Women’s Work Hidden by Patriarchy and Capitalism: Honoring Historical Craftsmanship Contributions

Published on:

Patriarchy and Capitalism

We exist in a time when the gender pay gap is expanding. Recent studies indicate that women earn less than men, and the pandemic has exacerbated the pay gap in various nations. This disparity continues because there are fewer women in high-paying leadership roles and because women predominantly work in lower-paying industries. Yet, there are even more subtle and harsh reasons contributing to the gender pay gap. Historically, womenโ€™s work has been undervalued, resulting in unequal pay for comparable jobs between genders. Although this practice is gradually decreasing, it still exists.

This issue affects all sectors of the economy, but is particularly evident in the informal economy, restricting women’s earnings in artisanal and small-scale industrial fields. Despite being vital to the survival of the industrial and Indian economy, women’s labour has often been rendered invisible in literature, underrepresented in statistics, and inadequately compensated in payrolls. Nevertheless, recent works by feminist and labour historians highlight that women workers played a crucial role in the functioning of the colonial Indian economy; their contributions spanned from agriculture. Throughout various production environmentsโ€”including homes, small workshops, mills, and industrial training institutesโ€”women in the textile industry have long encountered severe economic marginalization and a prevailing view that their work is considered โ€˜unskilled.โ€™
This article aims to highlight the underlying patriarchy and capitalist frameworks that have historically pervaded these practices, ultimately undermining women.

Unearthing the patriarchy in the silk and mining industry of Ancient India

Before the rise of factories and workshops in late nineteenth and twentieth-century urban India, textile production primarily occurred within the home. Women and children from working families played significant roles in the making of yarn and cloth, while the male head of the family, typically a weaver, held a leading role in home-based production. Young women and minor girls were often positioned as helpers to men in subsidiary tasks, while male children learned the trade and supported their fathers. At the same time, as was true in many societies, women shouldered the majority of domestic duties and caregiving responsibilities.

George Grierson, a colonial official, linguist, and observer of Indian culture, documented the gender division of labour in the spinning and weaving processes. In 1879, while writing about the Madhubani region, Grierson described how, after cotton was harvested and dried under the sun, it was cleaned by โ€˜old womenโ€™ for two to three days. While spinning was generally performed by women in the family, weaving was predominantly done by men. Although women’s economic contributions were characterized as supportive rather than primary, their vital labour was integral to the final product and its market value. Spinning and weaving transcended class and religious boundaries, but they were typically organized under male patriarchal structures across communities.

This economic disruption caused by colonial policies heightened the ideology of the โ€˜male breadwinnerโ€™. Historian Samita Sen points out that male wages were regarded as sacred, while womenโ€™s work was undervalued and their earnings were categorized as โ€˜supplementary income.โ€™ Furthermore, with the rise of industrial capitalism as the primary mode of production in the 19th century, womenโ€™s labour became a tool for employers to lower wages or label jobs as โ€˜unskilled.โ€™

Male dominance could not be simply reduced to isolated acts of discrimination. It represented a coherent system that influenced all aspects of life, both collectively and individually. Global statistics indicated that when considering both women’s paid work and their domestic chores, women were โ€œoverworkedโ€ relative to men. The division of household tasks and family responsibilities made visible through feminist advocacy, reflected a social framework based on a sexual division of labour, where women were expected to naturally focus on the domestic and private realm while men engaged in productive and public endeavours.

This division was far from being โ€œcomplementaryโ€ and had created a hierarchy of activities that assigned high value to โ€œmasculineโ€ tasks and low value to โ€œfeminineโ€ ones. There had never been a situation of true equality. The vast majority of women had consistently balanced both productive activities (in a broad sense) and various household duties. Nonetheless, young women often found themselves as unprepared as their partners in the initial days following the birth of a child. Conversely, they were frequently equipped psychologically (through education and societal norms) for this new responsibility, which would necessitate the acquisition of new skills.

The Rising tide of capitalism in Indian society- decoding its role in craftsmanship

The global nature of capitalism inevitably reshaped economies for profit, which directly influenced gender dynamics. A closer look at its practices revealed that capitalism thrived on an existing system of oppressionโ€”patriarchyโ€”while simultaneously intensifying many of its core aspects. The exploitation of women served as a mechanism for capitalists to manipulate the workforce to maximize their profits. This dynamic allowed them to shift societal welfare responsibilities from the State and communal institutions to the so-called โ€œprivacyโ€ of family life. In essence, when capitalist demands grew, they often turned to women, who were typically offered lower wages than their male counterparts.โ€™.

This practice not only suppressed overall wage growth but also compelled the State to provide additional services to support women in the workforce, lightening their burden. Yet, once their labour was no longer needed, the expectation was for them to retreat to their โ€œproper placeโ€ defined by patriarchal norms. Capitalism effectively leveraged patriarchy to further its aims, strengthening it in the process. Womenโ€™s relegation to domestic responsibilities allowed capitalists to rationalize their underpayment and overexploitation, claiming that womenโ€™s work was less valuable than menโ€™s. They cited factors like perceived weakness, menstrual cycles, absenteeism due to pregnancy and maternity leave, breastfeeding, and caretaking for sick children or elderly relatives. In this context, womenโ€™s pay was often dismissed as merely โ€œfor extras.โ€

Lucknow, an important weaving centre until the early 19th century, experienced a significant out-migration of male weavers in the mid-19th century. As the spinning and weaving trades waned, many impoverished women shifted to low-wage chikan (embroidery) jobs. Although largely unrecognized before the Nawabi period in Lucknow, the chikan industry became a vital means of income for destitute women and children from various castes and communities.In 1880, tax collector William Hoey described, โ€œLittle girls, five and six years of age may be seen sitting at the doors of houses near Chob Mandi busily moving. However, a limited number of male workers in the chikan trade received better wages and were regarded as executing the most intricate embroidery. The chikan sector continues to provide significant income for women and, until recently, for children as well. In industrial and developing economies, the presence of women in low-wage factory jobs also posed a challenge to male workers’ authority. In Britain, male-dominated labour unions worked to safeguard the interests and salaries of male workers.

One method employed by men to counter this perceived threat was through the patriarchal doctrine of domesticity, which confined women to the roles of homemakers and mothers. However, individuals from various classes and social groups interpreted this doctrine differently. Radha Kumar indicates that for capitalists, the working woman was emblematic of the mother who would produce future generations of robust workers. Simultaneously, Samita Sen and Charu Gupta reveal that women who worked in publicโ€”many from the lowest castesโ€”were often labelled as sexually accessible and deviant in literature from the middle and upper classes.

These strategic invocations of patriarchal ideologies by employers, the state, and male workers have persisted, influencing contemporary society. The ongoing battle to establish labour environments where working-class women are neither sexualized nor subjected to harassment remains incomplete. Women did not passively accept colonial notions of domesticity, propriety, and the patriarchal constraints on their work and income. Over time, this relentless pursuit of profit partially eroded traditional paternal and marital authority, enabling working women to sell their labour independently and step into the role of active consumers. Women resisted these pressures and sought ways to ensure their safety in the workforce, including working under female jobbers. As highlighted by Chitra Joshi, women also shaped their own stories and established distinctions between respectable and degrading types of work.

Conclusion

During the colonial period, women workers and artisans were often rendered invisible, sexualized, and denied fair wages due to colonial patriarchal beliefs and practices. While some upper-class individuals started discussing and challenging parts of patriarchy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the experiences of working women were largely ignored. Their skills were not recognized, and their pay was insufficient. To truly understand and tackle the wage gap we see today, it’s essential to look back at its historical roots. The lingering effects of colonial patriarchal attitudes, such as the belief that women’s work is less skilled or valuable than men’s, continue to affect women artisans and industrial workers today. Itโ€™s hard to envision how all women could be liberated in a capitalist system. That’s why it’s crucial, despite potential conflicts, to unite the fight against patriarchal oppression with the battle against capitalist exploitation.

-Hridya Sharma

— Share —

— About the Author —

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • How to Handle Valentineโ€™s Day When Youโ€™re In a Situationship

    How to Handle Valentineโ€™s Day When Youโ€™re In a Situationship

  • Reclaim Focus: Overcome the Pitfalls of Shallow Learning

    Reclaim Focus: Overcome the Pitfalls of Shallow Learning

  • 10 Fun Galentineโ€™s Day Ideas for the Best Night With Your Girls!

    10 Fun Galentineโ€™s Day Ideas for the Best Night With Your Girls!

  • Unconventional Valentineโ€™s Day Date Ideas: Skip the Dinner, Try These Instead!

    Unconventional Valentineโ€™s Day Date Ideas: Skip the Dinner, Try These Instead!

  • Break Up On Valentines Day? 16 Self-Care Tips When You’ve Been Un-Valentined

    Break Up On Valentines Day? 16 Self-Care Tips When You’ve Been Un-Valentined

  • Boomerasking: The Silent Conversation Killer You Didn’t Know You Had

    Boomerasking: The Silent Conversation Killer You Didn’t Know You Had

  • Singlesโ€™ Survival Guide: How to Have the Best Valentineโ€™s Day Without a Date

    Singlesโ€™ Survival Guide: How to Have the Best Valentineโ€™s Day Without a Date

  • Understanding Phobias: Serious Struggles, Not for Mockery

    Understanding Phobias: Serious Struggles, Not for Mockery

  • 7 Best On-Screen Couples Ranked by How Likely They Are to Stay Together

    7 Best On-Screen Couples Ranked by How Likely They Are to Stay Together

  • Should Parents Set Consequences for Misbehavior or Not?

    Should Parents Set Consequences for Misbehavior or Not?

— Follow Us —