[HoniSoit]

A while back, there was a study posted on PoFo which calculated the worth of "women's work" in monetary terms - which is interesting. However, a question arises: is there a danger by valuing "women's work" in monetary terms and treating it as a commodity that we are actually to a large extent devaluing the works?

For example, wouldn't calculating how much women should have been paid as a childcarer actually devalue the meaningfulness of caring one's own children? In reversing the trivalisation "women's work" in the past, aren't we adopting a 'wrong' approach and mindset?

[Maxim Litvinov]

These things are so complex that they can generally be twisted to support multiple cases. And since the general tactic of the conservative misogynist on the issue of women's rights is 'divide and rule', often the line is put that to stay-at-home mothers that feminists don't 'respect' them and to feminists that stay-at-home mothers are a lost cause.

The main problem with calculating so-called 'women's work' (ie. child care, domestic activities) in monetary terms is that it basically fails. One does not 'devalue' it by calculating its worth, but (by definition) by undervaluing its worth. This is easily done, for instance, if you take the going rate for a (teenaged) babysitter and say a mother's job is worth this amount per hour.

In terms of the true value of current unpaid work, I should just like to make two points:
[1] The vast majority of it, worldwide, is being done by women. I'm not just talking here about women doing 'equivalent' work to husbands at home while their spouse is 'earning the money'. Rather, women do more community work on top of this, more volunteer work and more household chores even in households where they do as much paid work as men. On average, women worldwide work longer hours than men.
[2] From time to time studies are done about the feasibility of paying for unpaid work, and its just not practically manageable, such is the extent of unpaid work floating about. The USSR, for instance, which was initially keen to 'free' women from the kitchen did some maths and found things would collapse tomorrow if they tried to outsource all this domestic work to professional cooks, cleaners, child-care workers etc.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I think the fact that women work too hard is largely their own fault.

They get loaded with everything beacause they are more submissive than men, whether through nurture or nature, while men would stick up to people who exploit them more.

Ironically their efforts to get 'Equality' have resulted simply in them being pressured by social and economic forces to work outside the home, even when they have a family, meaning they end up doing essentially twice as much work.

[Kylie]

I kind of agree. If you regard 'women's work' in just monatary value, in some ways, you're really missing the bigger picture of the work that women do where they aren't paid. I think Maxim makes an excellent point when he uses the example of babysitting or opair (sic) duties. You're forgetting the bigger picture of the mother and the role they are taking in raising their children to be thoughtful, moral, productive, and positive members of our society.


I think the problem with valuing the work the woman does around the house is that nobody seems to acknowledge the differences between men and women that allow women to be the household managers on top of being whatever they may be in the workplace. Also, stay-at-home mothers are the household managers, so either way, women, traditionally, seem to take on different responsiblities than men do in a family setting.

To put a monetary value on it definitely devalues it.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I disagree with Kylie, beacause it the present situation it certainly needs valuing, beacause people are pressured to work more and more and this is leading to women getting overworked.

Putting a monetery value upon it, actually values it beacause it shows how vast that monetery value really is and thus proves that women that look after the house are actually working, just as much and everyone else.

[I]

I disagree with Kylie, beacause it the present situation it certainly needs valuing, beacause people are pressured to work more and more and this is leading to women getting overworked.

This is certainly the important aspect! We've seen, for example, the errors of the British government and their obsession with policies designed to maximise employment rates (even if that is to the detriment of family welfare and the provision of household production)

[Frank_Carbonni]

A while back, there was a study posted on PoFo which calculated the worth of "women's work" in monetary terms - which is interesting. However, a question arises: is there a danger by valuing "women's work" in monetary terms and treating it as a commodity that we are actually to a large extent devaluing the works?

For example, wouldn't calculating how much women should have been paid as a childcarer actually devalue the meaningfulness of caring one's own children? In reversing the trivalisation "women's work" in the past, aren't we adopting a 'wrong' approach and mindset?

I remember that study *smirk*

Didn't it say that housewives also doubled as therapists?

Why didn't it add prostitute to the mix? Or better yet, how about finding out how much money men would make if all the jacking off they do were counted as if it were a paid handjob?

[Kylie]

Putting a monetery value upon it, actually values it beacause it shows how vast that monetery value really is and thus proves that women that look after the house are actually working, just as much and everyone else.

While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree that putting a monetary value on it will show that it's work. If you compare childcare, for example, to an aupair (figured out how to spell it), or a babysitter, you're going to see the rates, compared to other jobs, considerably low.

The only way I can 'possibly' see it is if you would actually consider ALL the jobs that are actually involved in childcare, and put the comparison monetary value to each of the jobs related to the larger task at hand, it could *possibly* work, but I don't see a point in putting a monetary value on something as in contributing to raising a child.

[HoniSoit]

One does not 'devalue' it by calculating its worth, but (by definition) by undervaluing its worth. This is easily done, for instance, if you take the going rate for a (teenaged) babysitter and say a mother's job is worth this amount per hour.

If I could put it another way, by valuing the work in monetary terms, it both undervalues it in the same monetary sense, and devalues in a non-monetary sense.

If you compare childcare, for example, to an aupair (figured out how to spell it), or a babysitter, you're going to see the rates, compared to other jobs, considerably low.

I agree. I think what is said above could be applied to this case - that is, by putting a price on it at the same rate of a babysitter, it would considerably undervalue childcaring as the value of the work by a mother and a stranger is incomparable; it also devalue and alienate the work of childcaring, and risks the danger of commodifying it and seeing it as another paid work - which I think is quite odd and perversive way of valuing things - I wouldn't think by providing emotional support to my partner or friends, I am doing the job of a psychologist and should get paid for it.

[Maxim Litvinov]

If I could put it another way, by valuing the work in monetary terms, it both undervalues it in the same monetary sense, and devalues in a non-monetary sense

Well, on the first point and you only undervalue something in a monetary sense if you undervalue it in a monetary sense. So the simple act of applying a value to the work by no means necessitates undervaluing it ('the work you do is priceless, mum!', 'a billionaire couldn't afford you!').

On the second point and there is some argument that putting a price on things reduces them to a 'lower' level - whether it's a price on sex or on child-care or on 'love' or similar. But in terms of putting a value on 'work' rather than 'feelings', I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. I mean, at the end of the day, there *is* some sort of value to having your clothes washed and ironed that can be calculated. If putting a price on this is 'devaluing' it as work, then surely those with paid work must feel very devalued.

[HoniSoit]

But in terms of putting a value on 'work' rather than 'feelings', I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. I mean, at the end of the day, there *is* some sort of value to having your clothes washed and ironed that can be calculated. If putting a price on this is 'devaluing' it as work, then surely those with paid work must feel very devalued.

Neither do I think there is any problem with putting a price on these aspects of domestic work. I had more specifically in mind the study that I referred to which, for exampled, calculated the money worth of providing emotional support to your family, and categorising it as the work of a psychologist - which is a case whee 'feelings' cannot be disassociated with 'work'.

By the way, here is the study posted:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=78388

[Dr House]

I kind of agree. If you regard 'women's work' in just monatary value, in some ways, you're really missing the bigger picture of the work that women do where they aren't paid. I think Maxim makes an excellent point when he uses the example of babysitting or opair (sic) duties. You're forgetting the bigger picture of the mother and the role they are taking in raising their children to be thoughtful, moral, productive, and positive members of our society.


I think the problem with valuing the work the woman does around the house is that nobody seems to acknowledge the differences between men and women that allow women to be the household managers on top of being whatever they may be in the workplace. Also, stay-at-home mothers are the household managers, so either way, women, traditionally, seem to take on different responsiblities than men do in a family setting.

It's ultimately their choice.If they want to take the weight of the world on their shoulders, then I say we let em. If they're pressured by society into one role or another, well... that's just wrong.

[Maxim Litvinov]

What are 'traditional gender roles' if not an example of gender though? Women don't 'take the world on their shoulders' out of nowhere - everyone tends to do things because of social norms, community expectations, pressures...

[Dr House]

I absolutely agree, which is why I stressed it's THEIR choice. Not society's.

[Maxim Litvinov]

To talk about 'choice' though too often implies 'free choice' or 'an unencumbered/uninfluenced ability to choose'.

What I'm saying is that the choices that women and men make are highly constricted. So it's THEIR choice what they'll do in the same way it's YOUR choice whether the next time you go into the city you wear men's clothes or women's clothes.

I'm not denying your ability to wear women's clothes around the place, but I'm strongly suspecting that community expectations, social norms and pressures are going to mean that you won't. So it's no sort of particularly FREE choice - because there are strong pressures at play.

[Dr House]

It's called bounded rationality. However, you're still free to ignore what society wants of you, as I did when I dropped out of college and decided that I'm not ever getting married or having children. Society wants me to, but I don't like the idea, so I won't.

[Maxim Litvinov]

It's not bounded rationality, but there's really no point getting into different models of behavioural economics.

What it is is very real pressure that changes propensities to perform certain actions, actions that don't easily slot into the model of being rational/non-rational either. This is not to say it absolutely *forces* certain decisions out of people, but the whole idea of choice is simply not a binary function as you want to maintain. It's an analog process.

The simple fact that one person in one hundred won't respond positively to a certain force should not be used as an excuse to pretend there's a 'real choice'. What there is instead is real pressure.

In which case, saying 'if they want to, then let them' is about as convincing as saying to slaves 'if they want to be slaves, then let them' on the basis that 1 in a 100 might try rebelling at some point and that rebellion is therefore technically a choice.

[Dr House]

Good point. However, my idea of bounded rationality assumes that physical force, or some equivalent psychological pressure will not be used to coerce women to conform to certain roles. Which is why I qualified that actually forcing them into a role is just wrong. Involuntary enslavement is unjustifiable under any circumstances, but simply having traditional roles, that people can conform to or rebel from, might be acceptable. I personally would like to see all forms of societal norms disappear, and the World become a non-stop party, but I think free will is more important.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'd agree that just having some set of parameters that people could agree to adopt or not adopt on a completely voluntary basis would be fine. And if there were these typical roles and certain women just chose one or the other on the basis of true free choice because they didn't have the processing skills to do any more careful evaluation of what type of life was best for them, then that's fine.

But again I'd question whether social norms can disappear. I haven't seen it happen before. But at least we can say that the potential roles/identities available for both sexes are generally getting broader: so 'socially acceptable choices' are putting more options on the table in many areas.