Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says that women work 4 unpaid hours a day and men work 2.5 unpaid hours a day.

So all the hubbub is about 1.5 hours of unpaid work/day.

Is the article trying to make fun of SAHM's?

Do you understand that "women" in that statistic are not SAHMs? It means women, writ large. Before a woman leaves for work and after she gets home, she's doing the bulk of the unpaid labor around the house. Not because she doesn't have a job. Because he's not doing his share.

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of this is unnecessary. I am a working single father with 100 percent custody. I have no help and my kids are preteens and one teen. First, who would pay me to do the housework in my own house? Second, some of the things SAHP's do is nice, but somewhat unnecessary at the frequency it's done. Like I do laundry at different schedules, sometimes more than others, i never wash windows, vacuum infrequently between the cleaning lady.

In short, this article is not really useful.

Interesting perspective. I am married SAHM and my DH actually appreciates the nice-to-haves that I provide. Maybe it is a SES thing and high HHI people want these nice-to-haves for themselves and their children. I don't know. I have outsourced the window washing etc. He is very much a happily married husband and involved dad and my kids have both loving parents in the house. Certainly nice to have. Dollar amount? Priceless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHM. Staying at home allows us a better, less hectic life and there are some savings and intangible benefits too because we are outsourcing less, cooking more, childcare, enrichment etc. However, no one is paying me for my labor. Giving SAHMs seperate pre-tax retirement savings instruments from primary earners or allowing them to pay into social security may be more helpful.

Since I was also a WOHM, I would prefer just equal pay in the workplace, paid maternity and paternity leave, flex schedule, on-site daycare and pumping facility. Lets start with making the lives of working women better so that we actually have pleasant choices about if we want to stay in the workforce or not.

It would actually be better if we require SAHM to pay into social security if they plan to receive it.

Anonymous wrote:The article says that women work 4 unpaid hours a day and men work 2.5 unpaid hours a day.

So all the hubbub is about 1.5 hours of unpaid work/day.

Is the article trying to make fun of SAHM's?

Anonymous wrote:The article says that women work 4 unpaid hours a day and men work 2.5 unpaid hours a day.

So all the hubbub is about 1.5 hours of unpaid work/day.

Is the article trying to make fun of SAHM's?

Anonymous wrote:The article says that women work 4 unpaid hours a day and men work 2.5 unpaid hours a day.

So all the hubbub is about 1.5 hours of unpaid work/day.

Is the article trying to make fun of SAHM's?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think I should necessarily get paid for what I do as a stay at home mom (I don’t like the transactional nature of that idea), but I appreciate articles like this just because people undervalue and under-appreciate unpair labor. Some people (not DCUM people) think SAHMs don’t contribute because we don’t earn.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the calculation does not take into account the fact that the SAHM is receiving food, lodging, a car, and other expenses from her husband. In effect, the "unpaid labor" is what her husband is paying her to do when he provides for the family. In all likelihood her "unpaid labor" would not even pay for all that stuff if she were paid minimum wage for it.

I know everyone's going to chime in "she still does more of the unpaid work at home even if she has a full-time job" but most likely he makes more than she does and therefore it is reasonable that she do more "unpaid work" to compensate for that. That is, if we're going to reduce this to a purely economic calculation - as the NYT op ed attempts to do.

Anonymous wrote: This is unpaid work but it is work. And since it is work, it gets done by someone. Marriage laws were made in societies to make sure that women got the social, emotional, financial rights of being a homemaker and a mother. There was a quid pro quo for this unpaid labor.

As a SAHM, I do not have to be paid. I am an equal partner with equal rights on the household wealth and assets. I am granted rights and protections under the law. Only foolish and ignorant people need to see these graphs and realize that there is a dollar amount associated with the unpaid work of women at home. These foolish people are not going to change their tune either. These graphs are not going to convince them.

Smart people realize that this labor is unpaid and they are appreciative of the work that women do - SAHM or WOHM. Their intelligence is rewarded by happier households and shared goals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never really understood this argument, and I'm a woman. Is the implication that we should get a salary for these things? There are certain tasks that are just about keeping your life up and running. Moreover, who would pay us for, say, doing the dishes or the laundry?

I don't get it either. I skimmed the article and it was talking about things like grocery shopping. Is the implication that doing things that are basically just life is now supposed to be paid work? Paid by who exactly?

HAHA... they count getting groceries?

Yes, some people pay other people to do all these things. You seriously didn't see the Internet blow up over the silicon valley CEO who wanted a "wife"?

Of course they count getting groceries! It’s work, just like any other task.