Thesis: that the movements to liberate women by getting them the vote, the right to own property, the right to sit in the Senate are parallel to the current fight to get women recognition for their unpaid caregiving work.

A close look at the historical context of the earlier movements reveals obstacles which are parallel.

The issue hinged on the meaning of an ambiguous  word. Because arguments to include women sometimes were based on interpreting existing laws, the intended meaning of general terms like voter, citizen, elector, landowner, was called into question if the assumption was made only males were included.  In the Persons Case Canadian justices felt that  when the BNA Act required Senatorial candidates to be ‘persons’, it did not include women. In a parallel way caregivers in the home are now questioning the assumption that the term ‘labor force’ only applies to paid labor, or that a ‘working mother’ is only one who earns money, or that ‘work’ is only effort that is paid.

The group excluded from recognition was always said to be uneducated, and therefore unskilled in exercising the right. Women had no  time or ability

to manage land so they should not own property.  They did not know enough about public life to handle voting.  It would be dangerous to let working class women make laws.  Women, like the criminally insane, imbeciles and lunatics were deemed mentally unfit to sit as Senators. And in a parallel way women who provide care of a child or senior at home are deemed inferior to paid professional caregivers since they offer unregulated care and have no professional certificate.  They could not sign contracts because they were not knowledgeable about what might be in them. Yet  those who asked for the rights did  not merit the criticism. The Famous Five were mostly university-educated women.. When Emily Davies in 1905 petitioned the government of the UK for the vote, she was 76 and had an LLD. In a parallel way those mothers who have raised  several children are seen as offering only unregulated and nonstandardized care, yet  their advice is often sought by new mothers.

Women were denied rights  because they lacked economic power.

They had no means to buy or maintain land so why give them the right to purchase it? They paid no tax so they should not determine tax law. If they did not own land, they had no right to vote or sit in the Senate because they would not be affected by the laws they made.  Since they did not earn they could not provide for their own children on divorce so for the wellbeing of children, mothers should not get child custody. Yet much of this reasoning was circuitous. Women only lacked money because their roles were unpaid. They  were denied entry into professions that paid it, or denied recognition for their contribution to household assets. Women were affected by the laws as much as men were and had as deep a vested interest in there being fair laws.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the US pointed out that it was illogical to have the mistress of a large estate, who employed and directed gardeners and workers, to be denied the vote while they got it. Only when  women got paid employment in the first world war and worked right alongside men, however,  did it become more difficult to deny them

the vote because their economic contribution had suddenly become more visible.  The  household has always been taxed and even mothers at home were keenly aware of

consequences of tax rates. Family allowance, introduced in 1945 to assist with costs of men returning from the war and setting up a family, was directed to the woman

and had given her some economic power and financial recognition. This benefit was removed in the 1990s.

Women were often denied rights because it was said they were  too emotional to handle them. Those who wanted the vote were labeled unstable and emotional,

hysterical and prone to fainting.  Women were shorter than men,

weaker in body strength and naturally inferior. The 1924 ruling denying women

the right to be Senators said they were too fickle in judgment and too

subject to the opinions of others. In a parallel way housewives have been

criticized as irrational, frustrated, clinically depressed and oppressed.

The Famous Five once did a spoof of why men should be denied the right

to sit in the Senate saying men were too emotional.  Yet in 1913 suffragettes

in the UK set up a scholarly journal, “The Common Cause” showing logical

reasoned arguments, about why women should get the vote.

In a parallel way, some Canadian women have worked for decades to show  legal, sociological and economic reasons for recognizing unpaid labor. Carol Lees petitioned parliament. Evelyn Dresscher did an academic

Study for Mothers Are Women.  The BC Voice of Women worked to get the Canadian census to tally unpaid work. The movements were rational.

Women were denied a right often because it was deemed unbecoming and inappropriate to grant it.  The status quo must be maintained. The request for the vote was labeled unthinkable, an abomination, an insult to tradition. One suffragette referred to this attitude as the “Time-hardened soil of conservatism”. Resisters claimed that changing the law was  equivalent to breaking the law. Judges denied women the right to sit in the Senate saying “It is barbaric to depart from the usage

of centuries” Yet the Privy Council in England ruled ‘It is barbaric to continue

laws for which the purpose has disappeared.” Lord Sankey of the Privy Council

in 1930 said the BNA Act is “a living tree capable of growth and expansion” and

it should, “like all written constitutions be subject to development through usage

and convention”.

Women were denied a right because it had not been granted before – it had no historical precedent.  Why should they vote or own property, sit in the Senate or hold government office or be recognized for work at home, when it was not already done?

Yet it had been done before. When women asked for the vote in the UK

they pointed out that women already sat on school boards, and that

single female ratepayers had voted in municipal, school board and local

government elections. One of the Famous Five was already acting in a judicial

capacity. When women wanted the right to own property, they pointed out

that in 1839 in Mississippi married women already had the right to receive

income from property and in New York State in 1860 married would could own,

buy and sell property, sign contracts, sue and be  sued. To the claim ‘It hasn’t been done, could be answered’ It has’ In a parallel way caregivers point out that caregiving was at one time  considered work through the family allowance. The family wage of the 1920s recognized the work of caregiving and increased the salary

of the wage –earner to cover additional costs of supporting children.

Rights were also  denied to women saying that in areas other  than government such rights were not granted and it was important to be consistent. When women wanted the vote they were told it would be inappropriate since women could not serve in the clergy, could not enter some faculties at university, were not heads of corporations. They should not sit in the Senate because they were not sitting in legislatures. And yet there were areas where women did have such rights. Several of the Famous Five who wanted the right of women to sit in the Senate, were already members of a legislature – Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby (who was already a cabinet minister in 1921),and Louise McKinney. And caregivers cited the BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling

of June 2004 which permitted a handicapped adult woman to choose her father

as her caregiver, to be paid by the state. It was being done elsewhere in Canada.

Women were denied rights on the basis that no women had that right anywhere

else in the world, so Canada should not be the first.  But suffragettes pointed out

that in the UK women could vote in local government since 1888. When Canadian women wanted the vote, granted finally in 1917-18, they cited that this right was already held by women in New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.  In 1917 under the Dower Act women could get one-third of the estate if their spouses died. Women could already get property to keep it from an ‘improvident’ son or son-in-law or to keep it from being seized for debts in the name of the spouse.  In a parallel way women who want pensions for homemaking notice that women in Italy already have that right and women in Canada who want tax breaks for at-home care noticed Norway and Austria already have such funding.

Women who asked for rights were discounted as not being representative of

most women, of being a small fringe group only.   If the activists were middle-class they were criticized for not speaking for the working class or of being pampered. Suffragettes were criticized as undignified, aggressive, unfeminine and an embarrassment to other women. The fact the suffragette movement in the UK splintered into 16 factions was seen as evidence women could not even agree amongst themselves. Suffragettes who picketed the White House in 1913 and were arrested for loitering and jailed for obstructing traffic were criticized as criminal, cranks ,publicity seekers and poor role models for women.  Women who wanted to own property were scorned as undignified, anti-male and not representative of their gender. In a parallel way those who seek recognition for unpaid work have been criticized as anti-feminist, a backlash against liberation, and old-fashioned.  Yet in 1995 at Beijing a United Nations conference on women urged all nations to begin to tally and recognize unpaid labor and all nations signed this promise, including Canada. The ones who are educated enough to feel they deserve rights often are middle class women, but they argue for rights for all women.

 Women were refused rights with the excuse their suggestion was unworkable administratively and impractical.  Women should not have the right to vote because they had no time to get out and vote, a new election would be costly and it would be onerous to draw up new electoral registers. They should not sit in the

senate because there was no mechanism to allow them to be called. It is too unwieldy a task to redraw deeds, land registrations and property acts. Even today in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania in 2004 women are told they cannot get property rights because marriage and succession are so intertwined that it is too confusing to rewrite present laws. In a parallel way caregivers  have been told the Income Tax is already a big volume, established after decades of discussion and is too hard to adjust. Redefining work to include unpaid work would affect too many laws and it would be costly to rewrite them and costly to translate them.

Women were turned down because they were told there was no need for them to have the right -they already had plenty of rights. Men voted and as heads of the home that reflected the home’s views. The vote of women was redundant since it would only be the same as the man’s.  Men already provided well for women by managing property and by sitting in the Senate to make the laws. To ask for

their own voice was unnecessary since men already had all needs covered.

Requests for change were seen as anti-male and untrusting.  In a parallel way

women’s unpaid work in the home is refused recognition on its own merit

with the assumption that the male is the earner and he adequately provides.

She is forced into dependency, assuming the spouse is a benevolent earner.

The child tax benefit is tied to his income and reduced accordingly even if the caregiver spouse has no income of her own.

Women were turned down in their request for rights as a favor to them. They should

be spared the onerous responsibility of voting.  They need the protection of men

and should be grateful for it.  They did not have to serve in the military for the

same reason and state policy should be consistent. Women were currently protected and for their own good men would ensure they were not in a position to lose that protection.  Men  managed the land because women are not able to do so well.  The Senate and  House of Commons are rowdy places and women are too dignified to sit there. Yet when men went to fight in the first world war, they lost residency status

and it became possible to conceive of a woman in their stead casting a vote.

In a parallel way caregiver women are told that they already have plenty of

rights because men take care of them and they are taxed equivalent to children on

a tax form. They are told tax breaks given only for work outside the home are for their own good, as a disincentive to being in the home and to ensure they have

financial independence in case the marriage ends, or for their own self-esteem.

Yet caregivers feel self-esteem is enhanced when women are recognized for the work they do.

Women who asked for rights were discounted as expressing a view not supported by any mainstream or popular other group. To grant the right would not win votes.  Yet  when women asked for the vote in the UK in 1918  they had  the support of Woodrow Wilson, of the Labor Party, of Churchill and Lloyd George of the Liberal Party and of some Conservatives including the leader, Balfour. In 1867 John Stuart Mill

had proposed that women should vote.  John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that if women’s unpaid work were counted, an economy would be much more inclusive. Platforms of many political parties in Canada already suggest tax breaks for caregivers, including the  former Conservative Party, the official opposition Conservative Alliance Party and the Action Democratique in Quebec. 

Women were turned down for rights because some prominent groups were vehemently opposed. In the UK Prime Minister Henry Asquith was against

women getting the vote and the Church of England opposed it also. The Attorney General of Canada and the Attorneys General of Alberta and Quebec opposed women sitting in the Senate. As recently as October 2004 governments of BC, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Alberta and Quebec joined to resist pay equity for female health care workers if a government is cash-strapped.  In a parallel way, those in government who are mostly male, are often unaware of women’s dilemmas of balancing career and family. Those who resist funding at-home care are often daycare advocates who fear loss of  their own preferential tax position, or career women who fear loss of maternity and other benefits tied to their paid labor.  Yet caregivers do not want those who currently get benefits to lose them – they just want the same benefits for their own choices.

Women were denied rights with the suspicion they had a larger sinister agenda. Those who wanted the vote were often activists in other causes such as prohibition, anti-slavery, equal pay, sterilization of the handicapped. It was feared that  to open the door to one cause would open the floodgates to all others, and negative associations with any one of the other issues were placed on the issue at hand.  It was feared women granted the vote would usurp men’s power.  It was suggested that in the UK only  4.5 million of the 27.5 million men had the right to vote and to let ‘all women’ vote would risk women outnumbering men.  If women sat in the Senate they would bog down deliberations with too much attention to social issues and education and not enough to finance.  The issue of women’s rights may have merit but there were more critical and urgent issues such as defence policy.  Women were denied Senate seats in the 1928 ruling because they were thought to possibly be a front for a political party. Any change would be sneaky and  furtive.   In a parallel way , women in the home have been feared as wanting a return of women to the home, to threaten gains women have made in the paid labor force,  corporate advancement, daycare or maternity benefits.  If churches support equality rights for caregivers, some suggest the whole movement is religion-based and patriarchal. Since some who argue for caregiving have other passionate causes such as gay rights, or anti or pro-abortion, detractors merely criticize one view as part of a parcel. Yet the UN complaint in 1997 on behalf of caregivers in Canada  had no religious or political agenda. Those who argue for caregivers run the gamut of views on other controversial topics of the year 2004 including abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, spanking.

Women who asked for the right were turned down because they had been turned down before and it was time to stop asking.  Early suffragettes were jailed and went on hunger strikes and the public entered what one commentator called ‘outrage fatigue”.  The response of the state was -give it up, stop asking.  The 1928 judgment denying women the right to sit in the Senate said  it is hopeless to contest an existing law. The statement was made that the justices  must ‘forever exorcise and lay the ghost of doubt to rest” The movement to get the vote in  the US took 91 years dating from Fanny Wright’s 1829 publication “Course of Popular Lectures”.The struggle in the UK dated from  1897 when Millicent Fawcett founded the National Union of Women’s Suffrage.  The requests were turned down so often that in1902 Susan B. Anthony said  “It is unendurable to think of another generation of women wasting their lives struggling for the vote” She called for deeds not actions. .The Famous Five lost the legal appeal to Canada’s Supreme Court and only succeeded when they

carried the appeal to the Privy Council in England. In a parallel way four complaints for caregiver rights have been made by 2004 at the Canadian  Human Rights Commission, two complaints have been lodged at the  United Nations (one by Low Income Families Together in 1998, one by Beverley Smith in 1997-99), and three applications have been made and turned down for a  Supreme Court reference.  One civil servant in a leaked note said to another civil servant, of the caregiver request “If you like we can discuss how to kill this more completely”

The voices of those who ask for rights are historically often subtly silenced, simply not permitted to be heard. A meeting is held but those likely to dissent are not invited or their invitations arrive late or they are seated far from the main stage, or not allowed to make a presentation. In 1840 Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott went to a London convention but were refused permission to speak, so they went back to the US and arranged their own convention to get women the vote.  Suffragettes were refused an interview with the PM in Britain in 1906. Members of Kids First Parent Association of Canada were excluded from federal meetings on the care of children in the 1990s. Requests to meet with ministers of Health and Human Resources for 10 years were never granted. One Member of Parliament simply never found a time to meet his own constituent who advocated for equal rights for all caregivers, during his entire  term in office as her MP.

Women were turned down in their request because those who made the laws had a sense of the proper role of women and wanted to subtly guide women to fulfill it.
Women should not vote because their duty was to be in the home. They should not sit in the Senate because they should be at home tending to their husband’s socks and were they granted rights, they would be neglecting the role for which they were intended. They should not own property because that would take their time away from the care of the home and child neglect would result. In a parallel way, but with a changed agenda, the state now tells caregivers in the home that they are productive members of the labor force only  if they leave the home so tax laws subtly penalize them for staying and assist them in leaving.  Yet women have resisted being told where to be. Nellie McClung when phoned and asked “Is Mrs. McClung home, by chance?” would answer that yes she was home and it was not by chance but by design. She said she had been told so many times to go home and tend to her husband’s socks that she would never have believed his hosiery would excite that level of interest. When assigned to be home, or assigned any role  Elizabeth Cady Stanton said “A woman is not a drone in the great hive of human activity” In 1858 when Fanny Wright, early suffragette was criticized for not doing her duty by staying home, Ernestine L. Rowe, praised her, saying that in arguing for equality rights Wright had indeed ‘done her duty’ Arguing for caregivers, Beverley Smith has said “What part of the word ‘choice’ don’t you understand?” 

http://dataforuse.tripod.com

http://members.tripod.com/Beverley_smith__1

http://beverley_Smith__1.tripod.com/thecaregiverscase

http://kidsfirst1.tripod.com

http://researchoncare.tripod.com

http://unitednatcomplaint.tripod.com