4 ms·

Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero. Build a mansion around this kitchen -> morally repreh

Take a homeless person and let them sleep in your kitchen in exchange for mowing your lawn -> moral hero. Build a mansion around this kitchen -> morally reprehensible It seems contrast in an unrelated area has confused the morally righteous over here. Do you own a nice car? Have a room in your house that is currently empty? There are people out there who could use some of that wealth for food. How would you feel if this wasn't a mansion but instead a small shack with only a kitchen and an adjacent room? It seems we're ok with: Low contrast at any distance, High contrast at large distances. But not high contrast at short distances It's good the woman in the story has shelter and a place to sleep.

Cyph0n 9y ago
Sorry man, but that's dangerous thinking. I might understand if all rooms in the mansion were occupied by family members, or if the house was small such that the housemaid didn't have a room to stay in. But having her sleep in the kitchen of a huge mansion is inexcusable.
- naiveattack 9y ago
  I made no comment on whether it was or was not inexcusable. This isn't about what I believe is correct. Merely on the paradoxes and hypocrisy in this rather large stream of replies. What exactly makes it inexcusable to you though? The fact that the owner of the house could but did not, and the proximity of the rooms? That's what I'm talking about.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    It's inexcusable because it's expected that the housemaid gets his/her own private area. Remember, they are employees, and their job is to maintain the household. They are not "homeless" people skulking around the house. I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can happen to housemaids, but I'm talking about the general case.
    - naiveattack 9y ago
      Yes, it is the relationship between them that makes this strange. The closeness.
    - song 9y ago
      > I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can happen to housemaids, but I'm talking about the general case. That's pretty typical of what I've seen in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and China. The maid gets the worst room and in many cases that room is basically an unfinished store room with just concrete. In China, it's usually a bit better, the live-in housekeeper is not locked in the house/apartment with no possibility to go out. Nor do they strip the houseworker before allowing her to go out to make sure she didn't steal anything. I'm a loudmouth, it disgusts me, and I like to think that I have principles so I make my opinions about the treatment of those housekeepers clear. I've lost acquaintances over this and from what I've seen telling them that what they're doing is right almost never changes things for the housekeepers in question. I strongly believe that the main issue in all those cases is that the housekeeper lives in the house, this is what creates the abuse, this is what causes the extreme dependence of the housekeeper with their employer.
rincebrain 9y ago
I don't think people are arguing that it is bad this woman has shelter and a place to sleep. I think people are arguing that the treatment of said woman, between the infantilizing phone call to wake her every morning to insist she doesn't "get too comfy", and her sleeping on the floor in a house that sounds like it had more rooms than people to live in them, is unnecessarily demeaning at best. High contrast at short distances, indeed, is the problem for one of the above two points - sleeping on an open space on the floor when everyone else has their own bedroom and bed is at least one tier beyond "just" wanting to put yourself above those you employ to help in your home. The other, though, is possibly the more damning to me - calling someone every day to insist they be awake at the same time even while you're out of town? At best, that sounds like an overly controlling homeowner trying to make sure the staff are keeping the house up, but that dynamic would usually imply (to my mind) a trusted person in charge of the staff in their absence, to contact, not the two persons combined in one. The whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it implies that the people whose home this is do not think it necessary to treat this woman well, and that does not, in my experience, bode well for how they treat others whom they have no obligation to.
- true_religion 9y ago
  > that dynamic would usually imply (to my mind) a trusted person in charge of the staff in their absence, to contact, not the two persons combined in one. Exactly. Although its a touch shameful, the first thing that went through my mind reading the story in the comments was "what kind of person has a mansion and only one maid?". Multi-room houses aren't easy to keep clean. Add cooking, driving, and shopping on top of that and we have a situation where: (a) Someone is being severely overworked (b) Someone cannot keep up with the work, leading to frustration on the employers part and an unnecessarily bad relationship

Cyph0n 9y ago

Sorry man, but that's dangerous thinking. I might understand if all rooms in the mansion were occupied by family members, or if the house was small such that the housemaid didn't have a room to stay in. But having her sleep in the kitchen of a huge mansion is inexcusable.

naiveattack 9y ago
I made no comment on whether it was or was not inexcusable. This isn't about what I believe is correct. Merely on the paradoxes and hypocrisy in this rather large stream of replies. What exactly makes it inexcusable to you though? The fact that the owner of the house could but did not, and the proximity of the rooms? That's what I'm talking about.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  It's inexcusable because it's expected that the housemaid gets his/her own private area. Remember, they are employees, and their job is to maintain the household. They are not "homeless" people skulking around the house. I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can happen to housemaids, but I'm talking about the general case.
  - naiveattack 9y ago
    Yes, it is the relationship between them that makes this strange. The closeness.
  - song 9y ago
    > I've lived in a country where live-in housemaids are quite widespread and this kind of behavior would definitely be out of the ordinary, especially among more affluent families. Yes, worse things can happen to housemaids, but I'm talking about the general case. That's pretty typical of what I've seen in countries like Malaysia, Singapore and China. The maid gets the worst room and in many cases that room is basically an unfinished store room with just concrete. In China, it's usually a bit better, the live-in housekeeper is not locked in the house/apartment with no possibility to go out. Nor do they strip the houseworker before allowing her to go out to make sure she didn't steal anything. I'm a loudmouth, it disgusts me, and I like to think that I have principles so I make my opinions about the treatment of those housekeepers clear. I've lost acquaintances over this and from what I've seen telling them that what they're doing is right almost never changes things for the housekeepers in question. I strongly believe that the main issue in all those cases is that the housekeeper lives in the house, this is what creates the abuse, this is what causes the extreme dependence of the housekeeper with their employer.

rincebrain 9y ago

I don't think people are arguing that it is bad this woman has shelter and a place to sleep. I think people are arguing that the treatment of said woman, between the infantilizing phone call to wake her every morning to insist she doesn't "get too comfy", and her sleeping on the floor in a house that sounds like it had more rooms than people to live in them, is unnecessarily demeaning at best. High contrast at short distances, indeed, is the problem for one of the above two points - sleeping on an open space on the floor when everyone else has their own bedroom and bed is at least one tier beyond "just" wanting to put yourself above those you employ to help in your home. The other, though, is possibly the more damning to me - calling someone every day to insist they be awake at the same time even while you're out of town? At best, that sounds like an overly controlling homeowner trying to make sure the staff are keeping the house up, but that dynamic would usually imply (to my mind) a trusted person in charge of the staff in their absence, to contact, not the two persons combined in one. The whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it implies that the people whose home this is do not think it necessary to treat this woman well, and that does not, in my experience, bode well for how they treat others whom they have no obligation to.

true_religion 9y ago
> that dynamic would usually imply (to my mind) a trusted person in charge of the staff in their absence, to contact, not the two persons combined in one. Exactly. Although its a touch shameful, the first thing that went through my mind reading the story in the comments was "what kind of person has a mansion and only one maid?". Multi-room houses aren't easy to keep clean. Add cooking, driving, and shopping on top of that and we have a situation where: (a) Someone is being severely overworked (b) Someone cannot keep up with the work, leading to frustration on the employers part and an unnecessarily bad relationship