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?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.
Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?
NP. If everyone does it, it's not worth counting, IMO. 1 = 1
????
Unpaid labor has a specific, objective definition, the purpose of which is to quantify how much work is being done that isn’t paid. Why include “and things that not everybody does” in the definition?
You must not be good at math. That's okay, let your husband manage the budget.
You are responding with emotions instead of logic because you want your mundane efforts that everybody does to count for more.
Caring for an elderly parent all day instead of work is unpaid work.
Getting groceries, driving people around, and bringing your own plate to the sink... not unpaid work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.
Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?
NP. If everyone does it, it's not worth counting, IMO. 1 = 1
????
Unpaid labor has a specific, objective definition, the purpose of which is to quantify how much work is being done that isn’t paid. Why include “and things that not everybody does” in the definition?
You must not be good at math. That's okay, let your husband manage the budget.
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?
Anonymous wrote: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.
I would appreciate it if they measure all unpaid work by all people.
I don't think 1 group actually has cornered the market on unpaid work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Nonsense. My husband does an equal amount, more in some aspects. This is just another way of holding women to domestic jobs.
+1. I married a feminist man who does his fair share around the house - laundry, vacuuming, grocery shopping, general cleaning, making lunches and picking up when possible. My brother is the one who took care of both aging parents. Women, this narrative persists as long as we marry the fools who won't help out! Teach your sons to do their part!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Nonsense. My husband does an equal amount, more in some aspects. This is just another way of holding women to domestic jobs.
+1. I married a feminist man who does his fair share around the house - laundry, vacuuming, grocery shopping, general cleaning, making lunches and picking up when possible. My brother is the one who took care of both aging parents. Women, this narrative persists as long as we marry the fools who won't help out! Teach your sons to do their part!
Anonymous wrote:Nonsense. My husband does an equal amount, more in some aspects. This is just another way of holding women to domestic jobs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.
Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?
NP. If everyone does it, it's not worth counting, IMO. 1 = 1
????
Unpaid labor has a specific, objective definition, the purpose of which is to quantify how much work is being done that isn’t paid. Why include “and things that not everybody does” in the definition?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.
Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?
NP. If everyone does it, it's not worth counting, IMO. 1 = 1