Hartmann notes that, while the family wage arrangement might have appeared ininimical to capitalist interests, it in fact served the interests of capitalists as well as they knew that it was more beneficial to pay men family wages and benefit from women's unpaid reproductive services. Hartmann also notes of the great flexibility capitalists show in adapting to the need for social control - that they are aware that it is often more beneficial to them to be more concerned with social control, say, giving white males privileges for the sake of their complacence, than to try to extract labor power from all types of workers including women and minorities indiscriminately. Now, obviously this view is totally one-sided, in the sense that it perceives of the family wages as solely serving the interest of domination on the part of men but totally fails to look at the role of interests on the part of women. But perhaps this is the way a theory should be - it is very articulate, very concrete, and easy to be applied - in the sense that one can unequivocally agree or disagree with the proposition in formulating researches out of the theoretical exposition.
The second article elaborates more fully on one of the subtheme that the first article briefly touched upon - how the interests of male workers themselves played a crucial role in upholding the job segregation by sex - through such policies as family wages and protective legislation. In turn, in the context of capitalism, job segregation is seen as the primary mechanism that butresses the male control of female labor, in the sense that it enables men to enforce lower wages onto women and in turn make them economically dependent. In another word, within the framework of the last article, job segregation is seen as the link between capitalism and patriarchy, providing the material basis for both. Then, the larger part of this article contains the historical analysis of how this structure of job segregation materialized in the context of modern capitalism. In doing so, Hartmann places particular emphasis on the role played by individual male workers - with focus on their actions through unions - in excluding women workers and perpetuating the male dominance. That is, while Hartmann is aware that capitalists played an important role in the same process, she asserts that the role of the former tended to be greatly underestimated in the previous work. Another important point Hartmann makes is that contrary to some Marxist assertion that patriarchal domination of women by men crystallized only at the advent of capitalism and is therefore the byproduct of the process of capitalism, Hartmann maintains that partriarchal structure was already established in most of human societies before the advent of capitalism, and that the particular form capitalism later adopted only inherited the elements of that already developed patriarchy. Accordingly, at the onset Hartmann notes of several anthropological works that point to how the patriarchal social structures developed in the context of the traditional society. Two mechanisms have been crucial in extending traditional division of labor of sexes into the context of capitalism, Hartmann says: (1) the already established division of labor between sexes that benefitted men, and (2) techniques of hierchical organization and control that men were better able to mobilize at the advent of capitalism, not least due to the already established male power prior to the advent of capitalism.
Finally, it is not patriarchal structures always existed in the same form at any time in the history, but rather its development depends on the particular development of historical events. So, accordingly, several factors are noted of as particularly conducive to the development of patriarchy (p. 146), which include: that women lose control of means of subsistence, that women's work become private, that some men assert power over other men through the state, by elevating them within the nuclear families as "head of household" to play the nuclear families against the kin group. Insofar as capitalism tends to increase the importance of public spheres attributed to men and solidifies the state mechanisms, Hartmann is acutely aware that capitalism tends to exacerbate patriarchy.
May 2003 - VOLUME 24 - NUMBER 5
Closing the Gap Amidst
Ongoing Discrimination
Women and Economic Disparities
An Interview with Heidi Hartmann
Heidi Hartmann is the founder and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Women's Policy Research, which conducts women-centered, policy-oriented research. She is the author of numerous reports and publications on the impacts of healthcare, wage and family leave policy on women's economic status and well-being, among many other topics. She is the recipient of a MacArthur fellowship award.
| If we look at women and men who work full time, year round, women earn only 77 percent of what men earn. |
Multinational Monitor: To what extent is poverty in the United
States gender based? Single women-headed households are disproportionately poor as compared to two-parent families or even single-dad families. Married couples with children in the United States are 6.4 percent poor. Single women with children are 35.7 percent poor. That’s a super disparity. But single-mom families are only about 20 percent of all families with children. Most mothers live in married couple families, and there is typically a higher-earning man. Women earn less than men, and the single-earning mom doesn’t have a higher-earner to share income with. The disparity among all women over 65 and all men over 65 is also substantial. Women live longer than men, and the older you are, the more likely you are to live alone. The disparity among older men and women is largely a difference between marital poverty rates and single poverty rates. But even if we look at the poverty rate for single women and single men, the poverty rate is almost twice as high for older women as it is for older single men. The disparities among older people has something to do with your household living arrangement, but also with income differences. Women’s social security income is lower than men’s, their pensions are less than men’s, and women are much less likely to have a pension at all. MM: How do men’s and women’s earnings compare? MM: How much earnings disparity is there within the category of
women? MM: How do disparities with race overlay with disparities by
gender? MM: Are the earnings disparities between men and women due to
discrimination? Some of the disparity is due to experience differences, differences economists regard as legitimate in accounting for wage differentials since they constitute workers’ “human capital.” Despite the tremendous increase in women working, women and men still have different amounts of accumulated labor market experience. Educational attainment for women and men in the labor market now is about equal, though they still do have somewhat different majors, with more men in science, and more women in social work, for example. According to the Council for Economic Advisers, about one-third of the gross wage gap is accounted for by these differences in skill and experience. Some of the disparity is due to different occupational and industry distributions. We don’t know how much of that is choice, and how much of that is discrimination. Do women look and see that most nurses are women and say, “I want to be a nurse?” Is that a free choice? Or if it happened that they saw just as many engineers to be women, would they say, “I’d like to be an engineer?” It is hard to know whether those kinds of institutional and cultural patterns really represent free choice. MM: So the portion of earnings disparity attributed to
discrimination does not include job segmentation? The second major way is promotion and assignment. When you are brought in and hired, are you brought in to a job that is stereotypically female or one that is stereotypically male, or an integrated one? They tend to have different wages. Jobs that are predominantly female tend to pay less. In a big corporation, the human resources office has a lot of discretion as to where to assign you. When you look at a large corporation, you will typically see different jobs for different groups. Front office workers will often be white women. Back office workers will often be women of color. The blue collar jobs, which often pay better, tend to be male. These workers may all be high school graduates with similar skills, and they could have been placed anywhere. Yet they do seem to get placed in the different jobs that are stereotypically held by different groups and have different wage rates. Another way is through promotion possibilities. You could be in an integrated work occupation, but find that women and men are promoted at different rates. Yet another way is the comparable worth, or pay equity, issue. An entire occupation may have a lower pay rate simply because women or minorities do them, not because of the skill level in the job. MM: How do different burdens for childcare and household work
affect the relative economic status of men and women? Other things are more debatable: Does it mean that women are less good workers, that they are more distracted and less productive? Because women have this disproportionate responsibility, do they want to be closer to home and spend less travel time, so they have fewer options and wind up with lower paying jobs? Another way that it can affect them is the employer thinks: “Oh, this is a young woman, she is going to have a child, therefore, she won’t stick with me, therefore, I better not give her any training or promote her.” The stereotypes based on women’s usual family responsibilities are also an important source of discrimination against women. In fact, when you compare women and men on the same job with the same job tenure, women are not more likely to leave, and they don’t take more time off for illness. For the same level of job and the same seniority, women and men tend to be very similar in their behavior on the job. But this stereotype is strong: “Oh, a woman, she’ll quit.” One thing I’m concerned about is the idea that because you have family responsibilities, you are doomed to not do as well on the job, or you’ll never get ahead — I think that is not true. Many men and women who take their family responsibilities seriously are very successful at work, and do get promoted and do get raises. I’ve always been uncomfortable with this topic, because I think people almost believe there is nothing a woman can do about this. There are things that people can do to make this better, not the least of which is sharing household tasks better and sharing child-rearing responsibilities between men and women better. It helps also to be in a union, it helps to be in a workplace that does pay people fairly, it helps to speak up and say you want more money. MM: The trend is for the earnings disparity between women and
men to be closing. Why is that taking place? An important part of the progress in equal opportunity is attributable to our laws. Title IX affects higher education and it requires colleges and universities to make all of their programs equally available to men and women. We think of Title IX as relating to sports, but it also helped to open programs in law, medicine, science, engineering, so on. Along with the laws and those new opportunities, attitudes and culture are changing. Women are working more, and I think a lot of that is voluntary in the sense that women are saying, “I am going to be working all of my life, I’m going to organize my life so that I can make sure that I do have an income. I’m going to train, get an education. I’m going to plan to work.” Women are dropping out of the workforce much less often when they have children, working more consistently through the lifecycle than they used to. A lot of it is women choosing to become more economically independent. Some of it also is basic economics. If women’s wages are rising relative to men’s, that is a signal to go into the market. The price signal is: work more. MM: In broad outlines, what are a handful of your preferred
policy prescriptions to close the earnings disparity between men and
women? I think stronger enforcement of equal employment opportunity laws is also important. We are spending much less per capita enforcing those laws than we did when they got on the books. The population has grown, the workforce has grown, and we haven’t even restored the real dollars we had in those programs before 1980. We need improvements in family friendly benefits. Child care should be made pretty much universally available. It should be very publicly subsidized, maybe as much as public schools are subsidized, so that the child care barrier — the restriction of not being able to find child care, or having to earn enough to be able to pay for quality child care — would not restrict women from working. There are dozens of others. Particularly important would be increased unionization. We’ve done a study that shows unions tend to help all women and minority males more than white males, on average. It brings up their wages more. Again, I think that is because unions are based on equal treatment. More bureaucratic workplaces, like public sector or unionized workplaces, will be workplaces where typically there will be a smaller wage gap. |
|
|
There are so many women still at the bottom of the labor market, if we could have a really decent minimum wage, it would help women disproportionately. |
Most people would like to believe that women now receive equal pay for the same job, because of internal labor market rules and procedures requiring equal treatment, but I don't think that is quite true. | |