[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: value and gender
Hi Joanna,
(clip)
Cheaper food is not necessarily better food. I read this anecdote once
about a doctor who, when making housecalls, always went and shook the
cook's hand first for giving him good business. If you eat crap, you'll
save on food costs
The relationship between nutrition and health is not a middle class or
bourgeois prejudice. It is a fact.
Joanna
I don't know if that is good or bad, but anyway it is not true and more a
middleclass or bourgeois prejudice.
Seth Sandronsky
The relationship between nutrition and health is not a middle class or
bourgeois prejudice. It is a fact.
Agreed, but we were talking about cheap food. Not all cheap food is
healthy, to be sure, but a lot of cheap food is healthier or has the same
nutritive content as more expensive food. The
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
The wealth of a household = disposable income + unpaid work.
You wouldn't catch me saying that. If I was married and said things like
that, my wife would have a fit, and boot me out.
Why, it would be the truth. The man who fixes a car or paints a room or
shovels the snow
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
That's how things are in a number of households in many societies,
but men would benefit if their wives made wages equal to theirs or
higher wages than theirs and if combined incomes could purchase the
housework services on the market whose quality is better than what
the
--- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
That's how things are in a number of households in
many societies,
but men would benefit if their wives made wages
equal to theirs or
higher wages than theirs and if combined incomes
could purchase the
housework
Hi Joanna,
Why, it would be the truth. The man who fixes a car or paints a room or
shovels the snow is equally unpaid and also contributes to the wealth of
the household.
If I counted out and priced all the voluntary work, or unpaid work I have
done in my life, I would be unaffordable. A
joanna bujes wrote:
Some years ago, when I worked for a large, multinational computer
company, I sent out an email to everyone in the company asking why men
don't do housework.
isnt most of what is called housework mostly a meaningless bourgeouis
activity? clean this, dust that, the sink
joanna wrote:
How do you measure the value of a woman's loving
attention and awareness of her children, without which an army of
shrinks couldn't fix the damage? I could go on a long time. But I'll
conclude by saying that economics (which finds its root meaning in the
running of the household)
It's pretty clear to me that men take a very different view of it than
women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the comfort of a clean
house. I don't know why we'd call it bourgeois -- people have been
cleaning themselves and their houses for ever.
Joanna
ravi wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
It's pretty clear to me that men take a very different view of it than
women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the comfort of a clean
house. I don't know why we'd call it bourgeois -- people have been
cleaning themselves and their houses for ever.
sure we (men) might
]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] value and gender
It's pretty clear to me that men take a very different view of it than
women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the comfort of a clean
house. I don't know why we'd call it bourgeois -- people have been
cleaning themselves and their houses for ever
I have not been reading all the posts in this thread and may have
missed this. But Jurriaan gave a little bibliography and didn't list a
key book -- by a New Zealand woman, no less.
Marilyn Waring wrote If Women Counted, quite a moving and
persuasive book on valuing women. And there is a
-
From: joanna bujes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] value and gender
It's pretty clear to me that men take a very
different view of it than
women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the
comfort
Jim wrote:
I do a heck of a lot of housework and related family-maintenance
(baby-sitting) work. My wife does, too,
but she cares less about the neatness of the house than I do.
The peculiar thing which Marx doesn't really mention in his 1844 Manuscripts
is how human species activities such as
"Marilyn Waring wrote If Women Counted, quite a moving and
persuasive book on valuing women. And there is a good video interviewing
her and about her.""
Yes I did read the book as a student, and later I
met her briefly when I worked for the New Zealand government in statistics,
pretty nice
Joanna wrote:
I don't know why we'd call [the comfort of a clean house] bourgeois --
people have been
cleaning themselves and their houses for ever.
We don't. You just have to decide whose side you're on here.
Jurriaan
I don't know what the hypothetical middle-class family does. The point
is...eventually...when the bag is full or when you have run out of clean
clothes...someone has to wash them and that someone often turns out to
be female -- whether she works full time or not.
Is enjoying a clean house the
Thanks. I didn't know about the book. I saw the video and thought it was
excellent. But I think the video was called Who Counts.
Joanna
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I have not been reading all the posts in this thread and may have
missed this. But Jurriaan gave a little bibliography and didn't list
a
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
The peculiar thing which Marx doesn't really mention in his 1844 Manuscripts
is how human species activities such as caring for an infant can cease to
be fully human expressions which offer satisfaction or interest, but just
become work which has to be done, which we sigh
By excessive hygene can be a health problem also.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:52:41AM -0500, ravi wrote:
and even make sense (hygeine, etc). but as i outlined in my list, isnt
most of the stuff that the middle-class family, with the 2 1/2 kids
etc., occupies itself with in the name of
This setting itself apart and above always winds up
justifying some kind of class priviledge...and infects all our thinking
about the matter of mere reproduction.
Human life contains both alienation and the means to overcome alienation.
But the alienated condition may prevent us from
joanna bujes wrote:
Is enjoying a clean house the same as enjoying an SUV? Odd question. Is
the enjoyment of clean air after the rain, the same as enjoying an SUV?
Clean means tidy (you can find things) and hygenic (food isn't
rotting)...besides, goddamn it, I've seen your house, it's
Trotsky was the same way, insisting on ... keeping his rifle clean.
isn't it a good idea to clean your own rife, especially
if you fear assassination? it's like packing your own parachute.
jim
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
That's how things are in a number of households in many societies,
but men would benefit if their wives made wages equal to theirs or
higher wages than theirs and if combined incomes could purchase the
housework services on the market whose quality is better than what
the
joanna bujes wrote:
It's pretty clear to me that men take a very different view of it
than women. At the same time, they seem to enjoy the comfort of a
clean house. I don't know why we'd call it bourgeois -- people
have been cleaning themselves and their houses for ever.
sure we (men) might enjoy
en and her emergence as not an agent dependent on the male proletariat, but a proletariat dependent on the ability to freely sell her labor power in the market combined with the revolution in the household, the shit hit the fan in a different way.
"Value and gender" means the gen
dependent on
the ability to freely sell her labor power in the market combined with the
revolution in the household, the shit hit the fan in a different way.
Value and gender means the gender relationship as it evolves on the basis
of the value producing system.
Yes, there is a lot of biology
Yes, indeed, a clean rifle is a necessary condition to prevent a misfire.
But the PEN is mightier than the SWORD, and one cannot very well go along
with filthy, hypocritical, patronising and pharisaic biological racists who
parasitize and exploit human weakness, murdering human development, and
The wealth of a household = disposable income + unpaid work.
You wouldn't catch me saying that. If I was married and said things like
that, my wife would have a fit, and boot me out.
If the wife
earns less than the man, then it is reasonable for him to expect her
to do most or all of the
Jim Devine wrote:
. . . snip
[quote]
This case above is a case where the rate of surplus-value is different for
different groups of workers (and could apply instead to different ethnic
groups, e.g., Blacks vs. Whites in the USA).
In my article on the so-called transformation problem (in RESEARCH
Jurriaan wrote:
. . . a differential rate of exploitation for males and females due to the
fact that females get
paid less than males, or to greater productivity at work.
I like the expression differential rate of exploitation. In a
left-Keynesian mode of analysis, which I am supporting,
In a message dated 11/17/03 9:38:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I agree, but certain issues do need to be thrashed out like whatis "women's work" -- see above, or the general (both Marxist andCapitalist) dismissal of the "mere" work of reproduction.Joanna
Comment
This of course means there are probably times when I am not part of
the solution. There are times on the dance floor where I have stepped
on my partners feet, but very few times when they have stepped on my
feet. I wonder why that is?
I asked my wife and she said something about trying to lead.
A very exciting formula.
thanks, though exciting formula seems to be an oxymoron.
I have to get the full article on my
next trip to
the library. Could the formula also be applied in a
transnational situation
as, e.g., when a Haitian sweatshop produces for the Disney global
corporation
]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] value and gender: dirty deeds done dirt cheap ?
Jurriaan wrote:
. . . a differential rate of exploitation for males and
females due to the
fact that females get
paid less than males, or to greater
Jim wrote:
the differential rate of exploitation divides and conquers the working
class (either domestically or internationally or both) and all else equal,
raises the over-all rate of exploitation. Similarly, the weaker the working
class in terms of organization and consciousness, the less able
Title: Re: [PEN-L] value and gender: dirty deeds done
dirt ch
Jim notes
the differential rate of exploitation
divides and conquers the working class (either
domestically or internationally or both) and all else equal, raises
the over-all rate of exploitation. Similarly, the weaker the working
Jim wrote:
the differential rate of exploitation divides and conquers
the working
class (either domestically or internationally or both) and
all else equal,
raises the over-all rate of exploitation. Similarly, the
weaker the working
class in terms of organization and consciousness,
I wrote previously in reference to New Zealand:
After the second world war, more and more women were drawn into
the labour force...
This formulation, although true, blinds us to the fact that during the
second world war, very large numbers of New Zealand women were suddenly
recruited both into
For some recent overview data on the female labour force in the USA, see:
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/policy/factsheets/fs_2003_prowomen.htm
Specifically, this site notes that in 2002, the pay of US women was 76% of
that of men. For women of color, the gap was wider. African American women
earned
--- Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea that the United States was a
singularly unequal or
exploitative or inhumane advanced industrial country
due to continued
racial problems--that racism was the secret to why
there was no
socialism in the US--was more persuasive before the
In addition to fatalities of about 12,000 in round figures, New Zealand
casualties in World War II included over 19,000 wounded in the war itself,
and more than 10,000 were captured as prisoners of war (prisoner figures
include those missing in action). Media attention nowadays tends to focus on
Surplus-value is a relation which refers to the monetary expression
(monetisation) of the social surplus product, and by that fact surplus-value
as money constitutes a financial claim to the private appropriation of part
of that social surplus product. What this means, is, that the division of
the
Mike B wrote:
Aren't wages determined by. . . what a worker can get for
their skills on the market?
My example assumed that the skills of women and men were the same and that
the wages were different due to discrimination.
GK
_
Jurriaan B wrote:
A transfer of surplus-value occurs only in exchange, not in production,.
. .
It was exactly the purpose of my example to show that something can go wrong
at the point of production. It is not a transfer of *income*, because the
women do not hand over 110 of their earned dollars
It was exactly the purpose of my example to show that something can go
wrong
at the point of production.
Yes indeed, things can go wrong at the point of production, men can become
impotent, and so on, it hasn't happened to me yet but it will happen some
day. But I will attempt a more profound
Gernot Köhler writes
this is further to some recent posts on surplus-value and
transfer value.
A bit dry. Sorry, folks.
heck, pen-l can't be fascinating all the time!
Jim Devine explained ... that there are:
(1) standard Marxian surplus-value
(2) the surplus-product of exploited direct
Jim Devine stated:
the only kind of transfer of value is due to unequal exchange of Emmanuel's
type, though it can happen even if the exchange occurs within a factory,
as in Gernot's example.
The argument offered by Gernot Kohler was that, since (presumably in
retrospect) we could possibly
--- g kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike B wrote:
Aren't wages determined by. . . what a worker can
get for
their skills on the market?
My example assumed that the skills of women and men
were the same and that
the wages were different due to discrimination.
GK
.
If they needed more, thinks the market, they would ask for more.
Renato Pompeu
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] value and gender
--- g kohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike B wrote
But now you have to prove to
me that hubby proletarian actually benefits from the fact that his wife
earns less per hour than he does, and it is clear as day that he DOESN'T,
because it means that real disposable household income is less than it could
be, and if her wage was equal to his, they
At 9:43 PM -0800 11/17/03, joanna bujes wrote:
But now you have to prove to me that hubby proletarian actually
benefits from the fact that his wife earns less per hour than he
does, and it is clear as day that he DOESN'T, because it means that
real disposable household income is less than it could
this is further to some recent posts on surplus-value and transfer value.
A bit dry. Sorry, folks.
Jim Devine explained (see, full post of 08nov03 below) that there are:
(1) standard Marxian surplus-value
(2) the surplus-product of exploited direct producers in other modes of
production such as
Do workers whose wages are lower subsidize workers
whose wages are higher?
Aren't wages determined by the amount of snlt in the
worker's skills package and what a worker can get for
their skills on the market?
Regards,
Mike B)
=
55 matches
Mail list logo
