History Extra Podcast: "Wages for Housework – The Daring 1970s Campaign That Challenged Women’s Roles"

Host: Ellie Cawthorn
Guest: Emily Callachi (author, historian)
Date: September 21, 2025

Episode Overview

The episode delves into the radical "Wages for Housework" movement of the 1970s—a campaign led by visionary feminists demanding financial compensation for unpaid domestic labor, primarily done by women. Host Ellie Cawthorn interviews historian Emily Callachi, whose new book explores the origins, challenges, philosophies, and enduring legacies of this movement, highlighting both its controversial impact in its own era and its relevance in modern debates around care work and gender equality.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Personal Motivation & Historical Relevance

• Emily Callachi’s Inspiration ([02:47]):
  Callachi, herself a parent grappling with the double burden of child care and professional work, was motivated by the invisibility and undervaluation of "reproductive labor." Her personal journey led her into the archives of Silvia Federici, uncovering a "world of radical, ambitious feminists… concerned with precisely this question: how is it that work essential for capitalism is completely unrecognized and uncompensated?"

Historical Context of Housework and Gender

• Traditional Roles Pre-1970s ([04:58]): Callachi emphasizes the historical assumption of women's "natural destiny" for domestic labor, a view that second wave feminism sought to shatter. However, the "Wages for Housework" campaign controversially chose not to reject housework but to demand its recognition and compensation, reframing its social value.

Origins & Leading Figures of the Movement

• Movement's Genesis ([06:04]):
  • Began in 1972, spearheaded by Selma James (London, UK) and Maria Rosa Dalla Costa (Padua, Italy).
  • Both emerged from activist backgrounds—James from working-class and antiracist activism, Dalla Costa from Italian student and labor movements.
  • Both identified unpaid women’s labor as the missing dimension in class struggle.

Notable Quote ([07:35]):

“That assembly line does not end at the gates of the factory. It actually extends all the way into the worker's home, where someone is cleaning his clothes and cooking his food and sustaining him. And that's where the struggle against capitalism should start.”
—Maria Rosa Dalla Costa, cited by Emily Callachi

Defining the Demand: Literal Wages or Symbolic Value?

• Purpose of the Demand ([10:08]):
  • The movement literally wanted wages, not just symbolic recognition:

    “It was not symbolic, it was literally asking for money because that is the first step towards the kind of revolution they had in mind.” ([10:08])

    • The aim was to expose capitalism’s dependence on unpaid labor and thus challenge its foundations.
  • Selma James’s stance was particularly pragmatic:

    “We want money in our pockets… but again, for her, that was not the end point…” ([10:57])

Strategies and Tactics

• Making Housework Visible ([12:48]):
  • Political theater, street protests, provocative Mother's Day demonstrations ("Don't give us roses and chocolates—give us recognition for our labor"), media appearances, zines, and symbolic "trials" against the state were integral.
  • The campaign broke into mainstream coverage by the Guardian, Daily Mail, and others.

Internationalism and Intersectionality

• Diverse Leadership & Global Reach ([14:13]):
  Callachi structured her book around five women from diverse backgrounds:
  • Selma James (UK, working-class/antiracist)
  • Maria Rosa Dalla Costa (Italy, labor activism)
  • Silvia Federici (Italy/US, emotional & gendered dimensions of housework)
  • Wilmette Brown (US, Black Panther/Black feminist)
  • Margaret Prescott (Barbados/US, migration and postcolonial struggles)
• Intersectional Analysis:
  The movement was seen as both gendered and racialized, tied to class, migration, and colonialism.

Notable Quote ([15:44]):

“These women were the ones who were being exploited, who were creating all this wealth… wages for housework was an argument that transcended national boundaries.”
—Emily Callachi (about Margaret Prescott’s perspective)

Reception within Feminism and Society

• Disruptive and Divisive ([20:15]):
  • The movement was both energizing and alienating. For some working-class women, it was “refreshing.” For others, it ran counter to women’s attempts to flee domestic roles.
  • Critics argued: “Why identify with housework and demand compensation, thus entrenching gender roles?”
  • Callachi counters: equality through paid employment presupposes addressing unpaid labor.

Internal Divisions and Legacy

• Movement Splits ([22:06]):
  • Disagreements emerged over leadership styles (centralized vs. grassroots), and issues of racism (particularly faced by Black women organizers like Brown and Prescott).
  • By the late 1970s, groups in New York and Italy splintered, but organizing continued elsewhere, such as the UK and US.

Notable Quote ([23:34]):

“Black women not being respected in the movement… Margaret Prescott has been on the record talking about personally facing racism within that movement and kind of moving away from that side of the New York Wages for Housework committee.”
—Emily Callachi

• Ongoing Activism:
  • Efforts morphed into the “Global Women’s Strike,” advocating “care income,” a more inclusive language for diverse forms of unpaid care ([25:15]).

The Movement’s Modern Resonance

• Contemporary Impact ([26:09]):
  • Despite initial controversy, many ideas have resurfaced in progressive movements:
    • Pandemic-era discussions about the value of care work
    • Welfare reform and “care income” proposals (e.g., in Venezuela)
    • Green New Deal conversations about sustainable, care-focused economies
    • Prison abolition and investment in community care as alternatives to carceral systems

Notable Quote ([26:49]):

“What seemed like a really radical, sort of quirky idea in the 70s has all of these fruits politically and intellectually all these years later.”
—Emily Callachi

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• On the parodox of housework in feminism:

  “Rather than reject housework, we're going to actually recognize it and demand compensation for it.”
  —Emily Callachi ([05:35])

• On the movement’s aims:

  “Demanding compensation for that reveals the truth about capitalism... to challenge that entire system as a whole and potentially to end that system by making it unaffordable.”
  —Emily Callachi ([10:38])

• On representation:

  “It's not wages for housewives, it’s wages for housework. Anyone who does that work was part of this kind of struggle…”
  —Emily Callachi ([08:56])

Section Timestamps

• 02:47 — Emily Callachi’s personal motivation & discovery of the archives
• 04:58 — Historical status quo of women’s housework pre-1970s
• 06:04 — Origins and biographical backgrounds of Selma James and Maria Rosa Dalla Costa
• 08:56 — On "wages for housework" not being only for women
• 10:08 — Literal versus symbolic aims of the campaign
• 12:48 — Visibility tactics: Activism, Mother's Day, media coverage
• 14:13 — Introducing five pivotal women and their unique perspectives
• 20:15 — Reception in the feminist movement and broader society
• 22:06 — Internal divisions over leadership and race
• 25:15 — Survival beyond the 1970s and transitions to new forms of activism
• 26:09 — Enduring legacies and modern-day relevance

Summary Takeaway

This episode masterfully links a seemingly niche, 1970s feminist campaign to today’s economic and social debates about care, gender, and equality. Through rich historical storytelling and contemporary reflection, listeners come away understanding that the "Wages for Housework" movement was both a product of its time and a prescient forerunner of modern movements to recognize—and properly value—the labor essential to our societies but too often invisible.