This sexual discrimination of labour is not narrowed to the residence alone, it is stretched afar to the “public” domain of paid occupations too, and once more, this incident is not related to “sex” (biology) in any way and is all invested with “gender” (culture) issues. Some categories of errand are grouped into “women’s work”, while other categories as men’s, and the point to be noted is that women’s pieces are apportioned lesser remunerations and are poorly esteemed. Take for instance; nursing and teaching jobs which are primarily female occupations, careers which are moderately inadequately salaried with respect to additional managerial professions the middle classes normally hold. It is being implied by the feminists that such a “feminization” of teaching and nursing is due to the fact that these caring, rearing, attending responsibilities is the version of the nurturing duties carried out within household by women.
Ideological Assumptions behind Sexual Division of Labour
The synthesis that follows from the above is that particular assumed ideological postulations exist at the back of this sexual division of labour in place of “natural” biological dissimilarity. It is taken to be granted that women are physically infirm, unsuitable for tough blue-collar jobs, ironically women conduct the sturdiest functions, such as carrying heavy loads of water and firewood, grinding corn, transplanting paddy, carrying head-loads in mining and construction plant etc. Surprisingly with the automation, computerization of these labour-intensive errands women are evicted from the sectors while men benefit from the procedure of instruction to apply these new appliances, perfecting work to be simpler, relaxing and also satisfactorily remunerated. These incidents are customary in factories and are also frequent with work being conventionally performed by women inside the community; namely in the event of hand-pounding of grain being substituted by electrically maneuvered flour mills and also in the case of traditionally hand-crafted nets being substituted by machine-manufactured nylon fishing nets, men were coached to absorb this adaption, on the other hand women were compelled to fit into scantily salaried, strenuous physical tasks. The conclusion that ensues is that women’s subjugation persists due to accepted social and cultural estimates, beliefs and traditions and not due to immutable biological distinctions. Henceforth, the feminists consider challenges of sex-classified work, the sexual division of labour and most importantly, concerns of sexuality and reproduction as subjects separated from the domain of “biology” - accepted as a natural and irreversible methodology. The feminist memo emphasizes on rearranging the above mentioned topics within the purview of “political” sphere, reinstating that they are able of modification and revision and have to be modified and adapted.