Producing Workers and Producing Ideologies.

All human intellectual and physical activity are essential in the introduction of goods and services. The goods and services useful resource to satisfy the satiable human wants. Labour is a principal factor of production. The magnitude of a country’s labor pressure is resolute by the size of its grown-up population, and the degree to which the adults are both employed or are ready to bid their labor for wages. Production workers are employees unswervingly concerned in manufacturing or operational practices, as distinguished from managerial, executive, sales and office staffs. Ideologies are the normal body of theories especially around human life, group, and culture. The ideologies act as a wellknown for the individuals, social movement, institution, and class. In recent years, production ideologies have emerged affecting the criteria of the labor. Practices require investigation of ideology as a material strength and conflicting phenomenon. In this study, we will consider how the ideologies have affected the women working class struggles and the managerial structure.

Marxist versus Feminist theory

First and foremost, Marxism is a conflict theory and a significant approach. The argument emphases on the structure and base of society. As cited by Weeks (2011), Karl Marx alleged that the economy is very essential and thus influences the community. For Marxists, capitalism divided everyone into two basic classes: workers and bosses. Bosses or the ruling class control the city and the working class. The bosses benefit in every manner from how the organization operates, while employees get far less than they earn. Marxism theory tends to disregard the fact that people act consciously through ideology. Ideology is a system of representation gifted with a historical presence and role in a given society. Meaning people behave intentionally within ideology, but ideology itself is unconscious. Also, Marxism bears the blame for ignoring the freedom of choice appreciated by individuals. Since people choose what they do and think, they are not programmed by the ideology. In this sense, Marxism may present an “oversocialized” image of social beings. Also, Marxism endures disapproval for appealing that all cultural activity results to economic interest. However, this deserts the fact that culture may echo religious, ethnic, and nationalistic enthusiasm. Further, Marxist believe that external factors shape society. They reason that socialization is an ideological procedure, in which its primary objective is to transfer the ruling class idea of the capitalist society, which mean, if you work hard enough, you can get on.

In contrast, Feminism is a second major conflicting theory, which shares similar views to Marxism on manipulation and dominance. Unlike Marxism, feminism is a conflict between gender and not class. Like Marxism, it is a significant approach. According to Federici (2009), feminist claim that sex is a crucial standing difference and cause of inequality and conflicts. What’s more, women were still anticipated to be predominantly liable for conserving the home and childbearing. Meanwhile, feminist also considers that sexual exploitation is always a concern today. Feminist complain that women are unpaid domestic laborers. Radical feminist upholds that oppression and exploitation of women are into every facet of the society. Especially in a family unit. Radical feminist similarly believe that women socialized women see motherhood as their foremost objective in life.

It is evident that both capitalism and feminism affect the productivity of women in the labor market. The thesis of our study is to study how capitalism and feminism have contributed to the fall of women in the labor market and how the women have managed to overcome the challenges. Our study focuses on the American women labor force. Progressively we look at the factors and the solutions offered to curb capitalism and feminism, And their success stories.

History of American women in the labor force

Women history in the American labor force has molded due to diverse cultural, demographic, legal, and ethnic-racial impacts. Like men, women in preindustrial America funded their communal and household economies through remunerated and voluntary labor, but substantial rewards of their work, restricted by cultural beliefs, social rules, and laws that think less of women to men. Without unusual legal arrangement, married women could not sign labor agreements, own assets, or request their wages. Some women worked for wages, but those who did crowd in lower-paying jobs and received lower salaries than men. Initially, these circumstances were reproduced and even highlighted, as the industrial economy advanced. As families increasingly became dependent on cash for survival, free women amplified their input in the waged labor force. As cited by Cott & Boydson (2016), women were also indispensable to the new factories. As textile-mill workers, rural New England daughters befitted the first regular plant labor force. Other women operated as participants of "family" production divisions (in shoemaking or trade shops, for example) and as homeworkers in shoes, textiles or other products--arrangements of work that continue. Law and social treaty concealed the extent and significance of women's labor to families and the evolving national economy. Laws permitting married women permissible rights to their wages and possessions became public only in the late nineteenth century. The reforms pursued to preserve families in an industrialized society, rather than rising from a desire towards equal labor rights for women. Identifying men as breadwinners led to the inclination to view women as low wage earners, notwithstanding their actual assistance to family survival.





The success of American women in the workforce

From the late nineteenth era onwards, American-born white women relished increasingly expanding entrance to non-agricultural and nonindustrial careers. They progressively found jobs as secretaries and office clerks and in trading. Advancing from prolonged educational openings, white, middle-class women in the late nineteenth era, joined the professions in large numbers. Firstly as teachers, social workers, librarians, and nurses, and advanced in a diversity of career routes, from firefighters and police work to the law, higher education, the ministry, medicine, and in the business world.

In the 21st century, women have been able to improve the economy significantly. The most significant percentage of women employed in the American labor force is working as sales, technical and administrative support professions. Despite the increase of women working in fields that were traditionally conquered by men, women tend to work in traditionally “female” areas. However, in the 21st century, there is an upsurge of women in managerial positions, as result of education and lawmakers enacting policies that enable women to handle motherhood. For example, the introduction of maternity leaves empowers women to take care of their children and get back to work later.

Labour union play a major role in unifying female workers. Since they are aggressive for reforms, they organize strikes aimed at solving women problems in the workplaces. For example, according to research conducted by Bernstein (2017), a strike of some 20,000 New York shirtwaist personnel in 1909-1910, the first women's strike up to that time, assisted in changing the labor union into one of the state's leading unions. Early twentieth-century defensive work legislation for women demonstrated the precursor to like reforms for male employees. In the late 20th century, women advocated for excellent jobs and healthier working environments through the civil rights association and second- wave feminism.

Conclusion

In conclusions, in spite of federal and state determinations to provide women with job security during pregnancy and the primary childhood years, women persist especially helpless to low incomes and job uncertainty. Though women had made professional progress as the century ended, they continue to earn less than comparably skilled and knowledgeable men.

























References.

Bernstein, R. J. (2017). From Socialist Feminism to the Critique of Global Capitalism. In Feminism, Capitalism, and Critique (pp. 17-41). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Cott, N. F., & Boydson, J. (Eds.). (2016). The root of bitterness: Documents of the social history of American women. Northeastern University Press.

Federici, S. (2009, January). The reproduction of labor-power in the global economy, Marxist theory, and the unfinished feminist revolution. In Center for Cultural Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz. Seminar reading for Jan (Vol. 27, p. 2009).

Weeks, K. (2011). The problem with work: Feminism, Marxism, antiwork politics, and postwork imaginaries. Duke University Press.