The Corner of Cross and Damon

September 16, 2008 by Marc Lamont Hill

Capitalism and the Housewife
By Matthew Birkhold

I often run into both men and women who think that the best type of family is one where men provide and women stay home to raise children and take care of the house. When I ask them why they feel this way, they normally say something like, “Because that’s the way it’s supposed to be,” or, “I just don’t want my wife working,” or, “If I worked, I might make more money than my husband and I don’t think that’s right.” Some people evoke god as the reason this is the best family structure. Whatever reason people give isn’t the point. The point is, that from its inception, this type of family structure has been used to oppress women.

Before European societies transitioned from feudalism to capitalism, women worked alongside their entire families in agriculture because technology had not yet progressed to a point where farming could be done efficiently. Accordingly, all family members had to work. In these feudal societies, according to North Carolina State History professor John Riddle, women had complete control over their reproductive rights and often used a series of herbs and potions that quickened a woman’s period, provoked abortion, or created sterility as forms of contraception.

In a struggle that continues today however, by the mid 16th Century, women had lost control of their reproductive rights. If women at one point had legal access to contraception and abortion, why did they lose that right only to gain it back in the 1950s and 1970s then have it constantly attacked thereafter? The answer can only be located historically.

According to Hofstra University professor of African Studies Silvia Federici, woman’s loss of control over their reproductive rights can be traced to the needs of the emerging capitalist economy. In the early 1600s, the world experienced a dramatic reduction in population largely due to disease. European colonizers killed indigineous Americans on contact while smallpox spread throughout Europe and the Americas killing even more. This meant that there were less people to buy things and therefore markets shrank. According to Federici, because these shrinking markets threatened to destroy Europe’s newly developing capitalist economy, the state stepped in.

Guided by a belief in Mercantilism, which made a large population the key to prosperity and national power, the state outlawed contraception in an attempt to force women to reproduce. Because the majority of workers were poor, the state’s intervention in reproduction led to the emergence of a welfare system and forced men with newborns and pregnant wives to work more.

As the size of markets increased, more things were purchased and therefore more workers were needed. Consequently, according to Federici, “The family was given a new importance as the key institution providing for the transmission of property and the reproduction of the workforce. Simultaneously, we have the beginning of demographic recording and the intervention of the state in the supervision of sexuality, procreation, and family life.”

In many ways, we can blame the historical legacy of Mercantilism for the lack of legal control women had over their reproductive system up until the 1950s. However, the cultural impact of mercantilism has lasted much longer. While we certainly don’t want to see it this way, the importance of motherhood to being a woman is an invention of capitalism. Capitalists needed people to buy their products and needed people to work in their factories. To accomplish this, the state forced women to reproduce on the terms of capitalists instead of their own. While capitalists no longer need women to reproduce according to labor needs, men and women both engage in a style of reproduction designed to meet the needs of capitalists.

I’d like to live in a world where we reproduced completely on our own terms.

Matt Birkhold is a Binghamton, NY based writer and educator. He can be reached at birkhold(at)gmail(dot)com.

Categories: MLH
|

9 Comments

1. anita wrote:

Ok, so call me what you will, but i prefer to be with a man that can hold me down, and I don’t mean that as just a figure of speach… As the product of what I would consider a truly “no spin zone” ( my dad a complete conservitive and my mom a liberal democrat ) I find myself drawn to someone who could take care of me in all aspects but would be ok if i took care of him (since I ussually do). I don’t find this to be a demeaning to myself as a woman, NO! I believe it’s ok to depend on a man, as long as I can also depend on myself…and I DO! This does not make me less of a woman for believing this way… Trust me, i’m all woman =) and, I’m sorry but a man that doesn’t want to take care of his mate or the man that would sites reasons why he shouldn’t have to take care of his mate would never make it in my community…

September 16, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

2. R.oB. wrote:

carlinesque joke: why is it “the state” when it’s bad but “the government” when it’s good?

I find the state and all that a stretch. It’s more organic than that. Christianity had been pushing women to be Mother long before capitalism or mercantilism.

September 17, 2008 @ 12:33 am

3. R.oB. wrote:

and was just as hostile to repro rights

September 17, 2008 @ 12:34 am

4. anita wrote:

Why does everyone wanna hate on Christianity? If you’re really lookin to blame religion for the repoductive fight then you have to look beyond Christianity. The Hebrew Bible bans the orgional birth control, “pulling out”.

September 17, 2008 @ 7:55 am

5. jordan wrote:

The “state” does kinda have that connotation of masked agents spying on us from around corners. But, actually I think it might be the appropriate term to describe the mingling of government, churches and other organizations which create and reinforce the rules in a given society.

On another note, this article makes me think about the role of capitalism in our image of the ideal father. There are a growing number of couples for whom the decision for a woman to stay at home is economic. My boyfriend makes twice as much as I do, therefore if we had a kid, we could live on his wages and save money on day care if I’d stay home. At least that’s what we’d say, right? It’s kinda like a new version of the same old thing for woman, but also the same old thing for men, which this article doesn’t explore. It’s not meant to be a critiscm of the article, but a question to be answered about where capitalism leaves men in their efforts…to get away from taking on the oppressive role, to be better fathers, etc.

September 17, 2008 @ 9:56 am

6. Cézsar wrote:

I’m sure you believe you are being incisive and enlightening here, but I think you’re just over analyzing. “The State”, “Church”, “Men”…dude, this is 2008, at which point exactly are you gonna credit women with some common sense and personal responsibility? In the era of Hillary and Palin, your exposition rings hollow and out-dated. For better or for worse, both men and women do what they want to do…and live with the consequences, good and bad, and it’s as simple as that. There is no legislating natural instinct; it has never worked and never will.

September 17, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

7. R.oB. wrote:

Laws are more about social norms than instinct, though.

Equal pay for equal work.

September 18, 2008 @ 12:06 am

8. timaree wrote:

matt- great post. the history of female-male interactions is long, complex and has way more to do with the economy than we usually think. the entire institution of marriage, for instance, is a perfect example of how quickly such fervently beloved social structures can change when the economic realities are altered.

September 18, 2008 @ 8:38 pm

9. m.dot wrote:

When I learned last week that historical “family wage” that men receive is largely responsible for the CURRENT pay gap between men and women I was flabbergasted.

Then I read this and realized that there was a correlation between the ascension of monopoly capitalism/public patriarchy and the demise of a womans control over her reproductive organs.

Politicians know that countries die unless new laboror’s are born.
However the state refuses to support women, hence the population
decline in Western Europe (who, in some places, has more people in nursing homes than preschool).

Me thinks I am going to do a post about this titled “40 Acres and Some Birth Control Pills”.

September 19, 2008 @ 11:23 am

Now Reading

Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity by Marc Lamont Hill
Buy Now
The Classroom and The Cell: Conversations on Black Life in America by Mumia Abu-Jamal & Marc Lamont Hill
Buy Now
View More