About The Author Lina Abou Habib is an expert in mainstreaming gender in development policies and practices and in building capacities for gender mainstreaming. She is currently a Senior Policy Fellow at the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs(American University of Beirut). She serves as the Chair of the Collective for Research and Training of Development-Action and is a Strategic MENA Advisor for the Global Fund for Women. She is a member of the editorial board of the Gender and Development journal published by Oxfam and Routledge. Abou-Habib has published several research articles in international journals on citizenship rights; women’s political participation, invisible care work, and refugee women. This paper has been written with support from Yara Tarabulsi, MPhil Social Anthropology, University of Oxford, St. Antony’s College. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung P.O. Box 116107 Riad El Solh Beirut 1107 2210 Lebanon The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. ‎ All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be printed, reproduced or utilised in any form or by any ‎ means without prior written permission from the publisher. ‎ Language Editing: Jocelyn Polen Illustrations: Rawand Issa Design: Rawand Issa, and May Ghaibeh@Fabrika.cc

Contents Part 1. Introduction and Overview Part 2. Striking Global and Regional Developments and Trends Part 3. Main Challenges of the Region’s Care Economy ‎ Part 4. Feminist perspectives on the future of care work: An impulse for ‎discussion References ‎ Page 3 Page 5 Page 9 Page‎ 11 Page‎ 14

3 Part 1. Introduction and Overview There is a dearth of credible studies and statistics on women’s care work in the MENA r‎egion. However, feminist activists and scholars concur that the care economy is vital to the ‎wellbeing and livelihoods of communities in the Arab region, especially where these ‎communities encounter challenges in securing their livelihoods. With this in mind, it is important to note that the burden of care work is perceived as the ‎responsibility of women and girls. This is linked to gender roles, which frame women and g‎ irls as "natural carers"who have"inherent skills"that allow them to excel in carrying out ‎these tasks. In fact, educational curricula across the region perpetuate the perception that ‎women are primarily responsible for care work.‎ We will define"care work"as follows: the care of people, housework and other forms of v‎ oluntary work that serve the greater community. Defined as such, care work performed by women and girls – and which is often non-n‎ egotiable – presents a serious time constraint as well as a hindrance to accessing o‎ pportunities for various forms of self-advancement. T‎ his work is unevenly distributed between men and women. According to the ILO, on ‎average, women spend four times more hours performing care work than men. Even when ‎women engage in work outside of the home, they usually still have the same care ‎responsibilities in their household. Thus, cost-benefit analyses often show that this obligation ‎is the main reason women do not engage in paid work, especially in the absence of state-i‎mposed policies and institutional arrangements that encourage women to do so. As such, it ‎is no surprise that Arab states have the lowest rates of female labour force participation ‎globally. Progress at this level has been minimal (29% in 1997 compared to 34% in 2017). ‎When serious crises in the region(e.g. mass migration or violent conflict) result in changing ‎gender roles, care work remains within the realm of women and girls.‎ “Care work – essentially the care of others, whether paid or unpaid – remains non‎transferable, undervalued, poorly recognised and forever constituting a barrier to women’s ‎and girls’ advancement” That said, wealthier and even slightly betteroff households are increasingly employing paid ‎domestic workers, often migrants. Thus, the burden of care, when possible, is simply ‎transferred to other women who, because of intersections in their identities, cannot be ‎spared from undertaking a type of work that is grossly undervalued, poorly paid and d‎ eprived of any form of legal protection. ‎ Care work that is passed on to less fortunate women is equally as invisible, for it occurs in ‎the"private sphere", i.e. the household, and is further marginalised by its informal nature. ‎The abysmal situation of paid care work in the MENA region is further exacerbated by what ‎is known as the"Kafala system", a modern-day slavery mechanism that puts the employee, i‎n this case poor and destitute migrant women, at the complete"legal"mercy of the e‎ mployer. When one considers that there are around 2.5 million domestic workers in the ‎Gulf countries and the fact that most of them are women, one realises the scale and scope o‎ f women bound by the Kafala system.‎ As such, care work – essentially the care of others, whether paid or unpaid – remains non‎transferable, undervalued, poorly recognised and forever constituting a barrier to women’s ‎and girls’ advancement. Indeed, from the perspective of what is called the care economy, ‎this work is critical if not vital for ensuring the wellbeing of the household and the ‎community as well as for the reproduction of human and social capital.‎

5 Part 2. Striking Global and Regional Developments and Trends Care work goes under different guises depending on the milieus in which it is discussed. In ‎ certain academic circles, it goes by"affective labour", in others as"kin work". While these ‎ terms sometimes denote a particular ideological, disciplinary or conceptual approach, the ‎ subjects they cover see considerable overlap. Care work consists, broadly, of activities ‎ involving the care and maintenance of both people and objects, often within the domestic ‎ sphere. Care work is seen as women’s work, according to traditional and patriarchal ‎ divisions of labour which relegate women to the private sphere and men to the public one. ‎ Such views hold that women must take care of domestic affairs, such as child rearing, h ‎ ousework and cooking, without financial compensation. Men, on the other hand, work ‎ outside the home for a wage and are the financial providers of the household. These analyses, made popular by feminist critics in the 1970s and 1980s, have since become ‎more complex(Collier and Yanagisako, 1987). One key objection is that gender roles must b‎ e considered within the larger socioeconomic context, namely, capitalist modes of p‎ roduction. Marxist feminists and historians have presented detailed accounts of the ways ‎in which capitalism necessitated such a division within the household throughout history. ‎Their writings follow Marx’s claims that workers under capitalist production are exploited, ‎as they are not paid for the full value of their labour. Rather, they are only paid enough to s‎urvive until the next workday. Wages, as such, do not correspond to the amount of time ‎spent working, but rather simply to the cost of subsistence. ‎Thus, these writers stipulated that unpaid domestic labour was necessary for the subsistence ‎of the worker(as well as the reproduction of new ones). Domestic labourers, or women, ‎were thus forced both to raise their children and serve their exploited working husband ‎once the latter returned home. In this way, women were separated from their means of ‎production, their own bodies, which became the property of their husbands.‎ The product of this domestic labour is also separated from the domestic labourers, as the ‎husbands and, later, children, go off to join the capitalist labour force. Capitalists, on the ‎other hand, enjoy the privilege of not having to bear the cost of this labour as well as an e‎ ndless supply of labourers. The exploitation and subordination of women are concealed ‎through discourses which naturalise care work for women, portraying it as an inherent ‎attribute of the gender and punishing those who diverge from it, as seen historically through E‎ uropean witch trials (Federici 1975; Mies 1986).‎ These writings remain critical to our understanding of the emergence of care work in its p‎ resent form in many societies, as well as its links to patriarchal and capitalist histories and ‎societies. However, some considerations can problematise these readings of care work, as ‎well as their implications for seeking justice, equality, fair treatment and remuneration for ‎this labour worldwide. Silvia Federici herself joined the International Wages for Housework ‎Campaign, which claimed that housework must be recognised as a form of labour like any ‎other and must thus be remunerated.‎ Activists in this campaign advocated for the state to assume responsibility for the r‎emuneration of housework activities in order to avoid the inevitable exploitation of ‎capitalist modes of production which rely on unpaid care work. More recent writings, h‎ owever, have shown that economies, and capitalist production itself, can transform the d‎ ivision of labour within the household. Marxist feminists analysed economic systems that ‎relied mostly on industrial labour, but as economies become more financialised and

6 shift t‎ owards the service sector, the role that care work plays within them changes as well.‎ Anthropologists, sociologists and other social scientists have noted that, as industrial ‎production has shifted towards the factories of the global south, women have become its p‎ rimary workforce. Scholars have noted the discourse of femininity, sensitivity and d‎ elicateness being used to justify industries’ employment of women on the factory floor. It is w‎ ithin this context that the language of"nimble fingers"emerges(Ong 1987). Researchers ‎have found that factories employ women primarily due to lower costs. ‎ Women earn less than men worldwide in industrial jobs, which many scholars have ‎attributed to their work being perceived as "complementary"to that of men(Collins 1990). ‎The legacy of women as care workers thus persists even when they are employed with a ‎wage. Yet to claim that working women are only affected by ideologies of care work in the ‎workplace is misleading, as these labourers are still expected to fulfil their duties as care ‎workers in the home. As such, it becomes imperative to examine the ways in which both d‎ emands exert often contradictory pressures on women, and the kinds of aspirations and h‎ opes they engender (Pun 2005). Ethnographers, for example, have not only focused on the u‎ ndue weight put on women who work in factories while still being subject to patriarchal ‎expectations of child rearing and housekeeping, but also on how their desires, ambitions ‎and perspectives on care work and wage work change when they are in this situation.‎ There remains the question of care work when it is in non-industrial economies. As nations ‎move from relying on industry towards other sectors, the role of care work in community a‎ nd economic life transforms as well.‎ Global economies have moved away from producing in large quantities and generating ‎consumers towards a"just-in-time"capitalism, which uses communications and t‎echnologies to study and supply products ‎instantaneously (Hardt 1999). Care work in such systems takes on a whole new significance, a‎ s the labour of tending to others and fulfilling their needs becomes a crucial driving force ‎of supply-side economics. Thus, what is usually considered "women’s labour"and relegated to the private sphere starts to take on public importance. The immaterial ‎labour that women do when establishing networks of support and care can end up being co-‎opted by firms and corporations in order to provide certain services to otherwise ‎inaccessible domains and communities. These conclusions also arise from broadening our ‎understanding of what care work, or women’s work, actually entails. It reveals that c‎ onfining it to the"private"or"domestic"sphere is reductive.‎ Social scientists have extended their view of what the often devalued work of women ‎actually consists in beyond the dichotomies of private and public spheres.These activities i‎nclude networking and socialising activities between women, exchanging favours, ‎maintaining common spaces – such as a neighbourhood café – establishing connections and ‎gossiping. Yet while this work is never recognised as a form of labour and often derided by p‎ atriarchal ideologies as pointless and a waste of time, it has become the subject of c‎ onsiderable attention on behalf of multinational corporations and other organisations(‎‎ Elyachar 2010; James 2015). Multiple enterprises single out women and this type of labour a‎ s an essential part of the infrastructure for them to provide their services. Scholars and ‎analysts have drawn attention to this phenomenon with development agencies, particularly i‎n the case of microfinance, which primarily targets women. Lenders are keen to lend ‎money to women as they are considered more likely to put it towards goals that benefit the ‎household and child rearing rather than towards wasteful ends, such as drugs or gambling. ‎ Moreover, creditors find collateral in the social networks built by women, leveraging ‎notions of shame and honour within their social groups in order to pressure women to repay ‎their debts. Women’s care work can be further extended to the use of financial services. ‎Responsibilities and expectations of care work also mean that women use communal bonds ‎in order to set up systems, such as savings clubs, in newly financialised economies. These ‎perspectives challenge conventional thinking not only about care work and the private ‎sphere, but also about the relationship between care work and the larger economy, which ‎extends beyond the reproduction of the factory worker. In Egypt, telecommunications ‎companies have attempted to make these

7 networks the basis for their products as well, ‎offering services that connect people based on the infrastructure forged by women through ‎care work(Elyachar 2010). ‎ Another global development concerning care work which must be addressed is that of ‎remunerated domestic labour and its relation to migration patterns worldwide. This aspect of care work, which is laden with inequality, injustice and exploitation, must be ‎taken into account as it has been documented nearly everywhere that care work is p‎ erformed. Political economists have argued that, as women in the global north ‎increasingly enter the workforce, a"crisis of care"arises since the responsibility for care w‎ ork is no longer fulfilled by the woman(Lutz 2010). As such, women from developing ‎countries come to fill this vacuum, which causes other issues, as these women are often m‎ others who are expected to perform care work in their own household. The low cost of p‎ aid domestic workers allows more people in the global north to participate in the capitalist ‎economy. However, ideologies and social discourses associated with care work cause ‎problems for paid domestic workers beyond low wages. Since the women work in the ‎private sphere, it is harder for them to organise and unionise, thus increasing their ‎vulnerability towards their employer, as domestic workers cannot meet and socialise easily.‎ Moreover, the affective quality of care work – or the fact that it is often associated with e‎ motional labour and feelings of affection and warmth for others – makes remuneration a d‎ ifficult and often uncomfortable situation for all parties involved. This further decreases t‎ he bargaining power of domestic workersdemanding their salaries. Employers may avoid o‎ r delay payment by arguing that the work should be rewarding enough in itself, as it is a l‎abour of love that should not be stained by a desire for money. Alternatively, paid domestic ‎workers’ access to that"private sphere"may create tensions, as employers often feel u‎ neasy about workers being involved in such intimate situations. As such, employers may t‎reat domestic workers with mistrust and scepticism, and enforce disciplinary measures on ‎them. This includes a range of controlling measures such as obligatory haircuts, loose-fitting ‎clothing, strictly limited access to communications and entertainment such as mobile p‎ hones and television, and so “The exploitation and subordination of women are concealed ‎through discourses which naturalise care work for women, portraying it as an inherent a‎ ttribute of the gender and punishing those who diverge from it” on(Constable 1997). ‎Care workers’ interactions with children may also be deeply scrutinised and surveilled. ‎ All that, coupled with the difficulty care workers face in accessing support networks and ‎advocacy groups from within the private sphere, as well as legal impediments to that end, ‎further exacerbates care workers’ vulnerability to abuse and exploitation. Finally, these p‎ roblems are compounded by other forms of structural discrimination such as racism and c‎ lassism. Scholars have called attention to the various ways in which paid domestic workers ‎try to strengthen their sense of self, either by dragging their feet, working only for ‎households they approve of or withholding affection towards the members of the family t‎hey work for. Such responses are worth investigating, as they not only expose the daily a‎ buses care workers can face, but also acknowledge that care workers are not simply ‎passive victims of their predicaments. ‎

9 Part 3. Main Challenges of the Region’s Care Economy ‎ For the purposes of this paper, we have identified the following challenges from both a f‎eminist and social justice perspective:‎ • The Kafala system, which is common, codified and normalised in the MENA region. ‎This system locks poor female migrant domestic care workers into an employment r‎ elationship characterised by subordination and full dependence, and which r‎esembles slavery. The Kafala system is a typical illustration of the complex and m‎ ultilayered web of discrimination, oppression and exploitation. Indeed, poor w‎ omen from poor and often conflict-ridden countries that fail to provide protection f‎or their nationals beyond their borders(e.g. Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, ‎Philippines) seek employment in wealthy and/ or more stable countries(e.g. the ‎Persian Gulf, the Levant) where they are poorly treated and, on top of that, ‎embroiled in racist discourses and practices.‎ • Patriarchal ideologies. Here we refer to ideologies which devalue care work, w‎ omen’s behaviour in general and are entrenched in hierarchical religious family ‎laws that define men as the head of the household with unfettered advantages and ‎benefits, and also give them the power to control women’s bodies and life choices.‎ • ‎Inadequacy and poor enforcement of laws, including labour laws. Labour laws in the ‎region fail to recognise the nature of care work. Thus, women involved in both paid ‎and unpaid work have no legal recourse at a time when violations in the private s‎ phere are poorly defined or not defined at all.‎ • Conflicting opinions within the feminist movement. Remuneration for care work is a ‎controversial topic, as some feminists see it as a tool to exclude women from w‎ orking in the public sphere.‎ • The current discourse of most women’s rights organisations, which considers care w‎ ork redistribution or care work provided by the state or private sector a way of i‎ncreasing employee productivity. This is problematic because it gives into capitalist ‎logic and these organisations believe it is the only approach that works.‎ • The invisibility of the private sphere. Care work is often under the radar of the state, ‎which directly reflects the total invisibility of care work, whether paid or unpaid.‎ • A lack of feminist mobilisation. It has started in several countries in the region ‎(‎Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc.) but so far only with limited influence/capacities. ‎However, it was able to make the issue of care work visible in a relatively short ‎period of time, especially in relation to female migrant domestic workers. ‎ • A lack of first-hand accounts. The voices of women carers themselves has yet to be h‎ eard, especially in terms of how they feel about this labour.‎ • The stable demand for care work. Many "feminised"occupations are expected to ‎face big job losses due to digitalisation and automation, however, care work is e‎ xpected to stay in demand, as it requires high levels of emotional intelligence and h‎ uman interactions.‎

11 Part 4. Feminist perspectives on the future of care work: An impulse for ‎discussion ‎ Studying care work and advocating for its just and equal valuation is an important e‎ ndeavour, especially given that, as a conventionally "women’s domain", care work is often n‎ eglected due to male biases in research and data collection on labour worldwide. While r‎ecent initiatives have emerged that seek to focus on bringing care work to light and to ‎mobilise for better labour conditions, there are still many elements that must be considered ‎in order to formulate a committed feminist approach that focuses on the voices of those ‎most affected by policies, ideologies and discourses surrounding care work. Feminist policy ‎must espouse anti-colonial approaches and focus first on what women care workers t‎hemselves have to say: for example, how they view their own situation, what they aspire to a‎ nd why, and how they seek to fulfil their hopes. While international agencies have done commendable work with regards to women’s ‎labour, their vocabulary and ideas around issues of empowerment and freedom may not be ‎the same as their beneficiaries’. Feminists must avoid a universal and ethnocentric ‎language that claims to represent what women’s desires are worldwide. At the same time, w‎ e need to be weary of culturalist explanations that do not represent the diversity within t‎he region. ‎ The Middle East has often been subject to such analyses that reduce women’s expectations ‎and injustices to"Arab-Islamic customs", social pressure and notions of honour. While ‎practices related to religion and community are certainly important – especially when the ‎women in question bring them up – feminists must still strive to take the political context ‎into account. That includes both the local context – e.g. the state, institutions and informal ‎ways of organising – as well as the global context, e.g. capitalist economies and global d‎ ynamics, migration, etc. These frameworks affect gender ideologies and roles, and have a d‎ irect impact on the structure of the household. ‎ Anthropologists and sociologists, moreover, have challenged us to rethink what care work is ‎in various contexts, as well as what purpose it serves in the economy, from invisible unpaid ‎subsistence labour to infrastructure co-opted by multinational corporations. As such, there is ‎a serious need to assess the value of care work within the region as a tool for evidence-‎based advocacy.‎It is also crucial to incorporate an intersectional framework into any analysis of care work. A‎ s mentioned previously, economic dynamics must come into play in any care work ‎arrangements. And, rather than reduce these divisions of labour as mere expressions of"‎‎ cultural beliefs", we must explore how class comes into play in these ideologies. At the s‎ame time, other social conditions and identities interact with gender and class when it c‎ omes to care work. While feminists have rightly identified that care work has been long ‎ignored due to male biases towards a"feminised"field of labour, it is important to avoid s‎implifying this range of activities as"women’s work", i.e. a topic specific to women’s ‎studies.‎ Race, ethnicity, sexuality and other markers of identity also come into play in this work. ‎Queer people make up a substantial amount of care workers and they may face a number o‎ f issues due to their identity that are otherwise not experienced by cisgender heterosexual ‎women. Moreover, queer socialisation may be a way of resisting and finding relief from the ‎pressures of domestic work. Race is also a major issue, especially when one considers m‎ igrant paid

12 “Race is also a major issue, especially when one considers ‎migrant paid domestic workers and the often racialised abuse they face at the hands of ‎their employers as well as the state, a problem that is notoriously widespread in the Middle E‎ ast under the Kafala system” domestic workers and the often racialised abuse they face at the hands of t‎heir employers as well as the state, a problem that is notoriously widespread in the Middle E‎ ast under the Kafala system. An intersectional approach would thus allow activists to m‎ obilise marginalised or erased groups, such as refugees, migrants or queer people, to f‎ight for just care work.‎ I would like to end this paper by referring to the "care diamond", a concept introduced by R‎ azavi (2007) in which she highlights four sources of care provisions, both paid/underpaid or ‎unpaid: the family, the market, the state, and the nongovernment and non-state actors. The c‎ are diamond initiative proposes the redistribution of care among these four different a‎ ctors, a matter that would require financial investment in the private service market or ‎public investment by both the government and the community. This model is based on the ‎recognition that the benefits derived from care work exceed the circle of the direct and i‎ndirect receivers of care. Thus, a public, private and/or community investment in care work ‎is an investment in the quality and durability of the overall social infrastructure.

14 References Constable, Nicole(1997): Sexuality and Discipline among Filipina Domestic Workers in Hong Kong, in: American Ethnologist, 24(3): 539–558.‎ Collier, Jane and Sylvia Yanagisako(1987): Towards a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship, in: Gender and Kinship: Essays Towards a Unified Analysis. Stanford:‎Stanford University Press.‎ Collins, Jane(1990): Unwaged Labor in Comparative Perspective: Recent Theories and Unanswered Questions, in: Work Without Wages: Domestic Labor and Self Employment Within Capitalism. Albany: State University of New York Press.‎ Elyachar, Julia(2010): Phatic Labor, Infrastructure, and the Question of Empowerment in Cairo, American Ethnologist, 37(3): 452–464.‎ Federici, Silvia(1975): Wages against Housework, in: Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, ‎ Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. Oakland: PM Press.‎ Hardt, Michael(1999): Affective Labor, in: boundary 2, 26(2): 89–100.‎ James, Deborah(2015): Money from Nothing: Indebtedness and Aspiration in South Africa. ‎Stanford: Stanford University Press.‎ Lutz, Helma(2010): Gender in the Migratory Process, in: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10): 1647–1663.‎ Mies, Maria(1986): Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor. London: Zed.‎ Ong, Aihwa(1987): Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia. Albany: SUNY Press.‎ Pun, Ngai(2005): Made in China: Women Factory Workers in a Global Workplace. Durham:‎ Duke University Press.‎

www.fes-mena.org/topics/political-feminism