3 ms·

> It’s not that different from what I imagine having a stay-at-home wife was like in the 1950s, except she leaves every evening. good for you, but yikes, man,

> It’s not that different from what I imagine having a stay-at-home wife was like in the 1950s, except she leaves every evening. good for you, but yikes, man, that made me cringe. you might want to re-think if you'd be comfortable giving the same tasks to a male personal assistant, or if you've somehow unconsciously engineered a large financial/power imbalance, in the disparity between your gross yearly income and what you pay your assistant to do the duties of a "stay-at-home wife". and exactly what you think her role really is.

1123581321 5y ago
I'd think anyone hiring a personal assistant would be on the advantageous end of a financial power imbalance. Are you just saying a young man wouldn't be hired to clean a house so it's embarrassing when a woman cleans a house? I think the important thing is to pay cleaners enough and make reasonable requests, not refuse to work with them. (I don't have a cleaner, if it matters.)
- walrus01 5y ago
  I'm saying this person seems to have specifically chosen a person for the duties of what they described as a 1950s housewife, which is rather suspicious in my opinion.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Ah, I think you just misread, then. They seem to have realized what the arrangement looks like after the fact.
    - walrus01 5y ago
      this is why I said "unconsciously", I'm asking them to reflect on whether or not they would have hired an equally-or-better qualified male for the same duties. or whether they went straight to "i'm gonna hire a housewife" without thinking about it as a specific choice. if by some chance the original poster here is not a dude, it's a whole lot less sketchy in my opinion.
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        Makes sense. Hopefully your comment was beneficial for them.
      - helsinki 5y ago
        Ah, I figured the housewife comment would wreak some havoc, but I can’t really think of a better way to describe. There is no emotional or romantic attachment. If anything, it is friendly, at best. Nothing to really read between the lines on this. It’s a transactional, platonic relationship.
        Arete314159 5y ago
        I'm a woman. I've worked in office jobs. I frequently have noticed that getting "life" stuff done is very hard because office jobs were created in the 1950's, when they assumed everyone had a wife at home to take care of "everything else." It makes sense that helsinki is describing his assistant as a 1950's housewife, because all those tasks are the ones that are hard to do now, and where the gaps are these days.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kortilla 5y ago
        > I'm asking them to reflect Give how absolutely little you know about this situation, that was completely out of line and asinine. You jumped to a conclusion to polish a hobby horse, completely derailed the conversation, and got downvoted for it. I’m asking you to reflect on how condescending and presumptuous your original comment was.
        walrus01 5y ago
        Nah, describing your employee as a 1950s housewife is misogynistic, patriarchal and I'll double down on what I said.
        1123581321 5y ago
    - helsinki 5y ago
      Correct.
throwaway2331 5y ago
An interesting note is that small business couples, where the man runs the trade-end of things (physician, skilled trades, etc.), and the woman runs the "managerial"-end (billing, paperwork, etc.) seem to be the most stable of couples. In matters of money, there are less secrets/unexpected swings; and you both have to be invested in the success of the business, ergo one's livelihood and goal-achievement-vehicle (e.g. for vacations, new cars and appliances, better house, etc.). Plus, if you cannot tolerate one another and cannot work well together, then you'll know soon enough that perhaps the two of you are not compatible in a partnership (and really, that's all a marriage is if you work for a living -- a partnership to help you both reach your goals). An added bonus, is that it breads closeness, rather than only seeing your significant other for a few hours every night/morning, and the weekends. Massive financial/power imbalance? Very. Are both people getting what they want from the arrangement? I would imagine so. The ones that weren't have left/had everything crash and burn, or are on their way.
- walrus01 5y ago
  > small business couples so in my opinion two people in a romantic relationship that also own/run their business together is a completely different thing than what the 'helsinki' poster described, unless their paid assistant they found on craigslist also has other, uhhh.... duties
  - throwaway2331 5y ago
    Absolutely. It was mostly a tangent I wanted to write out. On "other duties," I think a lot of people have that mindset in a partner: mechanically do these things that benefit my emotional state, while I mechanically do my things that benefit their emotional state, and repeat until death. With the common form of payment being money and material goods, for material services. Transactional. A disheartening state of affairs, but more common than not.
    - noway421 5y ago
      I think that's called caring for someone.
mcculley 5y ago
Aren't most who employ the labor of others for things they could do themselves (e.g., getting coffee at Starbucks) leveraging a "financial/power imbalance"?
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Or they are arbitraging a time availability and value imbalance to the voluntary benefit of both. You are a CEO and have five minutes to prepare for a first remote meeting with a potential client that could result in years of business down the road. What is the time worth to you, to have someone else get the coffee you like? The important thing ... is treating the person doing services for you as important too, in pay and respect. Because the five minutes they save you by being reliable are worth a lot.

1123581321 5y ago

I'd think anyone hiring a personal assistant would be on the advantageous end of a financial power imbalance. Are you just saying a young man wouldn't be hired to clean a house so it's embarrassing when a woman cleans a house? I think the important thing is to pay cleaners enough and make reasonable requests, not refuse to work with them. (I don't have a cleaner, if it matters.)

walrus01 5y ago
I'm saying this person seems to have specifically chosen a person for the duties of what they described as a 1950s housewife, which is rather suspicious in my opinion.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Ah, I think you just misread, then. They seem to have realized what the arrangement looks like after the fact.
  - walrus01 5y ago
    this is why I said "unconsciously", I'm asking them to reflect on whether or not they would have hired an equally-or-better qualified male for the same duties. or whether they went straight to "i'm gonna hire a housewife" without thinking about it as a specific choice. if by some chance the original poster here is not a dude, it's a whole lot less sketchy in my opinion.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      Makes sense. Hopefully your comment was beneficial for them.
    - helsinki 5y ago
      Ah, I figured the housewife comment would wreak some havoc, but I can’t really think of a better way to describe. There is no emotional or romantic attachment. If anything, it is friendly, at best. Nothing to really read between the lines on this. It’s a transactional, platonic relationship.
      - Arete314159 5y ago
        I'm a woman. I've worked in office jobs. I frequently have noticed that getting "life" stuff done is very hard because office jobs were created in the 1950's, when they assumed everyone had a wife at home to take care of "everything else." It makes sense that helsinki is describing his assistant as a 1950's housewife, because all those tasks are the ones that are hard to do now, and where the gaps are these days.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > I'm asking them to reflect Give how absolutely little you know about this situation, that was completely out of line and asinine. You jumped to a conclusion to polish a hobby horse, completely derailed the conversation, and got downvoted for it. I’m asking you to reflect on how condescending and presumptuous your original comment was.
      - walrus01 5y ago
        Nah, describing your employee as a 1950s housewife is misogynistic, patriarchal and I'll double down on what I said.
        1123581321 5y ago
  - helsinki 5y ago
    Correct.

throwaway2331 5y ago

An interesting note is that small business couples, where the man runs the trade-end of things (physician, skilled trades, etc.), and the woman runs the "managerial"-end (billing, paperwork, etc.) seem to be the most stable of couples. In matters of money, there are less secrets/unexpected swings; and you both have to be invested in the success of the business, ergo one's livelihood and goal-achievement-vehicle (e.g. for vacations, new cars and appliances, better house, etc.). Plus, if you cannot tolerate one another and cannot work well together, then you'll know soon enough that perhaps the two of you are not compatible in a partnership (and really, that's all a marriage is if you work for a living -- a partnership to help you both reach your goals). An added bonus, is that it breads closeness, rather than only seeing your significant other for a few hours every night/morning, and the weekends. Massive financial/power imbalance? Very. Are both people getting what they want from the arrangement? I would imagine so. The ones that weren't have left/had everything crash and burn, or are on their way.

walrus01 5y ago
> small business couples so in my opinion two people in a romantic relationship that also own/run their business together is a completely different thing than what the 'helsinki' poster described, unless their paid assistant they found on craigslist also has other, uhhh.... duties
- throwaway2331 5y ago
  Absolutely. It was mostly a tangent I wanted to write out. On "other duties," I think a lot of people have that mindset in a partner: mechanically do these things that benefit my emotional state, while I mechanically do my things that benefit their emotional state, and repeat until death. With the common form of payment being money and material goods, for material services. Transactional. A disheartening state of affairs, but more common than not.
  - noway421 5y ago
    I think that's called caring for someone.

mcculley 5y ago

Aren't most who employ the labor of others for things they could do themselves (e.g., getting coffee at Starbucks) leveraging a "financial/power imbalance"?

Nevermark 5y ago
Or they are arbitraging a time availability and value imbalance to the voluntary benefit of both. You are a CEO and have five minutes to prepare for a first remote meeting with a potential client that could result in years of business down the road. What is the time worth to you, to have someone else get the coffee you like? The important thing ... is treating the person doing services for you as important too, in pay and respect. Because the five minutes they save you by being reliable are worth a lot.