The initial stages of the wages for housework perspective

In 1971, a group of women in Padua affiliated to Potere Operaio began to meet and discuss an unpublished text written by Mariarosa Dalla Costa on the productive value of domestic labour. Stemming from Dalla Costa's theoretical reflections, which were in turn influenced by her encounter the previous year with Selma James, a militant feminist group began to take shape. This group would generate insights and advocate for tools and activities aimed at facilitating women's liberation from the exploitation perpetuated by patriarchal and capitalist societies (Dalla Costa, Toupin and Curcio Reference Dalla Costa, Toupin and Curcio2021, 72–75).

Mariarosa Dalla Costa, a prominent figure in Marxist-based feminism, played a crucial role in Lotta Femminista. While serving as Antonio Negri's assistant at the University of Padua during this time, she was deeply influenced by New Left theories. Dalla Costa's involvement in the workers' movement and extra-parliamentary activism led her to delve into the concept of exploitation, highlighting a significant gap in political discourse regarding women's struggles and challenges.Footnote ⁶

According to the recollections of Flavia and Sandra Busatta, participants in the inaugural meeting that laid the foundation for the group, Dalla Costa was keen to discuss the oppression of women with some compagne, so in June 1971 she went to the Potere Operaio headquarters in Padua and, before the weekly meeting began, asked permission to share with the women in attendance a draft paper she had written addressing the role of unpaid housework in women's oppression. Selma James was also present. This initial meeting sparked enthusiasm, and the women continued to meet throughout the summer, either at Dalla Costa's home or at the Potere Operaio office.

During this initial phase, the group's primary goal was to raise awareness about the specific exploitation faced by women. Through intense internal debates, in July 1971, the group drafted a programmatic manifesto outlining its political strategy. Titled ‘Manifesto Programmatico per la lotta delle casalinghe nel quartiere’, the document aimed to articulate clear and concise demands; however, it fell short in providing detailed insights on the implementation of the group's proposals. The manifesto consists of two sections. The first section includes a succinct summary of theoretical perspectives on domestic work, highlighting how women, regardless of employment or social class, are predominantly tasked with household duties, which create value in the capitalist system but go uncompensated. The second part introduces proposals, such as assigning domestic tasks to specialised individuals and providing remuneration by the municipality or state, creating accessible social spaces for household tasks, establishing free daycare centres, and ensuring free healthcare and assistance facilities for the elderly and sick. This manifesto is unique for being initially composed in both Italian and English, stressing the group's transnational aspirations. Selma James played a crucial role in this direction, acting as a liaison with English-speaking countries.

Additionally, the collective aimed to encourage the involvement of women from more varied backgrounds, as it initially consisted mostly of middle-class women affiliated with universities, either as students or professors (such as the Busatta sisters and other interviewees). Establishing connections with women from different social backgrounds and life paths was vital for these activists. In the first few months, the group rapidly expanded and gained visibility through word of mouth and flyering. Flavia Busatta, a chemistry student and one of the group leaders along with Dalla Costa, recalled in her interview that the group grew from an initial meeting of six or seven participants to a core of about 20, with up to 100 women participating during peak periods of engagement.

Exchange ideas and sharpen political analysis

According to a periodisation endorsed by various scholars (Ribero Reference Ribero1999; Lussana Reference Lussana2012; Bracke Reference Bracke and Capusotti2019), following the mobilisations of the biennium 1968–69, there was a proliferation of separatist women's groups and collectives across the country. In this context, Lotta Femminista seamlessly fits into the ethos of those years, as it is during this phase that the expansion into towns beyond Padua and the beginning of collective mobilisations evolved. According to Giuliana Pincelli, an activist in the Modena group and a former Potere Operaio member, Lotta Femminista established connections with women from various regions in Italy also through the Potere Operaio network. The group's growth beyond Padua resulted in the formation of affiliated groups in numerous cities throughout Italy, including Venice, Milan, Rome, Bolzano, Modena, Reggio Emilia, Ferrara, Bologna, Florence, and Gela (Lussana Reference Lussana2012, 171). This expansion, fuelled not only by the establishment of groups in various cities but also by the collective's increasing recognition and the high level of interest generated by its proposals, allowed Lotta Femminista to evolve into a national organisation characterised by regular national meetings and tight deadlines.

The peak of activity and influence for Lotta Femminista was 1972–73. These pivotal years witnessed the articulation of some of Lotta Femminista's crucial demands and strategies, initiated by the release of Dalla Costa's text Donne e sovversione sociale. Interestingly, the document circulated among women's groups as an internal resource even before its official release. Contrary to the ‘manifesto programmatico', which had a militant function, this text offers a political and in-depth analysis. Dalla Costa's work delves into the role of women within the framework of the capitalist division of labour, viewing the ‘women's issue’ as a unique form of class exploitation and touching on themes that later become central to the feminist movement discourse. Dalla Costa critiques the disproportionate burden of domestic labour on women, arguing that even those with jobs outside the home shoulder the bulk of household responsibilities. Her Marxist perspective highlights how domestic work generates labour power and value within capitalism, emphasising women's extended familial duties encompassing emotional and caregiving responsibilities. She distinguishes between oppression and exploitation, focusing on the latter rooted in the invisible nature of housework. This perspective diverges from feminist views solely focused on improving domestic efficiency or reconciling domestic and external work through contractual conditions or shared responsibilities. Instead, Dalla Costa advocates for a systemic overhaul and women's liberation from the confines of domesticity, challenging the traditional role of the housewife as central to family life. The text prioritises movement-building and establishing a women's movement that addresses specific female concerns, predating the introduction of wages as a political strategy.

This publication played a role in the decision to host in Padua a seminar on the topic of wages for domestic work in April 1972 (Picchio and Pincelli Reference Picchio and Pincelli2019, 66). By this time, various groups in Italian cities were already inspired by the political stance advocated by Padua, thanks to the circulation of documents and reflections on the subject of women's exploitation. The seminar evolved into a significant platform for women from various regions to meet and exchange ideas, as was the case for Giuliana Pincelli.

Pincelli, a high-school teacher from Modena who was part of a women's group that had started meeting and delving into documents produced by the Paduan women a few months before, presented a paper during the seminar that played a crucial role in shaping the discussions.Footnote ⁷ By analysing domestic work and the societal roles imposed on women, she put forth proposals and objectives for the organisation of the women's movement. She contextualised the reflection within the political horizon of the ‘refusal to work’, emphasising that all forms of organisation should focus on reducing working hours. This reduction, she argued, would create more space for meetings, discussions, and organising the struggle against the imposed roles and the capitalistic system in general. Additionally, Pincelli argued that advocating for free services, including childcare, schools, cafeterias, cleaning, and decent housing, was akin to supporting wage demands. However, this stance presumed that these services were meant to facilitate meetings and mobilisation, not to increase production. It's important to clarify that these services weren't the end goal; rather, they were viewed as a way to secure favourable conditions for the broader expansion of the struggle.

The demand for direct payment was considered a means to achieve independence and, consequently, freedom of choice and self-determination. In this context, Pincelli's final remarks emphasised that the demand for income should be framed within a broader class perspective. The demand for a guaranteed wage for housework fundamentally rejected the idea that women should solely bear the responsibility for reproducing ‘labour power’. Notably, Pincelli, a woman from Modena, raised the issue of services. In Emilia-Romagna, governed by the Left, there was a functional welfare system, unlike in other regions. However, the feminists’ primary concern was the very concept of work and its definition. They did not seek to merely improve their conditions; they aimed to transform the concept of work itself and, consequently, the role of women in society (Gissi Reference Gissi, Sarti, Bellavitis and Martini2018, 147).

From theory to practice: organising a feminist demand in the early 1970s

In the Italian feminist movement, known for its widespread engagement surpassing that of other countries (Rossi-Doria Reference Rossi-Doria, Bertilotti and Scattigno2005, 3), the perspective of wages for housework was actively embedded in practical activism and local mobilisations from the beginning.

Originally, Lotta Femminista focused on organising seminars, meetings, and surveys to better understand the life circumstances of housewives and women workers in areas like education, healthcare, and factories. Over time, the group intensified its commitment to tangible struggles. In alignment with other feminist groups, Lotta Femminista took action, distinguishing itself with a unique theoretical framework – specifically, interpreting society through the political lens of housework. The group addressed broad issues, including the right to contraception and abortion, the condemnation of violent medical practices, the lack of sufficient social services for mothers and workers, and concerns about school and housing conditions.

Lotta Femminista groups actively participated in various mobilisations, including well-organised campaigns involving mass demonstrations, strikes, and press engagement as a means of exerting pressure. Notable examples include the campaign advocating for the right to abortion, whose first public and recognised event was the mobilisation in 1973 related to the trial of Gigliola Pierobon, a Lotta Femminista militant facing charges over an alleged abortion she underwent at the age of 17.Footnote ⁹ There were also targeted actions addressing specific local issues, related to hospitals, neighbourhoods, or factories. In these localised efforts, the groups often aligned themselves with ongoing struggles that addressed immediate needs and concerns, frequently collaborating with other leftist organisations. For instance, they supported single mothers resisting evictions mandated by the Province of Milan.Footnote ¹⁰ Similarly, they fought for larger schools with adequate facilities in Mestre and exposed the violent gynaecological practices at Sant'Anna Hospital in Ferrara. Evidence of these struggles can be discovered within the archives of Lotta Femminista in Padua, which conserves leaflets, internal circulation reports, and letters detailing the events. At the same time, archival research revealed that despite efforts to assimilate into society and diversify their membership, the activists of Lotta Femminista were predominantly well-educated, middle-class, white women, occasionally leading to a disconnect between theory and practice. Simultaneously, the strategy of collaborating with other groups helped spread Lotta Femminista's ideas and analyses to groups and communities that were not primarily concerned with domestic work.

The exchange of practices and coordination among groups took place during national meetings. These gatherings were crucial opportunities for each Lotta Femminista group to share its experiences, discuss ongoing campaigns, and exchange the tools they utilised. They also served as forums for deliberation on the perspective of the struggle, strategies, and the theoretical foundations of their political work. Sharing also occurred through the production of newsletters and newspapers crafted by different groups, circulated internally within the network. This ensured that all groups were kept abreast of the developments occurring in other cities.

During these early critical years, Lotta Femminista developed key demands and strategies, notably distancing themselves from male groups. The events known as I fatti di luglio in 1972, a violent attack by men from extraparliamentary groups at a conference on women's employment, reinforced Lotta Femminista's commitment to independence from male-dominated organisations. It also pushed the group towards a more radical separatist stance. As a result of these events, internal debates on feminism arose within the left movement, ultimately leading to Lotta Femminista gaining political recognition.

In 1972, the rise of the wage perspective brought about an early acknowledgement of potential criticisms linked to this political demand. These critiques originated from both the PCI and the revolutionary left. The PCI advocated for women's emancipation through their integration into the workforce. Until at least the second half of the 1970s, the Unione Donne in Italia (UDI), one of the most significant women's associations established in the postwar era, unaffiliated with the PCI but closely aligned, upheld an emancipationist viewpoint. It prioritised attaining equality in civil and political rights with men, rather than engaging in discussions about female identity and roles. Moreover, it is important to highlight the PCI's promotion of a paternalistic and austere culture, particularly in the two decades following the Second World War, where women's roles were consistently viewed in relation to their position within the family (Arruzza Reference Arruzza2010, 59). This stance faced significant criticism from the broader feminist movement for being outdated. Conversely, the general perception from the extra-parliamentary left was that the women's movement was bourgeois, dividing the working class. Serious reflection on feminism by the main radical-left groups would only begin in the mid-1970s (Zuffa Reference Zuffa1987, 40). Additionally, challenges arose within the women's movement, where the pursuit of wages was seen as reinforcing traditional roles for women within the household. However, a more in-depth exploration of this aspect will follow in the next paragraph.

The origin of the Italian women's movement and Lotta Femminista

As noted before, Lotta Femminista prioritised the creation of a women's movement from the beginning. This led the group to undertake pioneering political initiatives during the early stages of Italy's feminist movement, alongside other organisations. As the Paduan group and initial collectives of Lotta Femminista formed, activists worked to shape a nationwide movement.

In alignment with Elisa Bellè's thesis in her essay in Anni di Rivolta (Reference Bellè, Stelliferi and Voli2023), Lotta Femminista's proactive involvement highlights the need to challenge hierarchical distinctions between centre and periphery, which often prioritize the experiences of major urban centres like Rome, Milan, or Turin in feminist narratives. Bellè advocates for a feminist geopolitical approach that values seemingly peripheral experiences, such as those in Trento, which served as crucial nodes in networks of friendships, intellectual exchanges, and political connections. Similarly, Padua, influenced by factors like its university presence, a robust New Left movement, and proximity to industrial hubs like Porto Marghera, actively contributed to shaping the women's movement through meetings, discussions, and networking.

While Bellè's analysis primarily focuses on a national level, her considerations of geographic rebalancing also have implications on an international scale. The case of Lotta Femminista illustrates that the origins of the women's movement are not singularly rooted but are more complex and multifaceted. As Elda Guerra suggests with her concept of 'molti inizi' ('many beginnings'), the women's movement has diverse origins not only within Italy but also globally. Lotta Femminista's international engagement underscores Italy's distinctive role in the global theoretical production of the feminist movement, reinforcing the idea that there are multiple origins and paths within the women's movements worldwide (Guerra Reference Guerra, Bertilotti and Scattigno2005, 29).

Throughout Italy, this period was marked by a flurry of initiatives, meetings, and discussions addressing women's issues in innovative ways. The discussion around periodisation holds significant weight in the history of feminism, particularly concerning its origins. Regarding Lotta Femminista, it is evident that its development was influenced not only by its proximity to the extra-parliamentary left but also by its geographical location, particularly in northern Italy.

Calabrò and Grasso's Dal movimento femminista al femminismo diffuso (2004) provides valuable insights into the early stages and structures of the feminist movement. They detail the history of feminist groups in Milan and place Lotta Femminista within this broader context. A key moment was the June 1971 meeting at the Società Umanitaria in Milan, which included groups from various cities and marked a pivotal point in the movement's development. This meeting not only highlighted the idea of creating a unified movement but also revealed divergences within Italian feminism.

During the event, two main strands emerged: groups emphasising consciousness-raising (‘gruppi di riflessione’) and groups more focused on social action (‘gruppi di intervento nel sociale’). Lotta Femminista was immediately aligned with the latter category (Calabrò and Grasso Reference Calabrò and Grasso2004, 68). The congress was arranged by Anabasi, a women's group that had emerged in Milan a few years prior. Notably, the opening statement of the invitation letter mentioned that the inspiration for the congress partly stemmed from Selma James, described as 'una compagna femminista inglese', who was visiting Italy during that period. Sources confirm that James led a workshop addressing potential challenges in forming a feminist movement, particularly the complications that might arise between feminist and revolutionary organisations or broader leftist parties (Centro di Documentazione delle donne - Bologna 1990, 57) .Footnote ¹¹

The debate over wages for housework quickly resonated throughout the feminist movement, attracting both support and criticism. This expansion of the discussion clearly underscores Lotta Femminista's prominent role within the women's movement. As a result of Lotta Femminista's significant influence and its close relationship with Selma James, I argue that James's ideas had a considerable impact on Italian feminism.

As recalled in a report of the meeting made by the organisers, the topic of housework immediately took centre stage in discussions during the conference. From the outset, Lotta Femminista emphasised its significance compared to other issues, such as autocoscienza (consciousness-raising). However, this perspective faced swift criticism from other groups. The primary objection was that Lotta Femminista didn't draw from their own experiences but rather proposed theories about ‘others’ (such as female workers, housewives, etc.) without sharing personal stories.Footnote ¹² Initially, criticisms centred more on the formal aspects of Lotta Femminista's approach rather than substantive concerns. Their methods were viewed as too reminiscent of those used by male groups. Concurrently, other feminist groups were already exploring the creation of alternative female realities, languages, and relationships. In subsequent years, as Lotta Femminista advocated for wages for domestic work, objections shifted towards the content of their proposal, as detailed in the following paragraph.

The debate around wages for housework within the Italian movement

In September 1973, the Lotta Femminista network took a crucial step in addressing the issue of wages for housework. They distributed a collaborative document called the Volantone among various women's movement groups. This pamphlet marked the network's first attempt to create a shared tool for organising a moment of public mobilisation, as highlighted by the network itself (Collettivo Internazionale Femminista Reference Femminista1975,15). The document served a dual purpose: presenting Lotta Femminista's analysis, which focused on the exploitation of women within the home, and rallying support for the demand for wages for housework.

In this document, there was an explanation of how to articulate the demand for wages for housework, beginning with an examination of the family allowances system. Although the debate over family allowances was less central to Italian politics and the feminist movement compared to other countries at the time, Lotta Femminista, likely due to its international connections, viewed it as a crucial entry point for exploring the broader role of women in the family and developing a strategic approach to their struggle.

Established during the Fascist regime and later regulated by a law in 1955, the Italian family allowance system allowed employed workers to request a subsidy from the state. However, it distributed a modest amount directly to the ‘head of the household’ operating on the premise of dependents (persone a carico). This meant that the wife, children, the elderly, and the disabled, were treated as individuals requiring financial support due to their perceived lack of productivity.

The feminists of Lotta Femminista contended that the core problem lay in the perception of domestic management and caregiving. Rather than recognising it as work, it was viewed as a natural obligation for women, almost an inherent part of their identity. The concealment of household labour served the interests of capital and the state, allowing them to cut costs and obtain necessary social reproductive work without compensation. Moreover, women found themselves in a state of dependency, not just economically but also psychologically. Likewise, in line with the idea of making housework visible, Lotta Femminista advocated a strike of women ‘from the home’, precisely to highlight the essential nature of their caregiving work within the family. Lotta Femminista's approach, instead of seeking an increase in the allowances themselves, as suggested by the main unions, proposed demanding an income detached from the ‘breadwinner’ salary, linked exclusively to domestic work – a wage for a houseworker. As Tommaso Rebora (Reference Rebora, Stelliferi and Voli2023) astutely pointed out, these feminists' examination of domestic labour extended beyond conventional wage claims. Instead, they questioned the fundamental assumptions underpinning class struggle, advocating for income against work (Federici Reference Federici1975).

After the pamphlet circulated, the discussion on wages for housework, as planned by the collective, expanded and reached the feminist movement's press. The feminist magazine Effe, which had already addressed domestic labour in its December 1973 issue, chose to open a debate specifically on the issues raised by the Volantone in its March 1974 issue. This edition featured a transcript of a discussion held at the magazine's office, with active participation from various feminist organisations based in Rome. The participants included Lidia Menapace from the newspaper and political group Il Manifesto; Luciana Di Lello from the Collettivo Femminista Comunista; Rita di Gioacchino, a journalist unaffiliated with any group; and several members of the Pompeo Magno collective,Footnote ¹⁴ including Giuseppina Santilli, Rosalba Pistelli, Giovanna Pala, and Lara Foletti, the editor of Effe.

Overall, the discussion revealed unanimous agreement on Lotta Femminista's analysis of domestic work, emphasising that external employment did not liberate women from their oppressed conditions. However, amidst ongoing political changes, some women stressed the importance of defending female employment as it could be valuable in certain contexts. Opinions diverged sharply on the issue of wages. Critics expressed concerns that a salary might further entrench women in domestic roles rather than liberate them. Some argued for the abolition of domestic work entirely, viewing it as a role rather than a job. Others criticised the economic focus of Lotta Femminista's discourse, arguing that merely demanding compensation was insufficient for challenging patriarchal and capitalist systems. Additional criticism questioned the practicality of obtaining wages, given capitalist resistance and the state's likely refusal to entertain such proposals. Concerns also emerged about the commodification of domestic work, with some fearing that remuneration could turn it into a commodity, complicating collective bargaining due to the lack of a shared work environment.

Concerns about economism and the perpetuation of traditional gender roles diminished when it was clarified that Lotta Femminista viewed the demand for wages not as an ultimate goal but as a strategic tool for initiating broader systemic changes. This perspective was grounded in the idea that, firstly, housework could not be eliminated, and merely asking men to share duties would not be a resolution. Secondly, housework was productive and essential for capital. Therefore, in a waged society, it should have been remunerated to be considered valuable, regardless of who would do it (Toupin Reference Toupin2023, 80–88).

While some criticisms seemed to arise from misunderstandings of Lotta Femminista's proposal, concerns about commodification brought a new perspective on reproduction and whether labour power could be considered a commodity. This viewpoint suggested that while a campaign for wages might not be fundamentally flawed, it could be exploited and twisted to undermine women's interests in the current context. The core question was whether reproduction should be seen as work just like factory labour, and if commodifying it was necessary to challenge the system of female exploitation. Lotta Femminista took a firm position: housework constituted labour that produced commodities, even though it was unpaid. The real commodity was the labour force itself, which capital exploited through the work done by women (‘Soldi alle Donne’, Archivio di Lotta Femminista per il salario al lavoro domestico, sez. 4, serie 1, 9, 1973).

The objections to the wage proposal, highlighted in Effe's article, continued to resonate and re-emerged later, without ever reaching a resolution. However, the significance of the debate was underscored by its prominence during the first national feminist conference in Italy, held at Pinarella di Cervia in 1974. This historical context emphasises the ongoing debate within the movement and the challenges of reconciling differing perspectives on the role of wages in addressing women's issues.

The end of Lotta Femminista and the beginning of a new phase

Lotta Femminista disbanded in October 1974 due to disagreements over political strategies and internal discord. Throughout 1973, the collective engaged in substantial internal debates during national coordination meetings, addressing issues related to power dynamics, the organisation of the struggle, and the structure of the national network. A document circulated by the Milan group during this period raised concerns about the absence of a clear division of labour among different locations and leadership issues involving certain compagne. The document, circulated strictly for internal use, did not mention specific individuals, or make precise accusations, but some interviewees suggested a reference to the Padua group, which was criticised for centralisation. Additionally, the Milan group proposed concrete measures for political practice.

The Milanese group emphasised the need for practical actions. They actively engaged in the local feminist movement, participating in collective meetings where various groups exchanged ideas. This interaction made the group especially open to criticisms from other feminist currents, which it sought to share with the rest of the network in this document. They pointed to certain women within Lotta Femminista who, adopting an attitude of intellectual superiority, leaned towards sectarianism rather than engaging the broader feminist movement. Against the backdrop of certain factions within Lotta Femminista distancing themselves from the broader women's movement, the Milanese group responded with strategic initiatives. They shared three significant experiences that enhanced their discourse on wages, resonating with various collectives. Firstly, their push for full wages for part-time women workers found support from influential female workers at the Eni factory. Secondly, they proposed establishing a cost-free nursery managed by women in a community-oriented neighbourhood. Lastly, the group teamed up with other feminist collectives in Milan to produce a pamphlet addressing abortion.

Archival documents reveal that other cities faced similar challenges in translating political theory into action, engaging in local mobilisations across sectors like hospitals, factories, schools, and universities. The issue appeared to revolve around both internal communication and coordination among the various groups. After the initial push, the groups began operating independently, each pursuing different approaches and even differing in how they articulated the wage demand. Externally, the criticism of sectarianism directed by Milanese groups towards others was tied to a perceived lack of dialogue within the women's movement overall. The situation in Milan was distinct not just because of the city's size, which had spawned numerous feminist groups, but also because Milan had a communal meeting space (a room on via Cherubini) for gathering and sharing ideas (Calabrò and Grasso Reference Calabrò and Grasso2004). This was a resource lacking in other towns and cities across the country, where communication between different feminist groups was more challenging.

During national meetings in Padua (October 1973) and Florence (November 1973), two opposing positions emerged. One proposed a national campaign for wages for housework, culminating in a three-day national strike in the summer of 1974, while the other rejected the campaign idea and suggested practical local actions, including the creation of sexual information centres, the establishment of a women's struggles-focused newspaper, debates based on leaflet distribution, and increased demonstrations supporting the salary theory. The Padua group led by Dalla CostaFootnote ¹⁶ and the Venice group supported the national campaign, advocating for committees to be formed across Italy.

They viewed wages primarily as monetary, placing battles for services in a secondary position. The other position, initially seeming predominant, left open the possibility for Padua and Venice to form committees but engage on other fronts too.Footnote ¹⁷ Discussions regarding the preferred political strategy continued throughout the subsequent year. On 10 June 1974, Padua group number 2 (led by Dalla Costa) sent a letter inviting other groups to an urgent co-ordination meeting in Padua by the end of the month. The letter makes mention of the advocacy efforts carried out by the women of that group in the previous months to garner support for the campaign idea and foster unity within the network. They visited every city and held meetings with each group to explore issues related to their vision. Despite extensive internal discussions, Lotta Femminista decided to disband, citing ‘varied political analyses and practices’ as the reason for dissolution (cf. Collettivo Internazionale Femminista Reference Femminista1975, 16). It appears that reconciliation between the two positions was unachievable.

After the disbandment, some groups joined the Rete dei Comitati per il Salario al Lavoro Domestico, continuing their feminist efforts within this new framework, while others established autonomous women's centres, focusing on feminist politics without national coordination. The women who had proposed the committee network the previous year worked diligently to establish it and integrate Italy into the broader international network, which had by then launched the International Wages for Housework Campaign.

Although Lotta Femminista's trajectory ended, the discussion about wages persisted and gained renewed global significance. This resurgence was propelled by participants in the committee network, which was part of a broader International Feminist Collective that included women's groups from the UK, the US, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany (Toupin Reference Toupin2023, 83).