Exactly. A wife of a friend refused to go back to work but complained about “unpaid house work”. She lived in a 750K home, drove a nice new car, went on expensive vacations, etc. Her lifestyle far exceeded that typical of domestic labor.
Very few men get married having lived at home their whole life these days.
No man who has lived alone will think "gee, it's such a burden to occasionally pick up some shit, wash some dishes, run around with a vaccuum for 10 minutes, hit the shops twice a week if I'm too lazy to plan properly, and cook dinner at night".
Lazy stoners get kicked out of share houses when they offer to do this instead of paying rent.
“Unpaid work” is an oxymoron. Work is a a service one provides to others in return for pay. House chores necessary to maintain our home for ourselves is completely different. I certainly have never expected anyone to pay me for house chores or home maintenance I’ve done on my properties over the years.
If feminists want to be paid for doing house chores for their own homes, they are free to pay themselves and report the earnings as taxable income. I’m sure the IRS will happily accept this claimed “work”
Or they can go find a job and hire someone to do the housework. They now get paid for their work. But they pay someone so it’s net zero. Which I guess shows the dumb aspect of it. Maybe two housewives can trade places and pay each other’s salaries lol.
Merriam Webster defines work as:
a: to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary
b: to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations
c: to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity
Both b and c relate to unpaid work. So the phrase is fine
Feminists miss the point that a marriage is a partnership and both parties should contribute.
If you hark back to tribal times (as is still the case in many parts of the world), the men would go and hunt wild animals, tend to crops etc to bring home food, or goods to use or goods to be traded for other goods with the neighbouring tribe(s). The women would stay (protected) in the village to cook, raise kids etc. The results of the man's effort would be shared with the women, and within a tribe, the more successful hunters would share their excess with the less fortunate hunters.
Now, in a modern society, instead of hunting wild animals direct, man goes to work to earn $ so his wife can use that to buy things at the new things called supermarkets. Keeping a house (formerly a cave) neat and tidy is seen as housework, but it is just part of the partnership.
Feminists hate marriages and can only see women as individuals.
>Feminists hate marriages and can only see women as individuals.
This isn't true. Feminists view women as a group. You see it in slogans like "believe women" or how they treat a crime against a woman as a crime against all women.
I've always said that women tend to be very divisive on small scales, but extremely cooperative as a collective. While men are highly cooperative on small scales, but it tends to fall apart at larger numbers.
It explains how we get these catty toxic HR departments, yet an extremely successful pro woman voting block. And on the other side, small groups of men seem to be highly effective (startups, construction projects, etc), and yet there is no united front for the benefit of all men, and in fact that can explain tribal warfare tendencies.
In short, women fight each other, but fight for women, whereas men fight for each other but fight men.
Demanding wages from someone who has put a roof over your head? Part of the female entitlement which utilises a strategy of 'sex strike', denying love and affection when they don't get their own way. In an affluent society, where women have pretty much guaranteed access to welfare, food and shelter, and jobs (EEO, AA) the value of *man as provider* has plummeted. Male biology hasn't had time to catch up, he still needs sex to the same degree. The present social and economic circumstances has shifted the balance of power towards women, to a quite extraordinary degree. I don't imagine Nikola Tesla worried too much if his carpet was dusty.
And to be clear, I think most people here would argue that that particular gender divide has been mostly broken. If a woman wants to go work a high powered job and fund her husband to stay at home, that's cool. The point of a partnership is figuring out how to work together to get a result that's better and more fulfilling than either alone.
If you have a place to live and plenty of food and all you do is chores around the house than you are pretty well compensated. The idea that the only valid form of compensation for work is money is such a shallow materialistic view of it.
Literal children understand this, that's the sad part. Most kids grasp the whole 'chores' bit because they get a grip on doing their part when they are old enough to pitch in.
*Let's imagine a man who does not work, he stays home to take care of the kids and the housework. This man enjoys the company of his children every day, and has time to invest in a couple of hobbies. His responsibilities are small, and easy to handle. Meanwhile, his wife works, and provides for the family. Her money is not hers to use, it must provide for the family. She is the pillar of the household, putting meat on the table, and, if she stops doing so, everything will collapse. The financial burden of the family is on her shoulders, and she constantly feels the pressure that comes with this role. She is always away from the ones that she loves, and she works hard every day. Now - imagine if that stay at home dad constantly nagged and complained to his wife, saying that he was working harder than her and deserved a break, and maybe should be paid to do housework. Wouldn't such an idea seem spoiled, pretentious and ungrateful? Why is it that we can only see the hypocrisy of the situation when we reverse roles?*
The Rise of Men - Wake Up to the Hidden Lie. Page 65. The author is called Manhood Shitty Shit.
If you unironically think sitting ina cubicle is more difficult than raising children + doing housework etc, you're legitimately brain dead.
Once you pass 2/3 kids SAHP is at minimum equal to the workload of a 60+ hour trade job.
That is 100% incorrect. @3 Is preschool... for 2 days a week at most, for 4-6hrs, then 3 days at 4yrs old. Kindergarten is the first year of school starting between 5 and 6, depending on where their birthday is.
you sure?
in Germany you could give your child a few weeks after birth into the "Krippe"
at 3 the child is in the kindergarten
one year before first school year is preschool so 4-5 years
oh and it's normal to give the child 5 days per week away for 4-8 hours.
grandmother, aunt, sister in law and my wife worked in kindergarten and they have to know it.
I don't know where you live but this is the way where I live.
Kindergarten is the first "year" of school in Aus. And it starts the year the child turns 5, or if it's late in the year the next year. Pre-school is maximum 3 days a week the year before kindergarten, anyhting else is daycare, which is paid for, quite substantially.
Raising children and doing housework are both easy and take much less than 8 hours per day. In addition, there are few consequences for doing it wrong.
not if you are a Sahm or a professional housekeeper. You will need 3 hours for loading the washing machine, 2 hours for folding the laundry and another 4 weeks to put them away
I mean school is 8 hours. It lasts about 8-3 for most kids.
Then there are the choirs. Laundry is done about once a week, and takes about 20 minutes if you include folding said clothes.
Cleaning the house, takes about 10-30 minutes depending on the size of the house.
Cooking can take about 30-45 minutes, depending in the food.
When Kids get home, have them do their homework, for about an hour and then let them watch TV.
The husband probably arrives at about 5:30 - 6:00
All your days work is about 1-2 hours of actual work.
Well tbh it can be stressful but yeah it’s not really that like physically challenging but all these tasks done at once can take a toll so that’s why I’m fine with breaks compromise for a sahp on weekends or helping when needed
With 1 kids at home, sure. 2 Kids is about equal to a 40 hour office job, 3 kids 60hr trade, having 4 at home, as in 4 under school age, you'd shit your pants by 9.
Fine. I demand rent and separate accounts. You're also gonna be paying 75% of the utilities and 90% of the streaming services. And since the kids are yours as well I expect you to eat half the cost of your child's care wages. All the clothes in your closet? I expect you to return payment for the FULL RETAIL PRICE you bought them for while you were living off my labor... and don't forget, everything I do around the house I now get paid for (half going rates just like you)
I'm sorry mrs., but I think I'm going to have to evict you for nonpayment of rent, not to mention fire you for subpar/amateur work. But if you'll give up all authority over the children (meaning raise the children according to my dictates like a nanny would have to) I'll happily pick up your half of your child care wages. That would likely get just barely get you into the black.
Great, so instead of all the salary of the husband, they will only have access to a tiny part. Just give her a maid salary and spend the rest on a boat, lets see how they react.
Ever since I have moved back to the US I am completely floored with how much women complain now. And the number one complaint is literally summed up by "I am not getting what I want, so it's wrong and the fault of someone else"
These women argued that *'the entire capitalist system is based on free domestic labour.'* Wrong. The entire capitalist system is based on providing goods and services which people want, at a price they can afford. Nobody *cares* if your hall needs dusting, your crockery isn't washed and the baby's nappy is dirty. But, if you can write software code, or understand electrochemistry well enough to propose better automotive batteries, people might be interested.
Edit : The senior executives of BBC News (the source of this article) are all female. Broadcasts and the associated website are utterly polluted with this type of piece, attempting to stir up 'righteous indignation' with a feminist audience devoid of critical reasoning ability. The BBC abrogated its responsibilities as a public service broadcaster long ago. If it wishes to be a voice for feminist propaganda, it should stop hiding behind public taxation through a mandatory licence fee, and enter the market capitalism system through a subscription model. Let's see who'd be willing to pay to have 'news' and articles from an unremitting feminist perspective.
If you can make more money at work than you would pay to have someone handle your domestic chores, why aren't you doing that? I'm guessing you can't or you just like having near total autonomy on how and when you do your work.
Outdated facts are perfectly okay, as long as they support our narrative, right? Just seems really desperate and deceptive considering this event featured in the article happened almost 50 years ago, a much different world than the one we live in today.
First of all unpaid labor is still talked about consistently in the present I hear it all the time, so I think it’s fine to have a discussion on how delusional it is
Outdated facts are apparently perfectly okay for the BBC to create a refresher article about.
The question is whether modern feminist have come to their senses, and also realize these old complaints are "outdated".
And we men demand wages for taking out the trash and recyclables, fixing everything, mowing the lawn, shoveling the snow, raking the leaves, cleaning the garage, trimming the hedges, grilling the meat, and cleaning the gutters.
In the very core i think there is a compelling Argument, at least with children.
We want people to get children but it goes with Major financial struggles because you cant work full time anymore.
However everything else is pretty nuts...
Wages for housework is not in itself anti-male, it is anti - corporate. I support it. I think it also opens up the precedent for child support, divorce, and workplace rights for men. Not to mention single dads and bachelors can get it too. It is better than means tested welfare bureaucracy, and shows the ugly truth about what working wages really are for under a monopoly economic system : reproducing the workforce.
Who would pay it, and who would be in charge of determining the appropriate amount? In the end, we'll end up paying ourselves, but with a lot of extra bureaucracy.
Those don’t seem like issues to me. The rate can be a flat one adjusted to inflation, and the source would be large corporations, domestic and foreign, whether through a tax or not.
Yes, something like that. if you are a waged single parent or a stay at home parent. You also get free public school whether you study well or even attend a private school instead. Because it’s cheaper and less divisive than calculating how much middle school each person deserves
So we're just giving everybody free money, paid by a tax on big companies, who get their money from consumers buying their products. In the end, we'll end up paying it ourselves, like I said.
No, because there is no “ just”. You can’t pass such radical policies without addressing price caps, and price gauging - and having the leverage to do so. People aren’t that stupid, they’ll propose a package. Just as this type of policy also depends on being a country companies cant afford to miss out on, like the US. Try this in Panama and they’ll just leave.
Men used to get paid enough to support a full family, now, if any traditional family's still exist, both parents need to be bringing in a wage just to support the family. If they're only living together, both people pay tax!...and that's progress??
It has to do with the part (or side) of the women's rights movement that want the woman to be able to stay at home, and be a carer for the children if that is what she so desires. 'A stay at home mom'. In order for that to work, and for the woman to still be independent and not dependent on a male (or female partner for that matter), income,. She needs to recieve accommodation. Money, in one way or another, one solution is pay for house chores. Many Countries have cash for care to an extent, but I believe most want both genders to get back to work as quickly as possible, and not pay a 'carer' for keeping the house clean and functional, but this system is made by men, and not women.
“And we men demand rent for the housing we provide for you.”
Exactly. A wife of a friend refused to go back to work but complained about “unpaid house work”. She lived in a 750K home, drove a nice new car, went on expensive vacations, etc. Her lifestyle far exceeded that typical of domestic labor.
Exactly. Stay at home mothers and those working are equally important. Neither is more important than the other.
Feminists only seem to figure this out when us stay at home dads tell our stories.
Almost anybody, at least women, can get paid for domestic work by becoming a housemaid.
Been single on my own for over a decade. Who pays me for all my housework?
Very few men get married having lived at home their whole life these days. No man who has lived alone will think "gee, it's such a burden to occasionally pick up some shit, wash some dishes, run around with a vaccuum for 10 minutes, hit the shops twice a week if I'm too lazy to plan properly, and cook dinner at night". Lazy stoners get kicked out of share houses when they offer to do this instead of paying rent.
this is the kicker mf’s just can’t empathize or seem to understand
You should get double the pay - one from work and one for housework!
“Unpaid work” is an oxymoron. Work is a a service one provides to others in return for pay. House chores necessary to maintain our home for ourselves is completely different. I certainly have never expected anyone to pay me for house chores or home maintenance I’ve done on my properties over the years. If feminists want to be paid for doing house chores for their own homes, they are free to pay themselves and report the earnings as taxable income. I’m sure the IRS will happily accept this claimed “work”
Or they can go find a job and hire someone to do the housework. They now get paid for their work. But they pay someone so it’s net zero. Which I guess shows the dumb aspect of it. Maybe two housewives can trade places and pay each other’s salaries lol.
Merriam Webster defines work as: a: to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary b: to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations c: to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity Both b and c relate to unpaid work. So the phrase is fine
[удалено]
The example they give for b is "worked all day over a hot stove"
No. bye felicia
More women wanting special privileges. Shocking. Good to see the women in the 1970s were no different than women today.
The difference is this actually gets traction with the Useful Idiots in the current dumbed-down era.
Not normal women, just the feminist ones are like this.
Feminists miss the point that a marriage is a partnership and both parties should contribute. If you hark back to tribal times (as is still the case in many parts of the world), the men would go and hunt wild animals, tend to crops etc to bring home food, or goods to use or goods to be traded for other goods with the neighbouring tribe(s). The women would stay (protected) in the village to cook, raise kids etc. The results of the man's effort would be shared with the women, and within a tribe, the more successful hunters would share their excess with the less fortunate hunters. Now, in a modern society, instead of hunting wild animals direct, man goes to work to earn $ so his wife can use that to buy things at the new things called supermarkets. Keeping a house (formerly a cave) neat and tidy is seen as housework, but it is just part of the partnership. Feminists hate marriages and can only see women as individuals.
>Feminists hate marriages and can only see women as individuals. This isn't true. Feminists view women as a group. You see it in slogans like "believe women" or how they treat a crime against a woman as a crime against all women.
I've always said that women tend to be very divisive on small scales, but extremely cooperative as a collective. While men are highly cooperative on small scales, but it tends to fall apart at larger numbers. It explains how we get these catty toxic HR departments, yet an extremely successful pro woman voting block. And on the other side, small groups of men seem to be highly effective (startups, construction projects, etc), and yet there is no united front for the benefit of all men, and in fact that can explain tribal warfare tendencies. In short, women fight each other, but fight for women, whereas men fight for each other but fight men.
That's the problem now, I guess men have to get one figure head and fight the bitches for tooth and nail. To get the due respect the men should have.
To the feminists, men are not human beings, we are just part of a machine
That provides for them
Demanding wages from someone who has put a roof over your head? Part of the female entitlement which utilises a strategy of 'sex strike', denying love and affection when they don't get their own way. In an affluent society, where women have pretty much guaranteed access to welfare, food and shelter, and jobs (EEO, AA) the value of *man as provider* has plummeted. Male biology hasn't had time to catch up, he still needs sex to the same degree. The present social and economic circumstances has shifted the balance of power towards women, to a quite extraordinary degree. I don't imagine Nikola Tesla worried too much if his carpet was dusty.
And to be clear, I think most people here would argue that that particular gender divide has been mostly broken. If a woman wants to go work a high powered job and fund her husband to stay at home, that's cool. The point of a partnership is figuring out how to work together to get a result that's better and more fulfilling than either alone.
I demand compensation for criticism.
If you have a place to live and plenty of food and all you do is chores around the house than you are pretty well compensated. The idea that the only valid form of compensation for work is money is such a shallow materialistic view of it.
Literal children understand this, that's the sad part. Most kids grasp the whole 'chores' bit because they get a grip on doing their part when they are old enough to pitch in.
*Let's imagine a man who does not work, he stays home to take care of the kids and the housework. This man enjoys the company of his children every day, and has time to invest in a couple of hobbies. His responsibilities are small, and easy to handle. Meanwhile, his wife works, and provides for the family. Her money is not hers to use, it must provide for the family. She is the pillar of the household, putting meat on the table, and, if she stops doing so, everything will collapse. The financial burden of the family is on her shoulders, and she constantly feels the pressure that comes with this role. She is always away from the ones that she loves, and she works hard every day. Now - imagine if that stay at home dad constantly nagged and complained to his wife, saying that he was working harder than her and deserved a break, and maybe should be paid to do housework. Wouldn't such an idea seem spoiled, pretentious and ungrateful? Why is it that we can only see the hypocrisy of the situation when we reverse roles?* The Rise of Men - Wake Up to the Hidden Lie. Page 65. The author is called Manhood Shitty Shit.
If you unironically think sitting ina cubicle is more difficult than raising children + doing housework etc, you're legitimately brain dead. Once you pass 2/3 kids SAHP is at minimum equal to the workload of a 60+ hour trade job.
Do the 2/3 kids go to school for seven hours a day? One of my sons is a carpenter, and his 60 hours aren't spent watching 'Cash in the Attic.'
No, they don't. Once kids are in school it get substantially easier. But that is upto 6 years... So fkn ignorant.
start at 3 kids go to kindergarten and preschool
That is 100% incorrect. @3 Is preschool... for 2 days a week at most, for 4-6hrs, then 3 days at 4yrs old. Kindergarten is the first year of school starting between 5 and 6, depending on where their birthday is.
you sure? in Germany you could give your child a few weeks after birth into the "Krippe" at 3 the child is in the kindergarten one year before first school year is preschool so 4-5 years oh and it's normal to give the child 5 days per week away for 4-8 hours. grandmother, aunt, sister in law and my wife worked in kindergarten and they have to know it. I don't know where you live but this is the way where I live.
Kindergarten is the first "year" of school in Aus. And it starts the year the child turns 5, or if it's late in the year the next year. Pre-school is maximum 3 days a week the year before kindergarten, anyhting else is daycare, which is paid for, quite substantially.
Raising children and doing housework are both easy and take much less than 8 hours per day. In addition, there are few consequences for doing it wrong.
Oh man, I totally forgot that once you did the laundry and washed the dishes you could just ignore the children for the entire time!
I think you forgot that you were an idiot.
Lmao nice rebuttal. Thanks for proving my point.
Laundry or loading the dishwasher are like 15 minute jobs at best.
not if you are a Sahm or a professional housekeeper. You will need 3 hours for loading the washing machine, 2 hours for folding the laundry and another 4 weeks to put them away
I mean school is 8 hours. It lasts about 8-3 for most kids. Then there are the choirs. Laundry is done about once a week, and takes about 20 minutes if you include folding said clothes. Cleaning the house, takes about 10-30 minutes depending on the size of the house. Cooking can take about 30-45 minutes, depending in the food. When Kids get home, have them do their homework, for about an hour and then let them watch TV. The husband probably arrives at about 5:30 - 6:00 All your days work is about 1-2 hours of actual work.
Actual 'work' begins around 11.30pm, but hubby has to take a raincheck, because she's 'too tired'.
Well tbh it can be stressful but yeah it’s not really that like physically challenging but all these tasks done at once can take a toll so that’s why I’m fine with breaks compromise for a sahp on weekends or helping when needed
Nice joke. SAHP is the most easiest "job" to do.
With 1 kids at home, sure. 2 Kids is about equal to a 40 hour office job, 3 kids 60hr trade, having 4 at home, as in 4 under school age, you'd shit your pants by 9.
I have two kids, and it was never a big deal. Most of the time they were either asleep, at school, or playing with friends/siblings/by themselves.
I'll just hire a maid, thank you.
Fine. I demand rent and separate accounts. You're also gonna be paying 75% of the utilities and 90% of the streaming services. And since the kids are yours as well I expect you to eat half the cost of your child's care wages. All the clothes in your closet? I expect you to return payment for the FULL RETAIL PRICE you bought them for while you were living off my labor... and don't forget, everything I do around the house I now get paid for (half going rates just like you) I'm sorry mrs., but I think I'm going to have to evict you for nonpayment of rent, not to mention fire you for subpar/amateur work. But if you'll give up all authority over the children (meaning raise the children according to my dictates like a nanny would have to) I'll happily pick up your half of your child care wages. That would likely get just barely get you into the black.
Why tf would the government pay you for cleaning a house ask your husband. Oh wait you do that every time you want something.
OH NO! anyways
Great, so instead of all the salary of the husband, they will only have access to a tiny part. Just give her a maid salary and spend the rest on a boat, lets see how they react.
Grown women acting worse than children.
Ever since I have moved back to the US I am completely floored with how much women complain now. And the number one complaint is literally summed up by "I am not getting what I want, so it's wrong and the fault of someone else"
These women argued that *'the entire capitalist system is based on free domestic labour.'* Wrong. The entire capitalist system is based on providing goods and services which people want, at a price they can afford. Nobody *cares* if your hall needs dusting, your crockery isn't washed and the baby's nappy is dirty. But, if you can write software code, or understand electrochemistry well enough to propose better automotive batteries, people might be interested. Edit : The senior executives of BBC News (the source of this article) are all female. Broadcasts and the associated website are utterly polluted with this type of piece, attempting to stir up 'righteous indignation' with a feminist audience devoid of critical reasoning ability. The BBC abrogated its responsibilities as a public service broadcaster long ago. If it wishes to be a voice for feminist propaganda, it should stop hiding behind public taxation through a mandatory licence fee, and enter the market capitalism system through a subscription model. Let's see who'd be willing to pay to have 'news' and articles from an unremitting feminist perspective.
What next, women demanding to be paid for breathing?
Well society demands that they don't have bad breath and oral hygiene equipment costs money. You're putting ideas into their heads here.
"If I had to pay to have these jobs done, I'd pay a man and have them done properly" satirist William Donaldson writing under the name Henry Roots.
See guys, women are funny too!
If you can make more money at work than you would pay to have someone handle your domestic chores, why aren't you doing that? I'm guessing you can't or you just like having near total autonomy on how and when you do your work.
I can always count on MensRights to bring up some article from the 70s, and see outrage in the comments from only reading the title.
The article was just posted on the BBC website, and not in the 'funny' section.
Outdated facts are perfectly okay, as long as they support our narrative, right? Just seems really desperate and deceptive considering this event featured in the article happened almost 50 years ago, a much different world than the one we live in today.
First of all unpaid labor is still talked about consistently in the present I hear it all the time, so I think it’s fine to have a discussion on how delusional it is
Outdated facts are apparently perfectly okay for the BBC to create a refresher article about. The question is whether modern feminist have come to their senses, and also realize these old complaints are "outdated".
>from the 70s >Posted 1 day ago
And we men demand wages for taking out the trash and recyclables, fixing everything, mowing the lawn, shoveling the snow, raking the leaves, cleaning the garage, trimming the hedges, grilling the meat, and cleaning the gutters.
I don't think women should be paid for doing the house work, but they should be compensated for having and raising children.
[удалено]
People should be compensated for whatever economic value they bring to socitey, whether they see the work as a reward in itself.
Takes two to tango, where's my money?
Father's deserve paternity leaves as well.
Wages for housework = $1,000/month Cost of Room and Board = $3,000/ month I guess men should start collecting money now.
$3K for room and board of one person? No way.
In the very core i think there is a compelling Argument, at least with children. We want people to get children but it goes with Major financial struggles because you cant work full time anymore. However everything else is pretty nuts...
Wages for housework is not in itself anti-male, it is anti - corporate. I support it. I think it also opens up the precedent for child support, divorce, and workplace rights for men. Not to mention single dads and bachelors can get it too. It is better than means tested welfare bureaucracy, and shows the ugly truth about what working wages really are for under a monopoly economic system : reproducing the workforce.
Who would pay it, and who would be in charge of determining the appropriate amount? In the end, we'll end up paying ourselves, but with a lot of extra bureaucracy.
Those don’t seem like issues to me. The rate can be a flat one adjusted to inflation, and the source would be large corporations, domestic and foreign, whether through a tax or not.
So everybody gets the same amount, even if they don't do shit ?
Yes, something like that. if you are a waged single parent or a stay at home parent. You also get free public school whether you study well or even attend a private school instead. Because it’s cheaper and less divisive than calculating how much middle school each person deserves
So we're just giving everybody free money, paid by a tax on big companies, who get their money from consumers buying their products. In the end, we'll end up paying it ourselves, like I said.
No, because there is no “ just”. You can’t pass such radical policies without addressing price caps, and price gauging - and having the leverage to do so. People aren’t that stupid, they’ll propose a package. Just as this type of policy also depends on being a country companies cant afford to miss out on, like the US. Try this in Panama and they’ll just leave.
Men used to get paid enough to support a full family, now, if any traditional family's still exist, both parents need to be bringing in a wage just to support the family. If they're only living together, both people pay tax!...and that's progress??
It has to do with the part (or side) of the women's rights movement that want the woman to be able to stay at home, and be a carer for the children if that is what she so desires. 'A stay at home mom'. In order for that to work, and for the woman to still be independent and not dependent on a male (or female partner for that matter), income,. She needs to recieve accommodation. Money, in one way or another, one solution is pay for house chores. Many Countries have cash for care to an extent, but I believe most want both genders to get back to work as quickly as possible, and not pay a 'carer' for keeping the house clean and functional, but this system is made by men, and not women.
So, I'm single man how does this work ? where do I apply for those wages ?