4 ms·

This is an incredibly important topic that is hugely underserved because it can be seen as sexist, as well as because it deviates from the narrative that non-co

by K0balt 2y ago

This is an incredibly important topic that is hugely underserved because it can be seen as sexist, as well as because it deviates from the narrative that non-commercially exploitative work is not valuable to society. To be clear, being a homemaker is a gender-agnostic career, and there is even data that implies than men may be more ideal homemakers, with statistically superior social outcomes. Especially when children are involved, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that homemakers perform one of the most important and critical jobs in society, with a social value on par with or higher than firefighters, police, doctors, and the like. It is a tragic poverty that homemakers have been systematically and in many cases intentionally undervalued for their critical and life changing work.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think it is sexist to question who receives the value. I am very skeptical of nebulous attributions to society. Homemaking is self serving in a way that working in a factory (for example) is not.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    I agree that homemaking has strong direct benefits for the people involved, but reduced criminality, better education, and better socioeconomic outcomes for children raised with parents as primary caregivers is not a nebulous attribution to societal benefit.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    No. Raising children is the central function of society. The factory and everything else exists in service of that function.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > All the throat clearing you feel the need to do is sexist. This reply seems unnecessarily hostile, especially since you both agree that taking care of children is socially necessary and valuable. According to the poll, 50% of women with children under 18 prefer a homemaker role, while 29% of men with children under 18 would prefer a homemaker role. That's a significant difference, to be sure, but 29% is far from 0%. It shouldn't be dismissed, and neither should the 45% of women with children under 18 who prefer to work outside the home.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I’m not trying to be hostile to OP. I’m addressing the fact that he feels the need to engage in a bunch of throat clearing just to say that it’s bad to devalue work that women disproportionately do and want to do.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > I’m not trying to be hostile to OP. You called the OP sexist, or at least the OP's so-called "throat clearing". An accusation of sexism is hostile, regardless of whether the accusation is warranted, and to be clear, I don't think it was warranted.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Please note the context. OP stated that the discussion is difficult because “it can be seen as sexist.” In other words, he feels the need to engage in throat clearing because others will perceive his point as sexist. My response is that it’s those other people—the ones creating the circumstances which make OP feel the need to engage in all the preliminaries—are being sexist. Being a mother is very important to most women. Most women will have kids, most women who do consider it important work, and a majority of women would prefer not to work while their kids are under 18. We can just go ahead and say that it’s bad to devalue their work in home making without dancing around the point.
        lapcat 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think there is a huge and completely rational gap between social valuation and family valuation. Homemakers provide most of the direct value to the household. Your firefighter, doctor, ect provide their value directly to those outside their household. My neighbor might be a great cook and parent for their child, but I am much more thankful to plumber, who benifits me directly.
- paxys 2y ago
  Sure, but someone still needs to raise the firefighters and doctors and plumbers. One's success at age 50 is directly tied to their family dynamic and financial situation at age 0-18. Saying you value a doctor but not the circumstances that made them a doctor isn't quite rational.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think that is double counting. I don't pay both the butcher and the pig farmer for my bacon.
- K0balt 2y ago
  Here I’m talking primarily about effects in society in the form of child rearing outcomes. The gap between outcomes where there is a stable division of a full time breadwinner and homemaker during formative years vs those where there is heavy involvement of daycare services is a very stark chasm. But the economic stability has to be there as well, as this breaks down significantly in poverty. Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. All in all the breakdown of a stable domestic workforce has been good for corporations but bad for children, employees, and stable home relationships. And if we look at the current state of affairs of partnering, it’s been bad for just about everyone.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. By this argument, wouldn't having children and thereby increasing the population also supply extra employees and drive down wages?
gruez 2y ago
>To be clear, being a homemaker is a gender-agnostic career, and there is even data that implies than men may be more ideal homemakers, with statistically superior social outcomes. Source? Without proper controls this could easily be a case of "households who are in a situation where the man can be homemaker are better for kids", rather than "men being better homemakers".
- K0balt 2y ago
  “data that may imply” is very clearly speculative, I think, but the data I am referring to concerns single parent outcomes. It is difficult to say how that would translate to partnered men, and there is probably selection bias built in to this kind of study, but still, it supports the idea that men can be proficient homemakers. This isn’t an assertion of a conclusive study in any way, but I encourage you to look into it and share what you find.

by K0balt 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think it is sexist to question who receives the value. I am very skeptical of nebulous attributions to society. Homemaking is self serving in a way that working in a factory (for example) is not.
- K0balt 2y ago
  I agree that homemaking has strong direct benefits for the people involved, but reduced criminality, better education, and better socioeconomic outcomes for children raised with parents as primary caregivers is not a nebulous attribution to societal benefit.
- rayiner 2y ago
  No. Raising children is the central function of society. The factory and everything else exists in service of that function.
lapcat 2y ago
> All the throat clearing you feel the need to do is sexist. This reply seems unnecessarily hostile, especially since you both agree that taking care of children is socially necessary and valuable. According to the poll, 50% of women with children under 18 prefer a homemaker role, while 29% of men with children under 18 would prefer a homemaker role. That's a significant difference, to be sure, but 29% is far from 0%. It shouldn't be dismissed, and neither should the 45% of women with children under 18 who prefer to work outside the home.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I’m not trying to be hostile to OP. I’m addressing the fact that he feels the need to engage in a bunch of throat clearing just to say that it’s bad to devalue work that women disproportionately do and want to do.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > I’m not trying to be hostile to OP. You called the OP sexist, or at least the OP's so-called "throat clearing". An accusation of sexism is hostile, regardless of whether the accusation is warranted, and to be clear, I don't think it was warranted.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Please note the context. OP stated that the discussion is difficult because “it can be seen as sexist.” In other words, he feels the need to engage in throat clearing because others will perceive his point as sexist. My response is that it’s those other people—the ones creating the circumstances which make OP feel the need to engage in all the preliminaries—are being sexist. Being a mother is very important to most women. Most women will have kids, most women who do consider it important work, and a majority of women would prefer not to work while their kids are under 18. We can just go ahead and say that it’s bad to devalue their work in home making without dancing around the point.
      - lapcat 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think there is a huge and completely rational gap between social valuation and family valuation. Homemakers provide most of the direct value to the household. Your firefighter, doctor, ect provide their value directly to those outside their household. My neighbor might be a great cook and parent for their child, but I am much more thankful to plumber, who benifits me directly.

paxys 2y ago
Sure, but someone still needs to raise the firefighters and doctors and plumbers. One's success at age 50 is directly tied to their family dynamic and financial situation at age 0-18. Saying you value a doctor but not the circumstances that made them a doctor isn't quite rational.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is double counting. I don't pay both the butcher and the pig farmer for my bacon.
K0balt 2y ago
Here I’m talking primarily about effects in society in the form of child rearing outcomes. The gap between outcomes where there is a stable division of a full time breadwinner and homemaker during formative years vs those where there is heavy involvement of daycare services is a very stark chasm. But the economic stability has to be there as well, as this breaks down significantly in poverty. Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. All in all the breakdown of a stable domestic workforce has been good for corporations but bad for children, employees, and stable home relationships. And if we look at the current state of affairs of partnering, it’s been bad for just about everyone.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. By this argument, wouldn't having children and thereby increasing the population also supply extra employees and drive down wages?

gruez 2y ago

>To be clear, being a homemaker is a gender-agnostic career, and there is even data that implies than men may be more ideal homemakers, with statistically superior social outcomes. Source? Without proper controls this could easily be a case of "households who are in a situation where the man can be homemaker are better for kids", rather than "men being better homemakers".

K0balt 2y ago
“data that may imply” is very clearly speculative, I think, but the data I am referring to concerns single parent outcomes. It is difficult to say how that would translate to partnered men, and there is probably selection bias built in to this kind of study, but still, it supports the idea that men can be proficient homemakers. This isn’t an assertion of a conclusive study in any way, but I encourage you to look into it and share what you find.