"they spend about 15 hrs per week more than mothers at earning family income and doing parenting."

Factored in housework there Dale? Of course not. Because THAT would be the actual full picture, including the bits you don't want to see.

I've read enough of your previous posts to now that your motivation here isn't to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion but to look for opportunities to denigrate the work (of any kind) that women do.

There's a mountain of research demonstrating that, whatever the paid work arrangements, women generally do more work hours than men.

Lorna Jarrett
I discount housework hours, because there is no standard to measure if hours spent on housework are excessive or too little.

Housework is mentioned over and over by various social scientists, but as yet, not one of them has ever come up with a figure of what are suitable or standard hours to spend on housework for a family of 2,3,4, 5 etc.

Without standard figures, hours spent on housework are meaningless.

Most social scientists would know that also.

No Dale,

You discount housework because including it spoils your pretty picture. Plenty of research done on housework hours.

Nobody cares whether or not *you* think the figures are meaningless, or social science is meaningless, or feminism or women or whatever. Your opinions are just that - opinions.

Lorna Jarret
"Plenty of research done on housework hours."

The only research counts the hours of housework which is meaningless. It is like attempting to measure the length of something without comparing it to a standard length such as a meter.

Next to no standards have ever been established in social science, and no scientific laws have ever been established by social science, and in place of that is usually the most biased, bigoted and useless research that has ever been undertaken.

All housework hours are excessive in my view. The special quality of "housework hours" is the way that they are potentially unending; housework makes Sisyphus' labours look like a holiday. Camus notes that the gods who condemned him to ceaselessly roll a rock to the top of a hill only to never complete the task "...had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor." Exactly. Domestic work ought to be paid at double minimum rates, it is so onerous.

Dale, an hour is a standard measurement of time: it is 60 minutes in length and each of those minutes is 60 seconds in length. Despite the psychosocial lengthening effect of potentially endless labour (i.e. any hour spent on housework feels longer than any hour spent on something else), housework hours are the same standard length as an hour at work.

Now if you mean "standard hours OF work", I think you will find that there are reliable guides written for women up until and including the 1970s (no, I don't have the titles at hand, do your own research) with standard times on different chores including cooking, cleaning repairs, children, etc - there are still housework schedules primarily directed at women on the web. However, as Anthony points out, housework is a never-ending iterative irregular sequence of tasks, so specifying, say 40hrs is pretty meaningless. Not that a working week for an employee is all that standard these days anyway, and let's not get into productive time on-task.

Basically, I think your "standard" for hours of housework is either a deliberate furphy, willful ignorance or trolling.

As my auntie once told me when I was a kid "I've got one life, and I'm not going to spend it with a f*cking duster in my hand". Decades pass, but those words remain.

Didn't I say before how other people than parents play an important role in kids' upbringing?

Dennis Allexander,
Someone can spend one hour per day on housework, and someone else can spend ten hours per day on housework.

Which person is the most efficient and productive.

According to SOME people, the more hours spent on housework the better, because it looks better in their social science research study.

It is similar with childcare. Someone could be with the child from the time they left the school gate to the time they went back through the school gate the next day.

That would include sitting with them on the school bus, sitting with them while they did their homework, or being with them while they are playing with their friends etc.

Being with the child at all times would also look good in a social science research study, because it means more time is being spent on childcare, but of course it would only annoy the child, and the child never learns independance.

So as well as social science never working out standard or suitable hours to spend on housework, it has never worked out standard or suitable hours to spend on childcare either.

So, you are talking about standard times. In motor vehicle repairs, factories identify standard times for particular repair/replace/service tasks on components under specified conditions. Houses and families don't necessarily conform to "specified standard conditions" but neither do mechanical workshops.

And if you go to the schedules for housework and to the books for housewives, you will find recommended (standard) times just as there are indicative times on recipes these days, so you are wrong, again.

Tell me Dale, are there "standard times" for your work? Do you meet these times sequentially or in parallel with multiple analytical machines active at the same time?

As for employment style work, one could ask how productive it is to pay someone to sit on their arse and watch a machine work - which is pretty much standard for an awful lot of jobs these days, even lab analyst jobs.

Dennis Alexander
I would think there can be a standard or suitable time for housework, because someone could be extremely inefficient and non-productive in their housework (although that would show up as a plus or positive in a social science research study).

I have yet to know of a social scientist or feminist (is there any difference) advising women to become more efficient in their housework, but they never stop saying that spending long hours at housework is oppressive for women.

Hours spent on child care might be slightly different than housework, although it appears more and more children are being driven everywhere, when in the past they were often told to walk or ride a bike.

Also, why aren't you calling me names such as troll? Did you forget name calling and abuse?

Hi Dennis,

I wouldn't spend too many hours (standard or otherwise) trying to reason with Dale. After all, he copies and pastes the same tired old nonsense all over this site (see he's onto the feminist - social scientist again).

I am a feminist. I am not a social scientist.

See, that took all of 2 seconds to disprove, but it won't make any difference to him.

Lorna Jarrett
A lot of feminist theory was based on social science, the most biased, bigoted and subjective science ever developed, with virtually no reliability in any of it.

In fact, social science studies such as “Fathering in Australia among couple families with young children: Research highlights” are quite objectionable, because they make fathers look as though they have to justify their existence.

While at the same time, the social science researcher does not have to justify their existence.

"someone could be extremely inefficient and non-productive in their housework" Well of course. And someone can be inefficient and non-productive in a widget factory too. It doesn't negate the concept of there being a reasonable average time in which a task can or should be completed.

Increased productivity in housework was a hallmark of the 20th century - washing machines, dishwashers and such like - and I don't recall anyone, social scientist, feminist or otherwise, saying that this is a bad thing. Having said that, shortening the duration of housework isn't necessarily an unalloyed good. Sure, ripping the lid off a microwaved TV dinner is highly efficient, time-wise. But in terms of forming good habits when it comes to nutrition, maybe not so great an idea.

Regan Forrest
That would bring into question the usefulness of courses in home economics, which have been a disaster as an education course in secondary schools.

There are now increasing obesity from bad eating habits, increasing household debt, high rates of unstable de facto relationships, high rates of divorce, high rates of diseases starting in childhood, and it seems, increasing rates of child poverty.

Most of the problems that home economics courses were originally designed to reduce.

I am inclined to think feminism in education systems killed off any benefits of home economics courses.

Wow. That's a lot of social ills to put at the feet of the humble Home Ec curriculum!

In my experience (admittedly more than two decades ago) the main influence of feminism on Home Ec classes was that both boys and girls were taught it. And both girls and boys were taught basic carpentry and metalwork too. I'm not sure how that leads to the outcomes you've described.

What Dale? Western civilisation brought to its knees by home economics?

Dale Bloom,

Homework:

Maurice Dobb's (1947) paper 'Marxism and the Social Sciences' republished in 2001 by Monthly Review.

Do try and contain your annoyance with feminism because it reads terribly much like it is a generalised annoyance with women. This muddies the waters and prevents any reasoned criticism of feminism for which there certainly are good grounds. It is hard in such conditions to advance criticism when blokes like you immediately jump onto what they perceive as an anti-feminist bandwagon.

I think we should remember, Anthony, that Foucault, in one of his archeologies, showed that Economics, the academic discipline, was derivative and descendant of economics as the management of a Roman household. So Home Ec rules! ;-)

Regan Forrest,
And what a disaster. Very few girls have undertaken trade work except hair dressing, and feminism also taught girls that being a homemaker was oppressive, and it was best to follow a career.

So generations of women have been given a feminist type model that was the anthesis of their deeper biological or physiological being.

Walk into any newsagency and look at the men’s and women’s sections. The newsagency owner knows more about men and women than any social science researcher or feminist.

The women’s section has dress magazines, cooking, crafts, baby magazines etc.

The men’s section has fishing magazines, car magazines, woodwork magazines, business magazines etc.

The two sections complement each other, but not many women look through the men’s section and vice versa.

The men and women are following their natural dictates and inclinations, and the newsagency owner knows it.

Anthony Nolan
I do feel sorry for many women, men and children because of the effects of feminist theory on society.

Count the number of men and women in this list to see how much feminism actually believes in gender equality, diversity and social inclusion.

http://sydney.edu.au/eeo/home/staff.shtml

There is not the slightest evidence of gender equality in feminism.

And then there are those of us who avoid both Men's and Women's sections entirely and opt for titles like Cosmos and The Monthly (my two regular subscriptions).

Not everyone can be pigeonholed into neat little categories. That's what feminism taught me.

Regan Forrest,
Women's levels of happiness have not increased.

Most of human existence has been survival mode, and Australia is about to enter into survival mode. Commodity prices have peaked, and successive Australian governments have failed to capitalise on the mining boom, with most states and the federal government now being in serious debt. Due to globalisation, Australia is also in competition with countries that pay their people very little, expect long work hours, have minimal O H & S laws, minimal social security etc.

In the future, there will be very little money in Australia to squander on feminist theory.

All housework is indeed excessive! Here I am even reading Dale Bloom's comments because I am trying to avoid the housework...

I am caring for my toddler full time, refuse to do all of the housework (hey, I'm not the only person who lives in this house!), and sometimes feel like I really am doing housework and childcare all day every day, even though it isn't actually constant. But it's never ending! The floor needs sweeping again? Already? But I only just did that yesterday! What do you mean there is another load of washing to do? Dirty dishes? But I just finished washing up! But I did indeed loathe housework when I was working full time as well.

So Dale, if I understand your point, you're saying that Australia has a few challenges ahead. OK. So we're going to need all the talent and drive we can get.

That's why I can't work out for the life of me how reverting to a system that effectively slashes our talent pool in half (capable women being sacked upon marriage, female entrepreneurs unable to secure business loans) is going to help one iota. Because to reject feminism is to go back to a world where your talent or ability didn't count, just your possession of a Y chromosome.

My bottom line is this: I think people should be free to go wherever their talents and drive take them. If 99% of men and 99% of women genuinely want to follow "traditional" gender roles, then that's totally fine by me. But that shouldn't mean the other 1% should be forced to follow the mould.

Indeed. Would you say this attitude is also a result of the Industrial Revolution shift-work-away-from-home?

It could be argued, though, that the tools for increased productivity haven't decreased housework but instead increased our expectations of the standard to which our houses are kept clean.

For example, washing machines save a lot of time in doing the laundry but we now expect to not wear anything twice in order to save time on washing day.

Well, we oughta start by talking about feminisms. Note the plural. Its not a monolithic theory. Like any powerful idea it attracts a veritable constellation of ideas and adherents. My preference is to support women's liberation. That's a rather old fashioned notion that cuts through all sorts of class interests that are currently present in feminism. Try it, you might like it!

Regan Forrest,
In the future, it may not be a case of “choice”, or of finding increased contentment or happiness, but of staying alive and having children who can also stay alive and have children. The 50% youth unemployment rate in Spain is very likely in this country also, if commodity prices in iron ore and coal were to collapse.

There is no reliable data that shows women’s levels of happiness have increased in recent decades, and quite frankly, innovation from women has been minimal, despite more education and many more opportunities.

If feminists want lots of choice, they should first come up with an industry that can match mining in terms of exports, but I have heard of nothing yet.

Alternatively they can come up with a system that would vastly reduce our imports before we become totally bankrupt, but I have heard of nothing yet.

If the future is so grim, then maybe "surviving and having children" should not be the goal, but rather having fewer or no children in order to give the rest of the human race a fighting chance?

But then again, you don't seem to see the point of women beyond a reproductive role... Maybe you should read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". Based on your comments, I think you'll find the society described therein appealing.

PS-surely you've noticed that there is a woman at the helm of one of our biggest mining companies?

The main mining companies import most of everything, and appear to be financing very little in Australia except more mines, and are now about to import labour.

There is minimal innovation from women. The extra women in the workplace have probably reduced wages and driven up prices with dual incomes, with very little economic gains for the average family.

As well there has been the colossal loss of wealth from families due to divorce, with various studies showing no increase in happiness after the divorce for the majority of people.

All for no gain, and time now for feminists to stop whinging about men, and start thinking about how the country is going to survive in the future.

No, not Lou's daughter. But would she also stomp her feet up and down and say she will not keep her house that clean and tidy? Fine lady if she would!

I do believe a clean house is a sign of a wasted life, is it not?

Anthony,

From past experience you're on a non-starter trying to reason with Dale, get him to read anything that doesn't confirm his bigotry, or justify his assertions.

Then again, for the rest of us your comments are thought-provoking and entertaining. Seems you've had a bad experience and learned form it without becoming bitter or losing your sense of humour. There are lessons in that for people who're capable of comprehending.

Anything else you'd like to blame feminism for? World hunger? Climate change? Dancing With the Stars?

Nice of you to recognise that. Cheers.

There's no evidence that it's in all mens' natures to act one way, and all womens' natures to act another. None. At. All.

There are mountains' of evidence that forcing *people* into roles that conflict with their natures causes misery.

There is one compelling reason, though, to argue for the non-participation of women in paid work (and to dredge up whatever half-baked arguments and refer to whatever un-cited statistics to support it).

That reason is incompetence. As Regan points out, if we eliminate half the population from employment in any field, we eliminate half our best talent. Not good news if we want talent and results, but great news for the untalented males who benefit from the unfairness.

Lorna Jarrett
Why don’t you give the full story.

Including the large number of women now on pensions, the increasing number of children living on social security, the number of men driven to skid row or suicide, the number of families whose wealth has been split up and deposited into the pockets of family law solicitors and real estate agents.

And it was all to give women more choice and increase talent?

Tim,

I agree absolutely - I don't think it's possible or useful to generalise about the motivations of either sex. I know men who're far happier to be at home with the kids. I also know women whose partners were off on golf weekends etc. when they went into labour. I'm guessing they would be reluctant - to put it mildly.

I also don't think that it's useful to talk about mens' or womens' motivations in isolation because obviously when two people share out roles, both people's motivations play a part - barring coercion or a social structure that rules out choice.

I think you're right to say "there is a social expectation upon men to be the bread winner and for women to take the time off work to raise the kids". But that means that "giving up your career" "doesn't appear to be stigmatised as much with women" - NOT giving up your career is what's stigmatised.

Sexist social structures generally deliver more power and money to men - but they restrict the choices of everyone. I'm convinced that in some cases (wouldn't care to guess a percentage) fathers are more suited to staying home with the kids than mothers. I'm even more convinced that in the majority of cases, everyone would be happier if fathers and mothers shared the paid, unpaid work and childcare.

Final thought - how do all the same-sex households divide things up?

Good question, I wonder if same sex households have an easier or harder time choosing divisions of labour?

I think the thing that is really stunning is how social roles that are now antiquated still dominate the way we think and how others perceive us. I've even had work colleagues comment upon me doing housework. I was going to go out and hunt down a deer of course, but decided to opt for vacuuming the carpet instead.

One truth for any parent should never be forgotten: no-one ever looks back on their life and thinks they should have spent more time at work.

I think you are on the correct in saying “the most significant social identifier that women have - as mother.”

This would be supported by the fact that women paying child support usually pay privately, and do not have it taken from their pay. They attempt to keep it secret that they are paying child support because it is too embarrassing if other women found out the father was looking after the children.

So fathers are being accused of not spending enough time looking after the children, but no evidence that the majority of mothers want to be the primary breadwinner, and no evidence that the majority of mothers want fathers to be the primary carer.

As usual, the accusations made about men (normally made by a feminist) are eventually found to be false.

Anthony, "the most significant social identifier that women have - as mother".

No. Really - no. Maybe for some women, but it doesn't come the the paired X-chromosomes.

Lorna, I once would have agreed with you but personal experience has taught me otherwise. It's complicated, to say the least, but I'll have a go:

Some women bump into the glass ceiling and, on realising that it won't shatter or melt in time to meet their aspirations, then look elsewhere for life satisfaction and social identity. They realise, too late to be able to make the necessary changes, that the attachment that children form in the 0-5 years period is very strong. It's subtle, children's attachment, and the affective consequences for some women who discover they aren't the primary object of their children's attachment runs very deep.

Some other women, going past the glass ceiling, realise what a lot of men already know - the top job is not worth it; they understand, too late, that success in the public sphere comes at a price and that no amount of public recognition, status or authority can compensate for the loss of a close bond with intimate family members, especially children.

You only spend time once.

This doesn't apply to all women, of course, but it is real for some. This is why I advise men to go for a 50/50 split right down the line especially around employment and career paths. Both parents work part time or neither does. If part time employment in say the 0-5 year period imposes a career cost then it needs to be equally shared as do the risks.

It's very difficult for a bloke to comment on this subject without being identified as a card carrying member of the men's movement. When I say that women's primary social identifier is as mother it is with regret that this remains the case; I'm not advocating a biologically determinist limitation on appropriate social roles for women.

We appear to me to be in a transitional period where many men and women find the limitations of dominant gender roles deeply unsatisfactory. I think that the answer lies more in the direction of challenging managerial prerogative and class interests around the organisation of the workplace than in seeking to fit one's personal life and intimate ambitions in the interstices and gaps available.

But I'm not holding my breath on that.

Your previous comment implied that women's main social role was as a mother, thus suggesting that women who do not identify as mothers do not count as proper women. For the many women who through choice, circumstance or biology will never be mothers, that assertion is frankly offensive.

Anthony,
IMO everything you've said there and above would identify you as a card-carrying feminist - only as far as I'm aware, feminism doesn't issue cards.

Parents' movement maybe? Or peoples' movement - because it's not just biological or even adoptive parents that are important in kids' upbringing.

Anyway - no disagreement from me. Actually I think the problem stems form the Industrial Revolution. It's got a lot to answer for: regimented away-from-home work patterns, socially-reproductive education, pollution, greenhouse gases.

Oh Gods... and quasistatic thermodynamics.

Anthony Nolan
When men are actually included in social science research, (and social science research is less biased, subjective and more like a proper science), the picture becomes clearer.

Although the majority of men can be the primary carer, they are more suited for work outside the home, and are more inclined to do that. Although the majority of women can work outside the home, they are more suited for work in the home, and are more inclined to do that.

There are exceptions, but that is the general rule, and attempts to make men and women the same are hopeless in the long term.

Dale, you are an old fashioned fellow aren't you? The woman shouldn't wear pants? Just how old fashioned might alarm some people:

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

So I don't think your views are informed at all by sociology.

In fact Pahl's studies show that the gendered division of labour arose and was spurred on in Europe by the industrial revolution, as Lorna Jarrett points out. Prior to that there were very few gendered divisions on small farm holdings. Many tasks were done equally by men and women. This means that the current gendered division of labour is not set in stone or Moses tablets. It's all just a matter of acquired skill and opportunity.

Anthony Nolan
There is no research or even anecdotal evidence to say the majority of women want to be the primary breadwinner. There is also no research or even anecdotal evidence to say the majority of women want the father to be the primary carer.

If fathers then go out and become the primary breadwinner and allow mothers to be the primary carer (as the majority of women want), then feminists and others accuse fathers of neglecting their duties or some other accusation.

Perhaps feminists and others should just let people be.

Dale, I think that the very real increases in women's post war labour market participation rates stand as evidence at least that women want to work in the public sphere.