So the headlines blazing across the Sunday Papers was the story of how the Coalition intend to ‘make’ benefit claimants do unpaid work for a specific period or risk losing their benefits. At first glance it seems a good idea, being out work takes it toll on your mental state, so why not do some unpaid work whilst looking ? Firstly, job hunting takes time, the internet searches, the rehashing of the C.V and even the time to travel to employment agencies (as my favourite champagne socialist Polly Toynbee found out and expressed in Hard Work). Secondly,  most people already do unpaid work, its called voluntary work which, if you’re lucky enough not to had to trudge to the dole before, you have to declare as part of your job hunting plan, but you’re not allowed to do ‘too much’ voluntary work nor state that you have made  a fixed time commitment less it stop you from landing a ‘proper’ paid job. So , if the government makes you do unpaid work because you are guilty of  the crime to be out of work in the middle of  double dip recession what gap are you filling? Why! the gap made by public spending cuts, think tank genius! The third sector is awash with recent graduates, the long and short term unemployed already,  so I can only presume that the newly unemployed  (fresh from the spending cuts, low level civil servants , librarians etc) are going to fill the gaping gaps left by the shrinking state. However, there is another kind of unpaid work done by nearly half of the planets population that the Coalition government never mention, a gap that is always filled due to social construction and that is the unpaid domestic labour provided by Women.

According to to a paper commissioned by the UN, the unaccounted economic activities performed by women include:-

• Cleaning, decoration and maintenance of the dwelling unit
• Preparation and serving of meals
• Care, training and instruction of children
• Care of sick,infirm or old
• Transportation of the household’.

Sound familiar? All that day to day stuff you do is worth nothing to the government and my argument is that it should be for several reasons. Firstly, these unaccounted activities are presumably unpaid because financial sustenance comes from a partner or the state, which as everyone knows is complete rubbish. Only the elite and upper middle classes can survive on one wage per household.  Single mothers live on a pittance and even when in work often end up hovering just above the poverty line . Secondly we also have to factor in the concept that women’s work is a relic of the industrial revolution,-  the Woman offers emotional and maternal support to the man who ‘is’ the wage slave ( the Women being a non economical unit). This concept is problematic now as Woman in this country have long been visible in the public sphere and now Woman  finds she is a wage slave Herself but but still endures the double burden. This is  nothing compared to our Sisters in developing countries but non-the-less, equal,sexist free Britain? Thirdly even if you don’t have children, Women are socially immersed into ideals of being this caring, nourishing being, via the media (domestic goddess that can whip up a four course meal in 10 minutes,drop everything for your friends, look out for your neighbours). Women have always been the volunteers that filled the gaps left by the state’s policies, the PTA’s that raise money for schools (mostly women), the coffee mornings for charity, Women activists that march and lobby at grassroots level , keeping your eye on that neighbour who you know is taking abuse from their  ’other half’, saying hello and engaging in conversion with an elderly person who you know, probably hasn’t spoken to anyone all day. If I where to categorize our ‘unaccounted economic activities’ as paid work then the list would be this;Nanny,Counselor,Lobbyist,Community worker,Fund-raiser,Chauffeur, PR,Carer, Nutritionist, Personal shopper. All validated, trusted positions,  economically viable but not so if the work is unpaid.If as the DaveCam puts it we are ‘all in this together’ then why is unpaid ‘domestic labour’  economically irrelevant in these days of the Big Society? We fill the gaps!

Did you notice that last week the fire service threatened to strike on bonfire night? The New Statesman posed the question is it an abuse of power? No actually its not, it strikes at the heart of the public’s fear of unsafety. So why is it that Womens strike day this year was largely ignored by the media? Well you know why,Women in the west are still seen as unpaid labour, economically irrelevant, whining when we have so called political rights.If we were were to strike, can you imagine the gap?  This is what I say, mind the gap left by Women, the void is too vast to cross safely, society would as we see it would crumble. Women fill the void left by the shrinking state , unpaid work for women claimants creates a triple burden. Marx once wrote’ We stand on the shoulders of giants’ but that’s rubbish we all stand  on the shoulders of women and society is taught that those strong shoulders are irrelevant because of a chromosome. MIND THE GAP!

Ever felt your money wasn`t good enough when you walk in a shop?  Or been completely patronised, ignored or at worst treated like the only customer in the shop because of your sex? If you’re a woman then yes, let’s see if your experiences match mine.
I was in an upmarket pub/restaurant a while ago with Suzi and her partner, Lovely Admin, who is in fact, a dude. We ordered a lovely meal and were served by a waiter, who was sporting a recently received black eye. Incidentally, I mention the black eye because I thought to myself , if one of the waitresses had turned up with a black eye, would she have still been ‘allowed’ to work and to walk around and tell the tale of heroics associated with obtaining said black eye?  Would the reaction of the party of men lapping up this tale of a partner in distress, and the other partner obligingly stepping in to resolve the matter, and,  receiving ‘a good kicking ‘ for their trouble, have been the same if the waiting staff was female. Would they have assumed that a woman could of got into the same kind of scrap and not been the victim? No, I didn’t think so either.
Anyway, overpriced but delicious food was served,  and we argued about the bill as per usual.  Suzi slipped off to the loo and I requested the bill from the waiter. The waiter presented Lovely Admin with the bill – he then explained that I was paying  (well that’s what student loans are for sometimes!)-  and the waiter looked a little embarrassed and then presented me with the bill.
I went to P.C World with the express mission to buy a laptop, I was clued up enough to know exactly what I wanted because I hate to shop, I like to go in, make a purchase and get out. The laptop section was at the rear of the shop, and there was desk close by that seemed to be the ‘consulting desk’ .  Two suited men who had name tags on were discussing some important postmortem comparison notes from the night before, so I decide to just have a look over at the laptops to ‘show’  that I may wish to purchase one. Big mistake.  I saw that several customers, mostly men had decided to use the same tactic as myself,  except for some reason their use of the tactic had worked and said salesmen completely ignored me when I said ‘Hi ,could you help me?’ (apparently men don’t have to say that in shops).

After being ignored for a good ten minutes I decided to go over to one of the salesmen (who wasn’t with a customer) and say “I want to buy a laptop ,this model in fact’”.   I didn’t even get mid sentence as the salesman said ‘I’m just with a customer’ . “What what the hell am I ?”  I said . Obviously some kind of penniless ghost given the lack of service .
I went into an electronics shop (the geeky computer hobby kind of shop) to get a refund on an item that I’d mistakenly bought.  The (by now) inevitable wait to be recognized as a paying customer was remarkably quick as I’d learned that standing at the sales counter just wasn’t going to work, so I looked for the manager. I explained to the manager that I wanted a refund, I needed the next model up and explained (as it was a geeky tech shop) exactly what I did need and what I planned to do with it. The transformation in service was instantaneous; the manger summoned one of the sales staff to get the stuff I needed, transaction done big smiles all around.
Like I said you’ve probably had these kinds of experiences . I could put the first example down to be dressed like a scruffy student, but we were all dressed like scruffy students.
I could put the second experience down to being short with a chameleon like ability to blend into the background, except that, even with wishing to having the chameleon like superpower at times, I don’t.

I could put the third experience down to being an informed consumer who the staff was happy to interact with, except that I had to take steps before I could prove I was a ‘worthy’ customer.
All three experiences were, in my opinion,  down to gender socialised roles.  Men always pay and women don’t know anything about computers . I don’t get that sort of treatment on-line , I know there, that I’m an anonymous consumer and the only time the website requests my gender is to market the ‘pink’  products in their store,  so I avoid it .The only trouble is (call me old fashioned) I actually like to go to the shop, have a good look at the product and compare before I buy. Why should I have to be conscious of my gender when going into a shop and receive inconsistent degrees of service ?

Following on from the reports that the government intend to provide economically and socially deprived children a laptop and broadband my questions are these:-

Given the credit crunch and the pull back from implementing green technologies, will this policy also be put on the back-burner? I can’t find anything on the net to suggest that pilot schemes are going ahead.

Is this a ruse to free up teaching time? i.e “difficult” students could sent home from school and told to resume their studies on-line, therefore making them more socially isolated and marginally more susceptible to being groomed,it could also raise depression levels in socially excluded young people and increase the likelihood of them committing electronic crimes.

I do think this is a great scheme-  I’m certainly more liberated since going on-line at home. As a single mother it has enabled me to cyber socialize and self educate. Is this a case of “great idea, it’ll be a possible voter morale booster”? I really hope not, because children who live below the poverty line need the social capital enabling tool of the Internet.