[A Contribution by TBC]
Generally speaking, 'women's work' really exists at 4 main levels. The following categories present a framework for valuing women's everyday work:
1) Reproductive Labour (Pregnancy, child bearing & related implications of helping to bring forth life). It is worth stating the obvious that this is the basis for generating national labour forces, everywhere. . .
2) Childcare & Homemaking Labour (in many countries, some measure of co-opting by the public sector via social welfare delivery. Allows for the distribution of public goods for low-income disadvantaged and/ other vulnerable groups. Even so, low end salaries and restricted pay-scales are the norm in this field of work
3) 'Productive' Labour (which is external to the home) - the acceptable economic definition of 'labour' in the so-called 'private & public sector's. This is paid employment - even then, remuneration it is determined by sector prestige and, normally follows the hierarchy of assigned importance to job role. It follows that a gender differential in valuing traditional roles (of female and male work) and pay exists here
4) Voluntary Labour, Civic/ related duties (usually unpaid labour) primarily delivered through the 'third sector'- In almost all societies this is dominated by female labour. It enables support for the weak, vulnerable and differently abled in society differently-abled. It is also worth noting that at any given time, women conduct everyday duties in all of the above categories.
In short, the average woman is always working! Furthermore, this labour is multi-faceted and 'women's work' (or work traditionally associated with women) is often 'unpaid' and 'underpaid. This is' simply because it is undervalued, whether within or outside the 'market place'. While Marx and company stopped short in their commentary about the division of labour and the socio-economic oppression of the working class, contemporary feminist academia, (Coate,1997) brought the feminist viewpoint to the forefront. For example, Mies (1997; 2022) noted macro-economic alliance between patriarchy and capitalism at the radix of the inequity ascribed to the work of women and men. She exposed hierarchical division between what is deemed 'productive' labour and 're-productive labour', delivered (literally and solely) by women.
In reflecting on this argument, Lobo comments on Mies' challenge to redefine the two major concepts: '. . . she daringly suggests that productive labor is labor that generates life and use value, important for most people, including education, care, and food - while labor that only generates surplus value and destruction, like the death industries (weapons, agrochemicals, relentless mining exploitation) is "destructive" labor and should cease to exist'.
Waring (1988) and Perkins, (2010) would support the view that in traditional market terms, the value ascribed to human labour depends on whether the individual is male or female. Such undervaluing could be pragmatic decision making since accounting true value may border on the priceless scale! This is because traditionally, women's labour (literally!) provides the bases on which the entire economic superstructure is able to exist (by helping to produce the labour force) and, is even able to thrive (by supporting men and encouraging others in their own work. We should note this central point in feminist economics (Sen, 1989; Ferber & Nelson, 2003; Nussbaum, 2003; Chen, Vanek, Lund et.. al., 2005).
Here in the UK, a gender disparity exists:
-Among 'health professionals'- males paid 10% more than females
-Between NHS England (2023) male and female workers. Forty-two (42%) percent the highest paid workers were male. This is although males represent only 31 % of the workforce. Overall 77% (2009-2017)of NHS were female
-Social Care (2022-23) - In this field, nineteen per cent (19%) are male workers (81% female), overall, Yet, men hold 31% of senior management, this obviously infers higher pay scales
Work overload!- e.g. the reality of being pregnant, also with small children, also maintaining house work, while keeping a job outside the home. What might practical help look like?
Mentoring and preparing girls & young women for life and work issues- self image, dignity etc. opportunity to refer to the 'Imago Dei' and the redemptive approach of our Lord Jesus Christ. What does the Bible say about women and their value? Importantly, how might we mimic Christ in His conduct towards women? What might this approach look like in the 21st Century? How are our local churches addressing this within our congregations?
Single Parenting as a 'Mom'- How does the church model community to address this? What's working? What's not? How might trusted male and female mentors support/ safeguard our children?
Helping women actually get into work- especially moving from welfare to external work, addressing generational welfare dependence etc.
Household budgeting/ savings to support income -
Sexual Harassment of females - on the job plus- opportunity for supporting existing campaigns
Women's Health in the workplace- Everything from Menstruation to Menopause and beyond. How do work settings define equity in these contexts
Domestic Violence and battering of females- ubiquitous-e.g. recent murder of mother and children in the Bradford fire! How does this affect work outside the home? Opportunities for teaching and practical advocacy
Women, Post- their Working outside the home- supporting widows and other Elders and asserting their rich value. How is this being addressed within the Church? Is there a helpful pattern for the rest of community?
A new 'inequity'?- one blatant truth is that current transgender arguments do not reciprocate to women (e.g.: can a woman 'identify' as a man?) If yes, how might this life choice be supported in the workplace. . .? Also, how might it impact work load allocation, HR policies and the gender Pay-Gap)?
Valuing and helping others to respect/value God's priceless 'Gift of Eve'
Working to abolish the Pay Gap Divide - Equity of Pay for Equity of Work (e.g. improving pay and providing flexitime and other work context options)
Acknowledging that female 'reproduction' lay at the centre of (what is deemed) the productive labour market- nothing happens naturally without it!
Making space for the unique contribution that women bring to working outside the home (so-called 'soft skills': approaches to work load application, female perspectives and methodologies for problem-solving
Critique: The argument about women being important because they produce future workers is no doubt true, but it is dangerous and misleading. Dangerous if it inserts something into our mindset about women's role and mandate being mainly this. Misleading in that it focuses on only one aspect, the biotic aspect of bodies, and ignores most of the other aspects. (When the discourse turns to childcare, however, it does bring in other aspects.) The important thing here is not the gender/sex divide, but that both women and men contribute Good in all aspects.
Enrichment: We would enrich it by widening the range of aspects considered - to all those Dooyeweerd defined. Good labour that contributes to life, is good in all aspects, including the ethical and pistic (attitude and mindset).
Created from email sent 9 December 2024. Last updated: 15 March 2025. added Comment.