Women Labour Under the Grip of Neoliberal/Conservative Care Policies: An Assessment on Home Care Practices

Authors

  • Özge Sanem Özateş Gelmez

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v17i2.209

Keywords:

women's care labour, social policy, home care practices, neoliberalism and conservatism

Abstract

We witness that women labour has been rendered worthless and secondary against that of men's.This however has also gained acceptance as a norm and within the historical process of articulation of patriarchy as a set of social relations to capitalism. Hence, these social relations to capitalism has an embedded masculine types of solidarity as well as unequal power relationships between women and men. Being a system of this historical process, gendered division of labour in patriarchal capitalism serves to render women responsible primarily with reproductive works, whereas rendering men as actors of the social and economic system. Cooperation of capitalism with patriarchy generally shapes policies with neoliberal economy, enabling inclusion of conservative discourse and practices. Therefore, with respect to care policies, there is the state's withdrawal on public services and marketisation of care services on one hand and the idealisation of the family on the other which is also the dissemination of practices that transfer all the load to the household, at the absence of related public services. These care policies in question lock women indoors, and are reflected as women to be recognized as relatives and to undertake the heavy burden of care, unpaid and unshared. In Turkey, usually care services are conceptualised as an inherent responsibility of the family; thus, with the overt articulation of conservative policies to neoliberal economic policies, presently, care responsibility has moved out of political arena and completely become a private practice, rather than being societal. Therefore, in a male dominant society, locking care labour in the household leads to consolidated dependency of women to the household rather than equally sharing of the load together by women and men, as the latter being the 'breadwinner'. ....

References

Acar Savran G. (04 January 2008). Sosyal Güvenlik Reformu Karşısında Feminist Politika. BİA Haber Merkezi. Internet Adress: http://www.bianet.org. Access: 10.7.2015.
Acar Savran G. (2009). Beden Emek Tarih Diyalektik Bir Feminizm İçin (2.Ed.). İstanbul: Kanat Kitap.
Bleijenbergh I. & Roggeband C. (2007). Equality Machineries Matter: The Impact of Women's Political Pressure on European Social-Care Policies. Social Politics, 14(4): 437-459.
Dedeoğlu S. (2009). Eşitlik mi Ayrımcılık mı? Türkiye’de Sosyal Devlet, Cinsiyet Eşitliği Politikaları ve Kadın İstihdamı. Çalışma ve Toplum, 2009(2): 41-54.
Dedeoğlu S. (2011). Türkiye’de Cinsiyet Eşitliği Politikaları ve Kadın İstihdamı. In Kadın Emeği Konferansı: Kadın İstihdamı ve Sorun Alanları. Ankara: TEPAV: 63-71.
Ecevit Y. (2012). Feminist Sosyal Politika Bağlamında Türkiye’de Çocuk Bakımı ve Eğitimine İki Paradigmadan Doğru Bakmak. In Makal A. & Toksöz G. (Ed.), Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye’de Kadın Emeği. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi: 20-265.
Fraser N. (2000). After the Familiy Wage: A Postindustrial Thought Experiment. In Hobson B. (Ed.), Gender & Citizenship in Transition. London: Macmillan: 1-32.
Filgueira F., Gutierrez M. & Papadopulos J. (2011). A Perfect Storm? Welfare, Care, Gender and Generations in Uruguay. Development and Change, 42(4): 1023-1048.
Hobson B. (2006). The Evolution of the Women-friendly State: Opportunities and Constraints in the Swedish Welfare State. In Razavi S. & Hassim S. (Eds.), Gender and Social Policy in a Global Context Uncovering the Gendered Structure of ‘the Social’. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 151-172.
İlkkaracan İ. (2010). İşgücü piyasasında Toplumsal Cisniyet Eşitliğine Doğru: İş ve Aile Yaşamını Uzlaştırma Politikaları. İstanbul: İTÜ BMT-KAUM & KİH-YÇ.
Kılıç A. (2006). Gender and Social Policy in Turkey: Positive Discrimination or a Second-Class Female Citizenship? Unpublished Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Kılıç A. (2010). Sosyal Politika Reformu Çerçevesinde Kadınlar ve Vatandaşlık. In Durudoğan H., Gökşen F., Oder B.E. & Yükseker D. (Eds.), Türkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet Çalışmaları: Eşitsizlikler, Mücadeleler, Kazanımlar. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları: 337-347.
Leitner S. (2003). Varieties of Familialism: The Caring Function of the Family in Comparative Perspective. European Societies, 5(4): 353-375.
Lewis J. (2009). Work-Family Balance, Gender and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Makal A. (2012). Türkiye’de Kadın Emeğinin Tarihsel Kökenleri: 1920-1960. In Makal A. & Toksöz G. (Eds.), Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye’de Kadın Emeği Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi: 38-115.
Razavi S. (2007). The Political and Social Economy of Care in a Development Context Conceptual Issues, Research Questions and Policy Options (Report No: Gender and Development Programme Paper: 3). Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
Toksöz G. (2007). Türkiye’de Kadın İstihdam Durumu Raporu. Ankara: ILO.
Toksöz G. (2012a). Kalkınmada Farklı Yörüngeler Kadın İstihdamında Farklı Örüntüler Işığında Türkiye’de Kadın İstihdamı. In Makal A. & Toksöz G. (Eds.), Geçmişten Günümüze Türkiye’de Kadın Emeği Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi: 168-200.
Toksöz G. (2012b). Neoliberal Piyasa, Özel ve Kamusal Patriarka Çıkmazında Kadın Emeği. In Dedeoğlu S. & Elveren A.Y. (Eds.), Türkiye’de Refah Devleti ve Kadın. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları: 103- 126.
Ungerson C. (2000). The Commodification of Care: Current Policies and Future Politics. In Hobson B. (Ed.), Gender and Citizenship in Transition. London: Macmillan: 173-200.
Yaman Öztürk M. (2011). Karşılıksız Bakım Emeği ve Kadın İstihdamına Etkisi. In Kadın Emeği Konferansı: Kadın İstihdamı ve Sorun Alanları. Ankara: TEPAV: 54-62.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-12

How to Cite

Özateş Gelmez, Özge S. (2016). Women Labour Under the Grip of Neoliberal/Conservative Care Policies: An Assessment on Home Care Practices. Kadın/Woman 2000, Journal for Women’s Studies, 17(2), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.33831/jws.v17i2.209