'Dynamics of Sexual Division of Labour and Capital
Accumulation: Women Lace Workers of Narsapur' by Maria Mies
This article is an expository piece which highlights how women's work is reduced to insignificance through the perpetuation of a sexual division of labour. It also elucidates on how women are deprived of their hard-earned wages through the narrative of being a caretaker and a housewife. It doesn't bring up a new phenomenon; the exploitation of the labour of women and children has been used as a historical tactic. This can be evidenced from the conditions of the women working on tea plantations in Assam in colonial India (Lata Mani's work in this regard is highly instructive).
Maria's piece carries an intersectionality-forward tone. The production of lace began as a women-led process which was gradually hijacked by men. The issue gets further complicated, as the lace industry is reflective of two different yet problematic notions-
i.) The women producing lace products do not have much value for it; it is the non-producing class that generates demand for the same. This reflects the alienation of the women from the value as well as the sheer scale of the size and money generated by the industry. It also depicts the superiority of the non-producing, relatively privileged class over the women involved in this production process.
ii.) The general use as well as the designs/patterns of lace products is a result of the whims of the bourgeois male. This showcases the role of lace in fetishizing the bodies of women as sex objects.
Maria also delves into the transformation of caste and class compositions of the producers and exporters, highlighting the class divide emerging within communities. For example, the impact on Kapu men and women during the increase in demand and production of lace was disproportionate. This was to the extent that Kapu men became the enablers and proponents of exploiting the labour of Kapu women.
This article is an expository piece which highlights how women's work is reduced to insignificance through the perpetuation of a sexual division of labour. It also elucidates on how women are deprived of their hard-earned wages through the narrative of being a caretaker and a housewife. It doesn't bring up a new phenomenon; the exploitation of the labour of women and children has been used as a historical tactic. This can be evidenced from the conditions of the women working on tea plantations in Assam in colonial India (Lata Mani's work in this regard is highly instructive).
Maria's piece carries an intersectionality-forward tone. The production of lace began as a women-led process which was gradually hijacked by men. The issue gets further complicated, as the lace industry is reflective of two different yet problematic notions-
i.) The women producing lace products do not have much value for it; it is the non-producing class that generates demand for the same. This reflects the alienation of the women from the value as well as the sheer scale of the size and money generated by the industry. It also depicts the superiority of the non-producing, relatively privileged class over the women involved in this production process.
ii.) The general use as well as the designs/patterns of lace products is a result of the whims of the bourgeois male. This showcases the role of lace in fetishizing the bodies of women as sex objects.
Maria also delves into the transformation of caste and class compositions of the producers and exporters, highlighting the class divide emerging within communities. For example, the impact on Kapu men and women during the increase in demand and production of lace was disproportionate. This was to the extent that Kapu men became the enablers and proponents of exploiting the labour of Kapu women.
No comments:
Post a Comment