Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: cliffs@sunrock.east.sun.COM (Cliff Skolnick {Prof Services} Sun Rochester) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Wages for Housework (was Re: Society's view) Message-ID: <9011280524.AA12901@sunrock.East.Sun.COM> Date: 28 Nov 90 15:46:00 GMT References: <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> <90Nov16.231745est.1712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1990Nov26.041422.18180@iti.org> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Rochester, NY Lines: 20 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu In article <1990Nov26.041422.18180@iti.org> uunet!mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") writes: >In article <90Nov16.231745est.1712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >>Our society does not value work done in the home. [...] >>Their labour is unpaid, though it contributes to society [...] > >Another point to remember is that "the spouse working in the home" is >as such the employee not of the other spouse, but of both jointly, so >that if the househusband (for example) is paid (the commercial rate >of) $N for doing the laundry, $N/2 of this should come out of his own >pocket, because he receives half of the benefit - half of the laundry >is his own. In other words, housekeeping should be paid at half the >commercial rate. I think we can really lose the issue that a husband/wife can be viewed as a financial unit. The "he" makes and "she" makes, should be considered "we" make. I'm not saying throw all money into a single account, have one shared credit card, ect. but the couple should realize that they are both owrking for each other. If not, I guess it is not a marriage of love and sharing instead it is living together without a bond and concern for mutual well being.