Women Who Do Housework Should be Paid For It.

[Forty Two]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -women-men and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... aid-salary

If, however, you are an actual housewife and your daily chores are done quietly behind closed doors, chances are your efforts go unremunerated.

Oh, my god! The Guardian has reported on a topic that must be completely ignored in society. The fact that people are not paid to do laundry and daily chores. Holy fuck! I would never have thought this was an outrage if it hadn't been pointed out that women are not being paid for this. The fact that men aren't paid to clean up, fix things, maintain the home, repair appliances, shop, or do any of the innumerable chores around the home is one thing. But, fuck, this effects WOMEN! So, well, of course, it's a really serious issue. Men? They do no unpaid work. Men just come home and sit around.

The proposal envisages a monthly allowance being paid to the home worker either by the Italian state or, in households with a "significant income", by their spouse or partner. Bongiorno says she knows this last point will prove the most controversial.

If a wife gets money from the State, then she can do all the housework. Sounds fair. If a husband is paying, does he get to do her reviews and set attainable goals? What if wifey doesn't do a good job? When do I get to fire her? Shit, can I just pay a cleaning service and have done with it? Here's your paycheck honey, but I have to tell you, we really need to talk. You haven't been cleaning up too well lately, and there is dust under the couch.... here is your counseling form, sign there, and there, and if this happens again, you may be disciplined up to and including termination.

Should men do housework too? I think there may be some resistance to that if they're coming home with paychecks for their wives for "working at home." Gutters need cleaning? Man's job? Oh, no. That's work at home, part of your new job description....

[rachelbean]

Well, the article is from almost two years ago so I'm not quite sure it's news, but also they are just reporting on the fact that it was news in Italy.

I don't think it's workable but I can understand the desire behind the idea to economically empower someone who may be stuck somewhere abusive purely due to common roles. I knew a woman whose husband completely and totally controlled their money, and only gave her enough allowance to buy exactly what he decided he wanted her to buy (e.g. groceries). It was hard for her to leave but she was able to do so with the help of friends and non-profit organizations.

Bur, I don't see how passing a law like this would really help the abused since unless you can force married couples to have separate bank accounts you still aren't really accomplishing anything. I think most people (in the western world) in a relationship where one works and one takes care of the house is a mutually agreed upon situation and it should be up to each couple how that is worked out exactly financially. Obviously rent and food, etc, costs money and can be a burden on a sole bread winner.

So if it's an abuse issue it fails to address any of the real issues and if it's not then it's really nobodies business anyway. I think a lot of relationships where only one person works, especially when no children are involved, are heavily skewed towards the benefit of the non-breadwinner anyway.

[laklak]

The "I kill bear, you keep cave warm" philosophy doesn't really work these days. We use a different approach. I do the shopping and cooking, she does the every day cleaning and laundry, we both do the Big Clean that happens every couple of months or so. Other people do the lawn and pool. Neither of us gets paid. I will be getting paid starting in April, though - Social Security FTW! Gimme that "free" money, man!

[Drewish]

Trying to empower women in their traditional gender roles was perhaps well meaning, but the massive reduction of gender associations being tied to tasks and roles is really jsut the better solution all around. Doesn't really help the women currently trapped in unsatisfying marriages, but social change is generally generational change.

[Forty Two]

Well, the article is from almost two years ago so I'm not quite sure it's news, but also they are just reporting on the fact that it was news in Italy.

I don't think it's workable but I can understand the desire behind the idea to economically empower someone who may be stuck somewhere abusive purely due to common roles. I knew a woman whose husband completely and totally controlled their money, and only gave her enough allowance to buy exactly what he decided he wanted her to buy (e.g. groceries). It was hard for her to leave but she was able to do so with the help of friends and non-profit organizations.

If one views it from the reverse, and a woman made money and only doled out an allowance to buy exactly what she decided she wanted, and it was hard for him to leave, I think most people would likely suggest that he was a grown man and could simply go get a job, rather than leave, and if his wife became abusive, then he could leave. I am not sure why a grown woman would not have the same options. My wife, for example, stays home with the kids because she wanted to. If she wanted a job, she could say "I am not staying home with the kids all day - I'm getting a job and we'll get daycare" or something. If the reverse were true, that I stayed home with the kids and decided to get a job, would anyone take seriously the notion that my wife was ordering me not to?

Bur, I don't see how passing a law like this would really help the abused since unless you can force married couples to have separate bank accounts you still aren't really accomplishing anything. I think most people (in the western world) in a relationship where one works and one takes care of the house is a mutually agreed upon situation and it should be up to each couple how that is worked out exactly financially. Obviously rent and food, etc, costs money and can be a burden on a sole bread winner.

So if it's an abuse issue it fails to address any of the real issues and if it's not then it's really nobodies business anyway. I think a lot of relationships where only one person works, especially when no children are involved, are heavily skewed towards the benefit of the non-breadwinner anyway.

I also found it bizarre that the only "work at home" worth compensation was the woman's work. Men, who do quite a lot at home, aren't to be compensated? Why not? What about single people who live alone, and do their own laundry and housework? They get nothing? Or, single dads who work? They may come home and work the second shift, cleaning, doing laundry, helping the kid with homework, and such.

One of the worst effects of this kind of law would be the opposite of intended. As soon as a wife is PAID to do the housework, you better darn well believe that the men doing the paying are going to reasonably presume that all the housework will be done every day, and done well. And, that the paying husband, the employer, is not going to be doing any of it. If I'm paying a housekeeper, I am not doing his or her job for her or him.

[Forty Two]

Trying to empower women in their traditional gender roles was perhaps well meaning, but the massive reduction of gender associations being tied to tasks and roles is really jsut the better solution all around. Doesn't really help the women currently trapped in unsatisfying marriages, but social change is generally generational change.

I don't believe it was well-meaning, because I think it was more political than empowering. That being said, if we're going to massively reduce gender associations, it will have to go both ways. So, ladies, time to learn how to use power tools, climb ladders, and do the usual man's work. I know women who won't pump their own gas.

[JimC]

I am exceptionally competent with a vacuum cleaner and a mop. My wife is exceptionally competent at cleaning bathrooms and toilets. We are specialists...

[pErvinalia]

Trying to empower women in their traditional gender roles was perhaps well meaning, but the massive reduction of gender associations being tied to tasks and roles is really jsut the better solution all around. Doesn't really help the women currently trapped in unsatisfying marriages, but social change is generally generational change.

I don't believe it was well-meaning, because I think it was more political than empowering. That being said, if we're going to massively reduce gender associations, it will have to go both ways. So, ladies, time to learn how to use power tools, climb ladders, and do the usual man's work. I know women who won't pump their own gas.

I know plenty of women who mow lawns and use power tools. The gender roles are diminishing here in Oz at least. And not to mention that many mothers work full time too as well as the father.

[Hermit]

I don't see how passing a law like this would really help the abused

Yes

Trying to empower women in their traditional gender roles was perhaps well meaning, but the massive reduction of gender associations being tied to tasks and roles is really jsut the better solution all around. Doesn't really help the women currently trapped in unsatisfying marriages, but social change is generally generational change.

and yes.

[Hermit]

The gender roles are diminishing here in Oz at least. And not to mention that many mothers work full time too as well as the father.

Yes. Things are improving, but there is quite a long way to go yet. It seems that a lot of the time when the man of the dual income household returns from his hard day at work he takes the rubbish out once a week, mows the lawn once a fortnight, hangs a picture up once in a blue moon, changes lightbulbs as needed, then settles down in front of the teev to watch the footy. When the woman returns from her hard day at work, she is more often than not lumbered with the bulk of the cooking, cleaning and child-rearing, some of which she does before going to her place of employment as well.

There are exceptions, of course, and as I said things are improving, but at this stage the exceptions remain just that - exceptions. I regret not having been an example of such exceptions.

[Seth]

They are paid for it. They get free housing, free food, and free cock.

If that's not good enough for them they can start paying rent, paying for their food, and paying for sex at the fair-market rates.

[laklak]

Yeah! I'm going to start charging the missus $100 for a shag. $50 a minute is pretty good graft.

[JimC]

Yeah! I'm going to start charging the missus $100 for a shag. $50 a minute is pretty good graft.

...and sometimes you'll only make $25, I guess...

[pErvinalia]

The gender roles are diminishing here in Oz at least. And not to mention that many mothers work full time too as well as the father.

Yes. Things are improving, but there is quite a long way to go yet. It seems that a lot of the time when the man of the dual income household returns from his hard day at work he takes the rubbish out once a week, mows the lawn once a fortnight, hangs a picture up once in a blue moon, changes lightbulbs as needed, then settles down in front of the teev to watch the footy. When the woman returns from her hard day at work, she is more often than not lumbered with the bulk of the cooking, cleaning and child-rearing, some of which she does before going to her place of employment as well.

There are exceptions, of course, and as I said things are improving, but at this stage the exceptions remain just that - exceptions. I regret not having been an example of such exceptions.

Its definitely better in the younger generations. They are far more aware of gender equality issues.

[laklak]

Yeah! I'm going to start charging the missus $100 for a shag. $50 a minute is pretty good graft.

...and sometimes you'll only make $25, I guess...

No, sometimes I make $100 a minute.