d by their wives 'labour in the home much at all.
In any case, when a man took on the responsibility of feeding a wife and children from the low and unreliable wage he earned, he actually faced a worsening of conditions. Stuart McIntyre has shown that working class families living at the turn of the century were most likely to suffer poverty during the years when they had small children.
Summers makes this point herself: В«indeed they (men) will generally be better off if they remain single. В»She dismisses it by assuming that a wife's services, the emotional security of a relationship В«as well as the feelings of pride and even aggrandizement associated with fathering and supporting children В» outweigh the minor inconvenience of not having enough money to live on. This is a typically middle class attitude; that the ability to survive could be less important than В«emotional securityВ», or that it could reliably exist in a life of poverty and degradation. In any case, on both these criteria - emotional security and the pride of parenthood - it would have to be said women have a stake in the family. It is precisely the yearning to realise these often unattainable goals which does partly underpin the acceptance of the family as the ideal. They tell us nothing about whether the family bestows power on men or not.
This argument is not meant to idealise workers. Sexist ideas about women are as old as class society. So it is not surprising that male workers were sexist and accepted the standard stereotyped view of women. But that is not the same as being in an alliance with male bosses. And it did not mean they strove to establish the stifling, restrictive existence of the nuclear family. It simply means they were the product of given social relations not of their own making. В«The sexism of English society was brought to Australia and then amplified by penal conditions. В»
The fact is that it was the ruling class, via magazines produced for workers, who actually argued for women to become homemakers, wives and mothers above all else. That is why every mass circulation magazine, every middle class voice shouted the virtues of womanhood - a certain kind of womanhood that is (as they still do today). And it is clear that the overwhelming arguments for women to be primarily housewives came from women.
Connell and Irving rightly drew the connection between the establishment of bourgeois society in Australia and the fight to establish the В«feminineВ» stereotype for women: В«The women (in the social elite) ... played an active role in maintaining class consciousness through their policing of gentility. В»
Of course, these women were not feminists. But some of the most advanced women of the middle classes of the time, the suffragists as they were called, mouthed the honeyed phrases promising women the approval of respectable society if only they would devote themselves to the care of their husbands and children. Vida Goldstein was a famous feminist. In 1903 her paper, Australian Woman's Sphere recommended that women's education should include instruction on baby care. Goldstein defended the women's movement from attacks that said emancipation meant women were refusing to have children by insisting that on the contrary, women were awakening to a truer sense of their maternal responsibility, and that most wanted a career in motherhood - hardly a departure from the sexist ideas of bourgeois society. Maybanke Anderson espoused women's suffrage and higher education for women but also compulsory domestic science for schoolgirls, and sexual repression.
The bosses wanted the family and they had to fight for it. Workers, both men and women, had to be goaded, pushed and coaxed into accepting ruling class ideas of a В«decentВ» life. The argument that women's role in the family was somehow established by an alliance of all men simply ignores the influence of not only middle class and bourgeois respectable women, but also the feminists of the time who were vastly more influential - because of material wealth and organisation and ideological influence through newspapers and the like - than working class men.
Hartmann argues: В«the development of family wages secured the material base for male domination in two ways. First, men have the better jobs in the labour market and earn higher wages than women. В»ThisВ« encourages women to choose wifery as a career. Second, then, women do housework, childcare, and perform other services at home which benefit men directly. Women's home responsibilities in turn reinforce their inferior labour market position. В»The argument that the establishment of a family wage institutionalised women as housewives and mothers earning low wages if they went to work is widely accepted. Lindsey German and Tony Cliff accept that the working class supported the idea of вЂ...
