3 ms·
It looks like you're getting downvoted, but I think it's clear that the woman's perceived role at the time was NOT just eating bonbons. I think the fact that t
by gknoy 5y ago
It looks like you're getting downvoted, but I think it's clear that the woman's perceived role at the time was NOT just eating bonbons.
I think the fact that the cartoon portrays this in comedy and exaggerated form (just as the man's car is comically Too Small, and his "built to last" house's door falls off) underscores that the woman's role was perceived to be _infinite housework_ (rather than, say, coming home from _her_ job). Consider that her "help" includes the man washing a floor. In contrast, the wife (now relaxing) has handled dishes, meal planning + prep, laundry, ironing -- and the appliances there are portrayed as making that all that work take less time.
As someone with all those tools now, I can confirm that I have a hard time even keeping up with what housework I notice needs doing, let alone all the work that my wife does (and arguably should have to do less of). It feels like that implied portrayal of "wife sits at home goofing off all day because machines do all the real work" couldn't be the norm.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago> that implied portrayal of "wife sits at home goofing off all day because machines do all the real work" couldn't be the norm. The history of women's work is a history of unpaid labor. The reality maintenance machinery supporting this is powerful. From devaluing industries which see a change in gender participation, to not classifying certain tasks as labor, the mechanisms of maintenance range from insidious to ridiculous. Understanding what happens if that reality is not maintained is important to understanding why it is maintained.