Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >From: mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> >Avenger wrote:

> >>  it's not work if it's something you would ordinarily do to
maintain
> your body or environment, like cleaning the house or eating.
>
> Doing the unpaid work for oneself is not quite the same as unjustly
enriching
> others at the expense of your own career.

"Mommy?  When can I be a client?" -- AT&T commercial

It's also her house and her children.  Should she bill her kids
for the time she takes care of them?

> >>For single mothers who don't have a "sexist man" to
contend with,
> >they get to do these "unpaid" jobs while either losing income they
could be
> earning at work or during time they could be
> >relaxing.
>
> Well, you have to consider how much time goes into servicing the
sexist man,
> and compare that to the amount of time it takes to take care of your
own place
> and kids.

Not as much as some sexist women would like to believe. :-)

After all, how can you argue that the man is there making a mess of
things WHILE AT THE SAME TIME spending all of his time with
his buddies having fun at the golf course?

If she's cooking for a family, she's going to already be cooking
a large meal anyway, vacumming the same carpets, and changing the
same bed she sleeps in whether she has a husband or not.

By the same token, in theory, it's possible for most working class
men (and women) to take advantage of "free" "unpaid" labor
by supporting a SAH spouse.  The SAH spouse sleeps in
the same bed (usually), shares meals, etc.

Gee, doesn't this sound like a great solution for all those
career women who complain about having to spend their precious
money on daycare in leau of German/French socialist programs
the USA taxpayers won't fund?  Get a SAH spouse of their own!

> Some women have much more time to relax without having to clean up
> the PIGpen.  :-)

Apparently, you never saw Sleeping With The Enemy. :-)

> >>"Sexist" men MORE THAN "pay" for such
women through their income.
>
> Paying for a "woman" like paying for a hooker, does nothing to
advance her own
> career.

Non-sequitur.

You had argued the work was "unpaid" and now you're arguing that
the work is paid after all.

Oh, and maids do this work, yes?  Are you saying they're no
better than hookers either?  Considering that you spend your
days dispensing coke and fries, you aren't one to judge.

> So, you bring to the marriage what you bring, and she brings what she
> brings and one has a career and one does not, at that end of that,
the courts
> look at that.

Sometimes the courts do make good decisions.  Florida for example. :-)
I love the Constitution.

> >Parg's argument that women should be paid to clean their own home
and look
> after their own kids falls under "the world
> >owing us a living."
> >
> Not at all.  She need not be paid a cent for looking after her own
part of the
> home, but rather for a sexist man getting unjustly enriched at her
expense in
> loss of career.

Which part of the home is that?  Is the part she's helping to
pay the mortgage and expenses that she probably couldn't have afforded
to do with her previous "career?"

> >I remember during the late 80's when a welfare mother profiled>in
the Boston
> Globe whose extended family collected more than>a million dollars a
year total
> due to the number of children>and grandchildren on the system
defended herself
> by saying "We do a lot of work for the taxpayers."
>
> Well, I don't see it that way at all, Mark.  I am a proponent of
welfare to
> work.

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine claimed that such women
were railroaded into low paying jobs and couldn't look after
their children.  Are you saying he's a leftist wacko? :-)

> However, someone IS unjustly enriched when he gets to build his
career
> sustained by her unpaid work and losss of career.

You just silently acknowledged that she is "paid" for her work
albeit in a manner you find repulsive.  And are you saying
that skills such as childcare aren't valuable career skills?

It's funny how the feminist movement which claims to represent
women typically treats other women like trash most of the time.
Fortunately, this translates into votes at the ballot box.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/4/05 6:22:19 PM ---