Suchergebnisse

RésuméCet article traite de certains aspects du système de santé canadien qui secouent la cohésion sociale. Le plus populaire de tous les programmes sociaux, le système de santé, est régi par cinq principes définis dans laLoi canadienne de la santé. Chacun en soi et comme ensemble, ces principes contribuent à la cohésion sociale. Le système universel est cependant sous attaque de la part de différentes élites qui souhaitent privatiser certains éléments et dont la stratégie principale est appelée ici privatisation à la dérobée. Le texte aborde la rupture de la cohésion sociale par la privatisation de manière générale mais aussi en analysant le cas des centres communautaires ontariens d'accès aux soins qui sous-traitent, à travers la province, des fonds publics à des agences de soins à domicile qu'ils soient à buts lucratifs ou non.

Cover; Endorsement; Half Title; Series Page; Title Page; Copyright Page; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; Acknowledgments; Contributors; An Introduction to the Team and to Teamwork; Part 1 Privatization in Six Countries; Chapter 1 Privatizing Care: Setting the Stage; Chapter 2 The Growth of the For-Profit Nursing Home Sector in Norway and Sweden: Driving Forces and Resistance; Chapter 3 Privatization of Nursing Homes in the United Kingdom and the United States

An examination of the development & impact of the Ontario (Canada) Pay Equity Legislation, arguing that an alliance formed by a wide variety of womens' groups was able, in the economic upswing of the late 1980s, to demand from a coalition government a very progressive piece of legislation. The impact of the legislation, however, has been contradictory, serving simultaneously to unite & divide women, to bring significant pay raises for some & leave others with no material gains, & to transform political issues into technical questions & increase women's access to critical information. Perhaps the most important consequences of the struggles surrounding implementation of the legislation will be changes in women's consciousness, specifically, in their commonsense understanding of what constitutes fair pay. AA

The assumption of separate market & household spheres has been widely held by feminist as well as by nonfeminist theorists, despite increasing evidence for interpenetration of the household & the economy. Recent literature documenting this theme is reviewed, including works by Susan Strasser (Never Done: A History of American Housework, New York, 1982), Ruth Schwartz Cowan (More Work for Mothers: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, New York, 1983), & Dolores Hayden (The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities, Cambridge, Mass, 1981). The current structure of the US household & family appears as largely a product of deliberate efforts by capital to give the Wc interests & living conditions that would induce them to cooperate with capital. Though these authors do not consistently support a Marxist interpretation of their evidence, they provide a strong case for recognizing the linkage of the personal & the political. W. H. Stoddard

A response to the discussion of the oppressed status of women under capitalism by Patricia Connelly (see abstract elsewhere in this section) & Michelle Barrett (Women's Oppression Today, London, 1980). Issues challenged in Barrett's analysis include her view of the impact of M labor unions on sex segregation in the labor market, & her implication that women's subordination is "crucial" but not "essential" to capitalist production. Theoretical opposition to Connelly's argument is based on her attempt to minimize the effects of women's biology in analyzing capitalist modes of production. It is argued that economic equality of the sexes will only be realized with the end of capitalism. D. Dunseath.

Building on & profiting from a wide range of feminist & Marxist analyses, ways are suggested to move beyond the classless sex of most feminist writing & the sexless SC of most Marxist works to a political economy that recognizes sexual divisions as integral to theoretical development & to capitalism. Recognizing that many aspects of the sexual DofL predate capitalism, it is argued that there is a sexual DofL particular to capitalist society. Because capitalism is premised on free wage labor & separation of most aspects of worker's reproduction from the production process, women's reproductive capacities separate them from the production process for childbearing work. This establishes the basis for an elaboration of sex differences, ie, for a sexual DofL that subordinates women & pervades all levels of activity under capitalism. Such segregation also fundamentally divides SCs. To recognize the differences in F & M reproductive capacities, eg, that women have babies & that this fact must be integrated at all levels of theoretical abstraction, is not to resort to a biological explanation of women's subordination or to call for an elimination of women's childbearing responsibilities. Physical capacities do not exist autonomously from power structures & productive processes; nor are they beyond human control & manipulation. The reworking of theory required must include an analysis of biology that is historical, materialist, & dialectical. It must recognize that the Wc comes in two sexes. Modified AA.