There are 4 differences between my home and that of my grandparents from one century ago, which indeed have reduced significantly the time spent with household chores:
1. Washing machine
2. Vacuum cleaner
3. Microwave oven
4. Electric refrigerator (but they had a cold underground cellar, while I no longer have such luxuries)
There are also various modern tools that are not used in the normal day-to-day life, but only when incidents happen, which require repairs, for example an electric drill or reciprocating saw, or a soldering iron, or an electric sewing machine (but my grandparents had a mechanical Singer sewing machine, which did the same job, only with more effort) and sometimes, but not often, I prepare some kind of food for which an electric mixer accelerates enough the preparation to compensate for the time spent with assembling, disassembling and washing the mixer.
While other modern inventions, like computers, are very important to me, none of them has reduced the amount of work that must be done in my home (I never felt the need for an automatic dishwasher, because I never let them accumulate, I wash them instantly after use, even while cooking, because I eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients).
The mechanical sewing machine would definitely be on the same kind of list, if you had asked your grandparents to prepare one.
> (I never felt the need for an automatic dishwasher, because I never let them accumulate, I wash them instantly after use, even while cooking, because I eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients).
Batching usually lowers the total amount of work you have to do. In any case, the dishwasher becomes more useful (for most people) as the household gets larger.
I find that when we cook and bake, we need the dishwasher more. If you only eat out or eat take-away, there's barely any washing up to do.
I thought of a fourth modern machine for your list: the elevator. But it only applies for some people.
Unless the husband was a jerk, he would have understood that this is a division of work, so the spouse who worked at home had actually earned a half of the pay received at the payed job of their husband.
Moreover, in many past societies where the wives were supposed to work at home and only the husbands were expected to do a job for a salary, it was not at all unusual for the wives to handle most of the finances, so they actually handled most of the money earned by the family, even if their husbands were on the payroll.
What was bad in the past, was not what happened in typical cases, but what happened in the worst cases. Because a fair treatment of the wife depended on the goodwill of the husband, not being codified in laws, as it should have been, that enabled a lot of abuses.
> Unless the husband was a jerk, he would have understood that this is a division of work, so the spouse who worked at home had actually earned a half of the pay received at the payed job of their husband.
This is probably the best division to keep the wife happy, but from a certain point of view, housework should be paid at whatever rate you'd have to pay a maid to do the same.
> Moreover, in many past societies where the wives were supposed to work at home and only the husbands were expected to do a job for a salary, [...]
Where are you getting your 'many past societies' like that from? You know that salaried out-of-the-home work isn't all that old, and wasn't all that common (until recently) even where it existed?
some in this thread call out the author for doing what he did without principle. while i dont agree with the argument applied there, i do apply it here. which is to say that feminism did enable some avenues of freedom to women, therefore i wonder how that act benefitted the system, and whether such freedom has culminated in net benefit for the common man & woman
There are 4 differences between my home and that of my grandparents from one century ago, which indeed have reduced significantly the time spent with household chores:
1. Washing machine
2. Vacuum cleaner
3. Microwave oven
4. Electric refrigerator (but they had a cold underground cellar, while I no longer have such luxuries)
There are also various modern tools that are not used in the normal day-to-day life, but only when incidents happen, which require repairs, for example an electric drill or reciprocating saw, or a soldering iron, or an electric sewing machine (but my grandparents had a mechanical Singer sewing machine, which did the same job, only with more effort) and sometimes, but not often, I prepare some kind of food for which an electric mixer accelerates enough the preparation to compensate for the time spent with assembling, disassembling and washing the mixer.
While other modern inventions, like computers, are very important to me, none of them has reduced the amount of work that must be done in my home (I never felt the need for an automatic dishwasher, because I never let them accumulate, I wash them instantly after use, even while cooking, because I eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients).
The mechanical sewing machine would definitely be on the same kind of list, if you had asked your grandparents to prepare one.
> (I never felt the need for an automatic dishwasher, because I never let them accumulate, I wash them instantly after use, even while cooking, because I eat only food that I cook myself from raw ingredients).
Batching usually lowers the total amount of work you have to do. In any case, the dishwasher becomes more useful (for most people) as the household gets larger.
I find that when we cook and bake, we need the dishwasher more. If you only eat out or eat take-away, there's barely any washing up to do.
I thought of a fourth modern machine for your list: the elevator. But it only applies for some people.
They release women from housekeeping... to workplaces.
You should ask a working woman if she'd rather be at home doing dishes and laundry by hand without pay
Unless the husband was a jerk, he would have understood that this is a division of work, so the spouse who worked at home had actually earned a half of the pay received at the payed job of their husband.
Moreover, in many past societies where the wives were supposed to work at home and only the husbands were expected to do a job for a salary, it was not at all unusual for the wives to handle most of the finances, so they actually handled most of the money earned by the family, even if their husbands were on the payroll.
What was bad in the past, was not what happened in typical cases, but what happened in the worst cases. Because a fair treatment of the wife depended on the goodwill of the husband, not being codified in laws, as it should have been, that enabled a lot of abuses.
> Unless the husband was a jerk, he would have understood that this is a division of work, so the spouse who worked at home had actually earned a half of the pay received at the payed job of their husband.
This is probably the best division to keep the wife happy, but from a certain point of view, housework should be paid at whatever rate you'd have to pay a maid to do the same.
> Moreover, in many past societies where the wives were supposed to work at home and only the husbands were expected to do a job for a salary, [...]
Where are you getting your 'many past societies' like that from? You know that salaried out-of-the-home work isn't all that old, and wasn't all that common (until recently) even where it existed?
Sounds tempting
Why would you put yourself in a jail 9 to 5 every day even if you get paid, if it can be spared?
Only works if breadwinner is relatively rich. If it’s a struggle the home is likely to be unpleasant to struggle in.
some in this thread call out the author for doing what he did without principle. while i dont agree with the argument applied there, i do apply it here. which is to say that feminism did enable some avenues of freedom to women, therefore i wonder how that act benefitted the system, and whether such freedom has culminated in net benefit for the common man & woman