6 ms·

No one is saying that men’s unpaid work is worth nothing. The article is merely highlighting how much women’s work is worth. And let’s be clear: if your mom wa

by untog 7y ago

No one is saying that men’s unpaid work is worth nothing. The article is merely highlighting how much women’s work is worth. And let’s be clear: if your mom was at home all day Monday to Friday while your dad was at the office and then they both did unpaid work on the weekend then your mom did a lot more unpaid work than your dad did. Nothing bad or damning about that, but it’s the reality of a lot of women’s lives (especially in previous generations). And what do you know, the article does cover that! > We also compared the distribution of unpaid work across genders. India has the largest gap: Women there spend almost six hours a day managing the home; Indian men spend a paltry 52 minutes. The smallest divides are found in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where social safety net programs provide care for children and older people.

Proziam 7y ago
What I think the person you're responding to was really trying to say is closer to "why do people write articles about how much women's unpaid labor is worth, but not about men's?" Just a question though, are we comparing hours or economic value when talking about 'more' unpaid work? In hours terms my (stay at home) mom definitely did more, but in terms of the dollar value of the labor, I think it's probably a toss-up (in the case of my childhood at least).
- untog 7y ago
  > why do people write articles about how much women's unpaid labor is worth, but not about men's? I think the article makes its case via the quote I provided. It does talk about men’s unpaid work, albeit not in as much detail. The article was also published to coincide with International Women’s Day. Aside from anything else there are clear and obvious differences in unpaid work between men and women (as everyone in this thread agrees) so why not write about women specifically? It honestly feels like parody to see an article like this and reply “won’t somebody think about the men?”
  - Proziam 7y ago
    I can only speculate, that's just how I read that person's comment. That said, there does at least appear to be significantly more publicity surrounding women's issues, including labor, as well as the general value of women's contributions compared to men's.
  - LunaSea 7y ago
    But it's absolutely not unpaid work though. I imagine that these women also live under the same roof as their partner and consume food for free. That has a cost which isn't paid in cash but is paid in exchange of work at home.
    - untog 7y ago
      It’s still unpaid, because they aren’t getting paid. They are compensated, yes. But the roof they live under (that they are responsible for) and the food they consume (which they went out and bought and cooked) is very difficult to quantify. How do you decide if the home they live in and the food they eat is adequate compensation? A woman looking after two kids every day is doing the same amount of work in a one bedroom apartment than she is in a mansion (possibly more, in fact). A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own.
      - LunaSea 7y ago
        > But the roof they live under and the food they consume is very difficult to quantify. No, it's very easy actually. The formula is: (rent + groceries) / 2. So let's run the numbers for a simple case. One woman working at home, one man working at an office, no kids, both of them living in an appartement that costs $1000 / month and consuming $100 / week's worth of groceries. If we're generous and say that it takes 3 hours / day, every day, to complete the at-home tasks, that means that the woman would've worked: (3 hours * 7 days * 4 weeks) => 84 hours / month. At a minimum wage rate (because those are minimum wage level tasks), you get: 84 * ($7,25 / hour) = $609 / month. Since the total spending was $1400 it means that the woman has under contributed a total of: ($1400 / 2 people) - $609 earned => $700 - $609 => $91. This is of course without counting other expenditures like utilities, holidays, days-off, cars, etc. > A woman looking after two kids every day is doing the same amount of work in a one bedroom apartment than she is in a mansion Sure, but she also takes advantage of the mansion by living in it. Also, living arrangements are common decisions. > A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own. A man who loses his job might lose his job and home through no fault of his own either. No difference there.

by untog 7y ago

Proziam 7y ago

What I think the person you're responding to was really trying to say is closer to "why do people write articles about how much women's unpaid labor is worth, but not about men's?" Just a question though, are we comparing hours or economic value when talking about 'more' unpaid work? In hours terms my (stay at home) mom definitely did more, but in terms of the dollar value of the labor, I think it's probably a toss-up (in the case of my childhood at least).

untog 7y ago
> why do people write articles about how much women's unpaid labor is worth, but not about men's? I think the article makes its case via the quote I provided. It does talk about men’s unpaid work, albeit not in as much detail. The article was also published to coincide with International Women’s Day. Aside from anything else there are clear and obvious differences in unpaid work between men and women (as everyone in this thread agrees) so why not write about women specifically? It honestly feels like parody to see an article like this and reply “won’t somebody think about the men?”
- Proziam 7y ago
  I can only speculate, that's just how I read that person's comment. That said, there does at least appear to be significantly more publicity surrounding women's issues, including labor, as well as the general value of women's contributions compared to men's.
- LunaSea 7y ago
  But it's absolutely not unpaid work though. I imagine that these women also live under the same roof as their partner and consume food for free. That has a cost which isn't paid in cash but is paid in exchange of work at home.
  - untog 7y ago
    It’s still unpaid, because they aren’t getting paid. They are compensated, yes. But the roof they live under (that they are responsible for) and the food they consume (which they went out and bought and cooked) is very difficult to quantify. How do you decide if the home they live in and the food they eat is adequate compensation? A woman looking after two kids every day is doing the same amount of work in a one bedroom apartment than she is in a mansion (possibly more, in fact). A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own.
    - LunaSea 7y ago
      > But the roof they live under and the food they consume is very difficult to quantify. No, it's very easy actually. The formula is: (rent + groceries) / 2. So let's run the numbers for a simple case. One woman working at home, one man working at an office, no kids, both of them living in an appartement that costs $1000 / month and consuming $100 / week's worth of groceries. If we're generous and say that it takes 3 hours / day, every day, to complete the at-home tasks, that means that the woman would've worked: (3 hours * 7 days * 4 weeks) => 84 hours / month. At a minimum wage rate (because those are minimum wage level tasks), you get: 84 * ($7,25 / hour) = $609 / month. Since the total spending was $1400 it means that the woman has under contributed a total of: ($1400 / 2 people) - $609 earned => $700 - $609 => $91. This is of course without counting other expenditures like utilities, holidays, days-off, cars, etc. > A woman looking after two kids every day is doing the same amount of work in a one bedroom apartment than she is in a mansion Sure, but she also takes advantage of the mansion by living in it. Also, living arrangements are common decisions. > A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own. A man who loses his job might lose his job and home through no fault of his own either. No difference there.