babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » The economics of marriage..and some random thoughts

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The economics of marriage..and some random thoughts
Crimson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6788

posted 07 October 2004 01:26 AM      Profile for Crimson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While every marriage is unique, division of labor(labour) is apparently not so unique in each marriage. Some recent economic findings have really got me to wondering how much liberation Women's lib accomplished within the institute of marriage/household.

For example, from 1954 to 2004 the average amount of time a woman spends on household/domestic work went from 22 hours a week to 18, while her hours spent in the market went from an average of 12 to 38. (This study included only married women, so I'm sure the skew is even more dramatic for unmarried women.) During that same time period, married men HH work went from a mean average of 7 hours a week to 9, while market work stayed relatively consistant at 38.

*These figures are from an econ class I'm currently taking*

Anyway, one of the biggest issues with household vs. market work is who is able to accomplish either/both with the least cost and most benefit. So, while we women are doing our best to fight the good fight (equal wages for equal market work), apparently our husband's are not so interested in equal pay for equal domestic work.

And, yes, there are wages to be considered in HH work. For every dollar spent on take-out or dine-out food, there could potentially be someone (of either gender) within the marriage that could prepare that food at 30% of retail cost. The same goes for any other domestic chore, but the actual time it takes to accomplish these chores must also be taken into the wholistic economic situation. If it takes me 20 minutes to preapre the same meal it takes my hypothetical husband 2 hours to make, then the benefit/cost is obvious. And if that husband is able to mow the lawn in 1/2 the time it takes me, then it's also obvious. (Could hypothetically also be reversed, but ya just don't see that in the economic analysis enough to warrnat discussion.)

So, what we get is a pie that divides up market wages between husband and wife, with men still averaging more than women. And another pie that divides up HH allocation of chores, with women still averaging (grossly) more than men. In plain speak (and I'm not an economist, so 'plain speak' is all you'll get from me) this means that-on average- a husband's living wage (both market and HH) increases, while a wife's living wage decreases, often significantly.

Sort of counter intuitive though, when ya look at the sterotypical attitudes of men toward marriage as opposed to women toward marriage, don't ya think? According to the statistics, men benefit greatly from marriage, women don't.

A side note:
Is THIS why Disney primes us from such an early age to idolize marriage? If not for the constant media/cultural pressure to marry, is it possible more women might realize how often they get shafted in this holy-institution of matrimony?

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]


From: The bug sky | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 07 October 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do any of those figures take into consideration how those earnings are allocated?

For example, the spouse who brings in more money is likely to pay a larger share of the mortgage or rent on a shelter that both parties occupy (and maybe the husband also repairs the roof?); so you'd have to factor in subsidized housing for the low earner.
For example, a married couple might have a joint bank account, to which they contribute unequally, and from which they draw equally.
And so on.
It's possible, that if all factors are considered, that women are not being 'shafted' quite so badly.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 07 October 2004 11:31 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's quite a bit of work being done on this topic these days; Pierre-André Chiappori at the U of Chicago has quite a few articles on how to model how spouses negotiate the allocation of household resources. Not surprisingly, it turns out that bargaining power depends very much on the threat of leaving. If a man can threaten to leave, and if his leaving would be sufficiently costly to his spouse, then he'll have more bargaining power. If the wife is financially independent, then his bargaining power is reduced.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
f1 dad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6141

posted 07 October 2004 11:32 AM      Profile for f1 dad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So the fact that women are getting shafted by gender inequality in wages translates into them not being shafted by the inequality in the allotment of labour in a marriage?

Besides the gender issues, the stats provided by Crimson paint an unpleasant picture on the labour front as well. The average amount of total labour done by married women per week has gone up from 34 hours to 54, and for all married people it's risen from 39.5 to 50.5. Given the rapid technological progress we've seen over these years, you'd think the focus would be on harnessing these advancements to provide for more leisure time.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kukuchai
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6215

posted 08 October 2004 01:22 AM      Profile for kukuchai        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Way back in my university days when computers first came into use (those 7 foot monsters), we were told that at some point in the future computers would ease our workload thereby increasing our leisure time.

That was 1969.

It seems to me that quite the opposite has happened. In fact, computers, although programmed by humans, are actually in greater control over our daily lives.

People, both men and women, are working harder than ever before. Women have their regular day jobs, housework, childcare, and, in some cases, elderly care. Most of the responsibility for these areas falls on the shoulders of women.

Despite our technological advances, people are more burned out than ever; heart attacks used to be the domain of the over 60 crowd -- now young men of 35 are dropping dead.

So I have to agree and I too have wondered how much liberation we've gained when we're saddled with the duties of a job and the primary responsibilities for the young, the sick, and the elderly.

Of all the married people I've ever known (myself included), it has always been the woman who takes a day or two off from work to care for a sick child. This affects career advancement.

After a divorce or a death, women raise the kids on their own. I've known several men in my life whose wives either died or left. The children were given over to relatives to care for permanently. The man is then free to pursue his career and another life. Most women that I know would sooner cut their throats then give up their children.

I don't really see a whole lot of equality or a whole lot of leisure time, either.


From: Earth | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768

posted 08 October 2004 01:46 AM      Profile for August1991     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People, both men and women, are working harder than ever before.
On the contrary, people have never had it so easy. (Compare working conditions in Canada now with working conditions 100 years ago.)

What has happened is that the value of foregone leisure time has increased. Because of higher wages, an hour not working now means giving up alot.

----

It is best to view a marriage as a long term contract. The question is why anyone would ever accept to constrain their future actions in such a manner.

RoundHead below shows queries about when to breach the contract. (It's part of understanding why anyone would get into such a deal to start with.)

quote:
There's quite a bit of work being done on this topic these days; Pierre-André Chiappori at the U of Chicago has quite a few articles on how to model how spouses negotiate the allocation of household resources. Not surprisingly, it turns out that bargaining power depends very much on the threat of leaving. If a man can threaten to leave, and if his leaving would be sufficiently costly to his spouse, then he'll have more bargaining power. If the wife is financially independent, then his bargaining power is reduced.

I'll take a different tack, and bring my post back to the feminism title.

Why are marriages with girls more likely to end in divorce? The following paper is accessible. It deserves a response.

Dahl Moretti Paper


From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 08 October 2004 03:18 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The comment about marriages with girls being more likely to end in divorce made me think of the boys being the one to carry on the family name, which is the man's name. Most papers that have approached the subject recognize that that is pretty much the number one reason most men want sons. The reason for the importance of procreation is to continue the family line. It's that in the animal world and in the human world. The DNA is carried by both sexes. Since women change their names to the husband's name in most societies, only the male carried the name on. Until women had more freedom to own property, it was imperative that a family had sons to carry on.

People did not understand the dynamics of a child's sex/gender until fairly recently. It is now known that the man is responsible for the gender but throughout history, men were allowed to divorce the wives who did not give them proper heirs (sons). I think there are still a lot of cases where the men blame their wives for not giving them sons, resulting in hard feelings and divorces.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 08 October 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have observed that it is generally the partner with the greatest income who does the least amount of manual domestic labour, and where the division of income and expenses is about equal, the partner who has the greatest peference for a particular level of household upkeep - often the woman but certainly not always - does the most grunt work.

Most of the women I know are "financially independent", but of those in a heterosexual marriage or long-term live-in relationship, only one or two make more money than their male partners, and in their marriages the work is shared more or less equally, with the woman almost always doing the more "traditional" work - cleaning, cooking, child-rearing, etc. The vast majority of them earn less and work much harder.

In my household, I am the sole bread-winner, and I do almost all of the inside and outside work, cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, gatdening etc. I don't think this is a fair arrangement, but for a variety of reasons it has always been thus and I doubt it will ever change.

Like many women, I am tired and disappointed.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 08 October 2004 11:26 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my household, I am the sole bread-winner, and I do almost all of the inside and outside work, cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, gatdening etc. I don't think this is a fair arrangement, but for a variety of reasons it has always been thus and I doubt it will ever change.

Not to be nosy, but you're saying you have a partner, and you do all this? If so, he's well and truly a "kept man".

I'm the primary breadwinner in my relationship (Mrs. M. is a student, earns a little here and there TAing or teaching), and I do the bulk of the household work as well. She'll try to prepare a dinner or two each week, and she'll do dishes about half the time. I cook the rest of the meals, do the weekday shopping, and the majority of the bathroom scrubbing/carpet vacuuming, etc. She specializes in what we call "the heroic effort"... eg: leaving the kitchen to become a disaster area, then swooping in to mop the floor, clean the stove, polish the cupboard handles, scour the sinks, etc.

To be honest there are occassional days where I'd love to say "You do everything and I'll sit here and drink red wine" (and I suspect she would, too), but mostly it's the arrangement we gravitated to, and it perpetuates because at some level it works for both of us.

We also have a standing arrangement that the day she starts making more coin than I do then I get to be a "kept man" for a while.


From: ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°`°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ,¸_¸,ĝ¤°°¤ĝ, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 October 2004 11:34 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crimson, f1dad, and Oliver: Are you perhaps raising the possibility that there is a disconnect between the way that economists are beginning to measure disparities in the contributions of partners, on the one hand, and the common perceptions of such disparities among people in domestic partnerships on the other?

Serious question: the studies leave me feeling a bit muddled.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 October 2004 11:58 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what you mean by that. From what I gather (disclaimer - I'm not an expert in this field), economists don't really contest the evidence about the unequal allocation of housework. What they're trying to do is understand how and why it ends up that way, in terms of a bargaining model. There's a great deal of variation in how couples arrange things; the question is to what extent these variations can be explained by variations in external factors.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 October 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's sort of what I was wondering -- whether someone is trying to add up everything, all those other factors on top of the allocation of housework -- in order to demonstrate ... something.

But don't mind me. I get muddled by modelling very easily.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768

posted 08 October 2004 02:25 PM      Profile for August1991     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my household, I have to admit that it's about a 40/60 split for basic cleaning tasks. Unfortunately, I live alone.
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 October 2004 04:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

I can identify, August.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 08 October 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not to be nosy, but you're saying you have a partner, and you do all this? If so, he's well and truly a "kept man".
You're assuming that I'm referring to my current relationship, and that my partner and I live together and share expenses, which we don't. Those who were actually responsible for partnering in parenting, expenses and work, didn't, aren't and won't. 20 years of doing it alone is enough to tire anyone out, don't you think?

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 October 2004 06:18 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by August1991:
In my household, I have to admit that it's about a 40/60 split for basic cleaning tasks. Unfortunately, I live alone.

I can relate too!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 October 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Me three.

40% of the time I do 'em, 60% I don't bother!


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 October 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, for a long time I got much better with flylady. I've fallen off the wagon somewhat recently, but last night I got back on somewhat.

Now Flylady might be an interesting side discussion and not quite as thread drifty as one might think. Basically, a "get organized with your housework" site aimed primarily at women, where "no whining" is allowed. ("Whining" being when women complain about having to do all the housework instead of taking the attitude that if you want it done, you just have to do it, so you might as well enjoy it.)

Flylady works quite well for me because I'm single. But it wouldn't work for me at all if I were married, I don't think, because I would resent the HELL out of someone who messed up our home but let me do all the cleaning. Major grr factor.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 08 October 2004 06:23 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cleanliness is a capitalist plot to make us buy cleaning products. Recently the Clean Conspiracy took it to a higher level with the Swiffer, a highly expensive wet rag on a stick.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 October 2004 06:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the supermarket the other day, a young man was promoting disposable scrub-sponges to clean the loo. "It is so clean!" he enthused (hope he's a drama student). Suddenly the old brushes one uses for that task have become a tad ... disgusting.

Actually, I've never had such a clean bowl until Tommy's great (and cheap) vinegar advice.

Flylady is good in small doses, but her moralism and acceptance of sexism in marriages makes me want to throw up, which is NOT a nice thing to clean. She also assumes everyone owns a dishwasher and a car.

I've actually been cleaning my flat thoroughly, but that is because a friend will be visiting. I need a spouse who likes to clean! My ex was screwed up and manipulative in many ways, but boy, was he good at cleaning house! (I like to cook...).

Either that or we tell the kitties they have to earn their keep.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 October 2004 07:05 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Cleanliness is a capitalist plot to make us buy cleaning products. Recently the Clean Conspiracy took it to a higher level with the Swiffer, a highly expensive wet rag on a stick.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


Yebbut - yebbut - with the Swiffer, you want to dance while you do housework! Didn't you see the commercials? That woman was so happy to clean with the the Swiffer, she would clean her neighour's house!


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 08 October 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sort of counter intuitive though, when ya look at the sterotypical attitudes of men toward marriage as opposed to women toward marriage, don't ya think? According to the statistics, men benefit greatly from marriage, women don't.

It is rather muddling.
I don't know how the figures are derived, or from which economic group.
I hope same-sex couples and single people (parent or non; divorced or non) have been removed from the statistics, because they would skew the view of marriage.

Some people sit in a climate-controlled office all day; some climb hydro poles in snowtorms. The number of hours spent at the workplace doesn't necessarily reflect how much useful work is done or how much personal energy is consumed.
Same in the home; a wiz can do more in less time than a ditz; someone who owns a lot of appliances might accomplish more with less work than someone who does it all manually.

What is the economic value of housework? How is it calculated?
Does society benefit materially from the cleanliness of private kitchens? Does the person who changes clothes twice a day contribute more to the GNP than one who washes his overalls once a week? Who decides how much work each house requires?

It seems to me that every woman has a wide range of choice in these matters: that a good deal of housework is voluntary, done for one's own benefit.
Why is a compulsive automatically worth more than a slob? Why is an overindulged child more valuable than a self-reliant one? When somebody chooses to have children, she knows that they will require care. How much care, beyond basic needs, is largely up to her and her partner. They should have an agreement about allocation of labour, before conceiving. Some do, some don't: their choice.

My major problem with the opening post was the word 'shafted'.
A liberated woman doesn't get shafted. She makes deliberate, informed, self-interested choices. If she wants the big house in the suburbs that she can't afford, she marries a man who can. She then lavishes as much attention on that man and that house as they are worth to her. If she also wants a career, she puts in as many hours as that career is worth to her. Only the individual woman can tell you whether she benefits more from marriage than her partner does.

Statistics reflect people's choices, not their motives.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 08 October 2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One factor which I don't often see addressed in these cold economic attempts to determine reasons for the economic division of household labour is looking at how the amount of hours spent changes for _each individual_ when they shift from being single to being part of a cohab couple.

My wife and I probably break somwhat along traditional gender lines when it comes to housework, but she did a tonne more housework when she lived on her own than I did when I lived on my own.

I am, by inclination, a slob. I do not know whether I in fact do more housework than I did when we didn't cohab, but it certainly feels that way. There has been much inertia for me to overcome to get into clean habits. I have also lobbied mightily to get my wife to do less than is her natural inclination around the house. We have compromised. We continue to work on it.

I feel that a part (1/3? 1/2?)of my wife's high[-er than mine] housework standards derive from how the state of her home determines how she is viewed _by other women_.

Since

a) I do not feel I am judged according by my micro society according to how well my home is kept,

b) I would like not to give a damn, even if I did believe I were judged that way.

c) Even if my wife did the same housework she currently does, and I did absolutely nothing, the place would still be waaay better kept than my low standards would require.

For our situation, a merely economic analysis would have to factor in what one partner might consider surplus, and perhaps superfluous (i.e. low value), cleanliness.

Of course, all existing arrangements and premises will go out the window if we have a kid.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 09 October 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Flylady works quite well for me because I'm single. But it wouldn't work for me at all if I were married, I don't think, because I would resent the HELL out of someone who messed up our home but let me do all the cleaning. Major grr factor.

Yah, the "no whining" thing irritates me, too. Although I also recognize that if you live with a slob and want to stop living in sloth, you can't expect to change the other person and it will wind up being up to you. However, I might be inclined to declutter my relationships while I was decluttering the house...

However, we have been using parts of the flylady system as a template to organize our home and some aspects of the business stuff. The blond guy pitches in along with me, and we both benefit from some level of routine -- which, incidentally, he is better at than I am. Anyway, since we both work out of a home office, it gets easy to be all loosey-goosey about stuff in general, and you feel more efficient when your home and work space are well-organized.

Household work is split pretty much 50-50 here. We both cook and clean. We both take on child care, running kids to and fro. I don't lift as many heavy things, but I'm a lot smaller than the blond guy. He doesn't sort laundry because he dyes my clothes pink. Other than that, we both do it, depending on who has time.

Big accomplishment this summer: Got rid of all the baby stuff, kid hand-me-downs and maternity clothes. Eight big bags of stuff went to our local women's shelter.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 09 October 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Yebbut - yebbut - with the Swiffer, you want to dance while you do housework! Didn't you see the commercials? That woman was so happy to clean with the the Swiffer, she would clean her neighour's house!

Ollie, you go buy a swiffer and I'll let you come clean my house.

The whole argument over who does more is an old, old one; there are folk tales such as "The Husband Who Was to Mind the House"


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 October 2004 01:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Either that or we tell the kitties they have to earn their keep.

I have tried this. It does not work. Abandon hope.

I even bought them a Swiffer, although only a dry one. I find it useful for doing quick sweeps of dried kitty food on the kitchen floor, and maybe dust balls, but no more than that.

I can't believe that the wet Swiffer could really get a floor clean. My scrub mop will not get a floor clean. There is only one way to get a floor clean, which is down on hands and knees ... which is why few of my floors are ever clean.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 October 2004 01:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just to add another random thought: rare as they may be, there do exist heterosexual marriages/partnerships in which the male partner cares more about keeping the place clean, and does more housework.

How do I know this...?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 October 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Awwww ... 'lance ... That is so dear.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 October 2004 01:28 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I blame strict parents.

Well, aren't parents to blame for everything?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 09 October 2004 01:54 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've always liked a comment a friend made that the trouble with room-mates is each one has been raised by a different mother with different standards of cleanliness.

[ 09 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If women are working more in the home while employed, thereby leaving their sig other to do little of anythying, or not participate at all, then they should not whine, and studies on it do not need to be done, IMHO.

My sig other and I, are about to celebrate our 26th anniversity and have ascribed our roles throughout the years based upon rational decisions.

Over the this time, my sig other has stayed at home as a house husband with me supporting him, has supported me while I stayed at home, and worked in the home arena as much as I when we both were/are working.

Of course, this was not always easy because of both internal and external factors. But we decided that each other's and society's biases did not need to impact upon us, unless we chose so.

When he was making more money than I, for example, a society bias came into play for him. This at first, meant to him that I should pick up his responsibilities around the house, as he felt his input into the household was worth more. He quickly stopped in his tracks with that premise, when I started charging him, by the hour, for doing his share and putting it in my own bank account.

After all, it is not my fault we had to move north, where we found women's pay dropped to min wage in almost every position available. My work load was equal to his, only he got paid more.

This is true with unequal pay levels everywhere, and we women do not need to penalize ourselves because we are underpaid. It is a society fact, that no matter how hard we have tried, and do try, over the years to rectify it, it has not improved much in the work force except in specific areas.

Finally, I decided not to feel like a victim anymore. Neither our value, nor work load is less than a mans, even though the money paid may be. As such, we need not feel beholding, in reality our decreased pay scales actually allows them to have their higher pay, (though I think both should be higher in real reality). From this I decided that we can change things in our own families too bring equality in. And I realized it is up to us to point this out to our partners and then action ourselves accordingly.

We essentially keep our bank accounts separate. After all, one just never knows. But we have joint checking, that we put money into for the 50/50 split of expenses, and a joint savings for emergencies/vacations/close future goals, but the rest is ours to spend as we wish, or not.

For many years now, it has been understood that, if he wants me to do what is rightfully his share, he has to pay me for doing it bottom line, or it does not get done. And of course it functions the opposite way too.

Perhaps this would not work for all, but I really believe it is up to us to individually insist upon equality wherever and whenever we can, particularily with our spouses.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 10 October 2004 12:59 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't help but take these statistics with a large grain of salt.

What do they mean by 'work'? Is taking care of the kids work? Is it still work if you're playing with them or only if you're not having fun? If I'm on the computer paying bills or tracking investments, is that work? One of my wife's hobbies is baking. Does that count?

I can't help but think there is a certain level of gender politics that results in skewed statistics.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 10 October 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do 100% of the inside work, well 95%, and about 20% of the outside work. My husband, however works longer hours, has lower housework standards, and earns more. It all works out in the end.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crimson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6788

posted 10 October 2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Crimson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, in an effort to clarify some of the issues that have been presented on this thread, I just want to say that statisitcs, by nature, are always skewed to some degree.

Every individual involved in the process of obtaining stats is subject to their own personal interpretation, even though they take great measures to avoid it...whether it is within the original question to be researched, the definitions of the wording within the question, the *random* groups of people enlisted for the collection of raw data and the subsequent analysis.

Likewise, every individual involved in the process of offering data is also subject to personal interpretation of the original questions, wording, mood at the time of the survey, etc.

But, these researchers do their damndest to provide as accurate and unbiased a representation of the populace they're studying as is humanly possible. So, while we may all have misgivings about the actual data, it is somewhat irrelevent to argue against it until one of us finds a more effective way of collecting it.

For some of the other issues brought up, I will offer the following URL's:

The Economics of Women, Men and Work (textbook for class)
This link provides further links to some of the stat tables/figures I mentioned.

Bureau of Labor Stats (in U.S. only, unfortunately)

and:
Housework, Wages and the Division of Housework Time for Employed Spouses

This last one gives some working defintions of what HH work is, how it is tabulated in terms of wages and offers some stats on HH vs. Market work/wages. It also explains the methods used for obtaining the data for this analysis.

[ 10 October 2004: Message edited by: Crimson ]


From: The bug sky | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 10 October 2004 02:51 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I had a long response to this, but my computer froze for some reason. Oh well guess it was not meant to be.

But the main point was if I do a job in my hubbies territory, like "his" laundry, he pays me his hourly rate to do it, not what launderers or laundries gets paid. And the same in reverse, of course. If he, or I, had to miss work from no clothes to wear, well it would cost that amount per hour in lost wages.

Point though, his drawers are much cleaner and arranged than mine. So, I never put his clothes away for him. Just can't seem to learn how to fold his socks right (no amount of pay is worth trying either)

And most men would refer to him as a "manly man", all 6'8" of him, if they took him for surface appearances.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 10 October 2004 03:19 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the links, Crimson.

The first appeared to be to a text book. It was password protected and, in any case, I'm not going to read a text book on the subject.

The second link was to a large array of other links and after scanning it, I didn't see anything that looked relevant. Looking at statistics wouldn't address my concerns in any case.

The third link was interesting but only reinforced my concerns about the raw data. The definition of HH work was very weakly defined and only measured by asking people for their estimates.

I don't doubt that the researchers did the best, most objective job they could. However, everyone has their own internal biases and given the lack of rigour around the data collection, I have to accept the results with a grain of salt.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 October 2004 09:07 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the links, Crimson: something to mull for a while.

In response to remind: we dealt with the issue of income disparity by recognizing that we were both contributing 100 per cent of what we earned to the household, and thus we were equal in that sense.

That may sound a little idealized, but I suspect it's common among people with lower incomes, when everything you both can earn is still just barely enough.

And in our case, it worked. I can imagine that resentments of other kinds might tempt the person making the higher income to resent the principle of the widow's mite, but it is still the ideal way to think of money, I think.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 October 2004 12:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I read where women currently do about two-thirds of the world's work. They are considered better credit risks in India than most corporations and male counterparts.

Of the nations subscribing to liberal democracy, about a third of that world work force is currently unemployed.

In Victorian era England, it was cheaper to layoff men at the coal pits and hire women and children. And it was more economical for entrepeneurial types to have women pull farm drays than to maintain and feed horses to do the same. And they long for the good old days.

[ 10 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 10 October 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And they long for the good old days.


Who does?

My grandmother raised 7 children, without a single electric gizmo. She did ten times the housework i do, in the same amount of time. (At least, i assume that days are the same size now as they were in 1925.) Maybe the figures look funny because we're not very skilled at home-making?


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 10 October 2004 03:07 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
At the supermarket the other day, a young man was promoting disposable scrub-sponges to clean the loo.

I got one of those things free when I sent to see Urinetown. It's awkward for leverage and the pad isn't all that strong.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crimson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6788

posted 10 October 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Crimson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My apologies that the first link was password protected...I hadn't realized it at the time. I provided it because it had a synposis/review of the textbook, not because I thought anyone was necessarily going to read an entire online tb.

Anyway, based on the criteria presented by Peter Kuhn (he guest lectured a couple of weeks ago) for definitions of HH work, it is somewhat ambiguous. HH work, for the purposes of these studies, was defined as being just about anything that one considers necessary in order to "keep house".
In one family, that might include child-care, and each parent is given some margin for determining how much of their time spent with children is *work* and how much is *play* or leisure time activities. In another family, it might include gardening/lawn maintentance, while another might include auto repair.

There are some things universal to all, like grocery shopping, preparing food, doing dishes and cleaning, but even within these the effort/energy are going to be somewhat different depending on accepted expectations for them within each couple or family structure.

In a nut shell, what these studies are showing is that for every hour spent on HH work, there is a cost and benefit to every hour spent in market work- and vice versa. Finding the most balanced and equitable method of determining who should/could do more of one or more of the other would depend on who has the greatest opportunity cost. If one partner can make $20 and hour in the market compared to $10 from their spouse, but that spouse can prepare food in 1/2 as much time as the other, then it's fairly obvious.

It gets sticky when one partner not only has greater earning potential in the market, but is also more adept at HH work. Or conversely, when one partner has little to no market wage and is also an abysmal failure at HH work.

Consider that for those families that can afford to farm out some of their HH work with a cleaning service or a personal chef or what-have-you, the HH work has a definitive wage attached. So, if each partner were able to perform one or more of those tasks, they would save themselves $$ by not farming it out, but it would potentially rob them of time spent in the market...due to not being in the market while at home doing HH work, and also by decreasing their energy level for market work after so many hours of HH work.

In any case, economic stats do not intend to prescribe anything. They merely study and report findings, then offer potential methods of increasing productivity (in both the market and the home). These methods are only theoretical unless or until a cultural shift takes place that puts them into practice on a large scale.

In other words, stats can't whine. And very rarely do they offer specific answers, rather they seem to offer more questions. And, that's a good thing, imo.


From: The bug sky | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 10 October 2004 08:53 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is all very interesting I suppose when wants to compare relative points and supply proof on who does more in society on any given occasion.

But I am not quite sure what you mean about a huge societal shift and this data being useful to us then?

I find the following comment curious: "offer potential methods of increasing productivity (in both the market and the home)."

Do you mean male productivity? Or everyone's?

As I find that suggestive of the human capital theory if it is everyone's, and perhaps on second thought even if it is just males that you mean.

I have always wondered about this movement towards thinking about people as human capital. Is it a good thing? Would it it make us more human or less human? Does it objectify us the rabble as being disposable like income? Or does it elevate us to dollar standings?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
August1991
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6768

posted 15 October 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for August1991     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wrote:
quote:
Why are marriages with girls more likely to end in divorce? The following paper is accessible. It deserves a response.Dahl Moretti Paper

Trish answered the following (in full):

quote:
The comment about marriages with girls being more likely to end in divorce made me think of the boys being the one to carry on the family name, which is the man's name. Most papers that have approached the subject recognize that that is pretty much the number one reason most men want sons. The reason for the importance of procreation is to continue the family line. It's that in the animal world and in the human world. The DNA is carried by both sexes. Since women change their names to the husband's name in most societies, only the male carried the name on. Until women had more freedom to own property, it was imperative that a family had sons to carry on.
People did not understand the dynamics of a child's sex/gender until fairly recently. It is now known that the man is responsible for the gender but throughout history, men were allowed to divorce the wives who did not give them proper heirs (sons). I think there are still a lot of cases where the men blame their wives for not giving them sons, resulting in hard feelings and divorces.

Trish's answer has bothered me and I have thought about it.

First, the family name (or family line). This begs the question. Why do we have a patriarchal society in name only? (Or, what did men transmit 40,000 years ago when they had no way to write a family name?)

Second, who cares whether a woman or a man determines the sex of a child? It is random for both parents.

Third, the DNA is carried by both sexes. True, but in unequal fashion. Women can transmit their DNA to a maximum of about 20 offspring. Men can conceivably transmit their DNA to several thousand offspring.

Fourth, I really feel uncomfortable posting this here. Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong.

BTW, I believe that female fish and female insects lay thousands of eggs. But female birds require male participation during the incubation of eggs. And birds, unlike fish and insects, are largely monogamous.

(Mike Keenan, is my post foolish? You are welcome to ignore my nonsense.)

[ 15 October 2004: Message edited by: August1991 ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 October 2004 01:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

Who does?

My grandmother raised 7 children, without a single electric gizmo. She did ten times the housework i do, in the same amount of time. (At least, i assume that days are the same size now as they were in 1925.) Maybe the figures look funny because we're not very skilled at home-making?


Oh aye, they were farmers on mum's side of the family for over 500 years. Long days and early to bed. Immigrants from Norway as were most of them who populated N. Yorkshire, England. They always had a crock pot of beef and kidney stew w gravy to have on toast for 4 am breakfasts five days a week. Thoughts of Danish back bacon makes my mouth water. Most of them lived into their 90's, too. God, they never knew or cared about cholesterol back then. Several farms still in the family.

The Canadien side all had big families. And few of them had it easy.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca