"What if the reason why we're all burned out is because the productivity norms of our profession are based on white men whose wives who took care of everything"

[flashbac]

Not my words. Saw it on Twitter and it made me think.

twitter.com/AmyAchenbach/status/1470394756844957702?t=K01WWVnQE2WPIQl80rZUyw&s=19

I've worked in the NHS for 23 years and what I'm seeing is a constant expectation that people have to do more for less money. Work that used to be band 5/6 is now band 3/4. I doubt it's any different outside the NHS.

Brainwave89 Agreed! I also think that when couples are together without DC ,it is easy to fulfil their "side" of domestic duties .Cook a meal ,hoover up and so on they are doing their "half" Bring on babies /DC and the workload gets bigger ,but some men seem to thinkits the 50s once more and they can get away with doing the bare minimum .With their wives either PT or SAHM .Even FT working women seem to get the brunt of the grunt work . Education will certainly help ,but we need a structure which stops women thinking "how sweet ,hes "helping" when in reality he should be doing half of a household work anyway! I think many women either return to work PT or remain a SAHM for these reasons .Women want a Career or at least a job they can enjoy and find fulfilling .Not something that just "fits around the family" when they are well educated and ambitious

I argue constantly with my DH because he’s in the type of high powered professional job that requires a wife to take care of the home and family... but I don’t want to do that. So I’m angry and resentful because DC have been dumped on me and he isn’t doing his share of childcare. And he’s angry because I only do half of the chores, so he comes home from his stressful long hours and still has chores to do on top of that.

He complains that he doesn’t have a wife who supports him. I say yes, so that means you’ll have to either cope without a supportive wife or switch to a job that doesn’t require one. We are on the verge of divorce because I refuse to relegate myself to being merely a support who facilitates his life and career.

@MynameisWa

I don’t really see the relevance on highlighting race but yes our productivity levels are based on one person working and one person looking after the worker.

Today life is extremely stressful because there is no one looking after the workers.

Especially the woman who usually gets lumbered with all of it.

Race is relevant because, historically, black women have been viewed as ‘workers’ and black men have earned less than their white counterparts, thus necessitating a wife who works outside the home:

www.epi.org/blog/black-womens-labor-market-history-reveals-deep-seated-race-and-gender-discrimination/

Absolutely.

But it’s not just productivity levels that are based on the expectation one WOHP and one SAHP.

It’s also:

• promotion structures, especially “up or out” jobs and hours based promotions

• cultural expectations such as away days, office socials, client entertainment, avoidable travel

• the working week: standard hours being 5 day week 9 to 5 rather than jobs running across the weekend / evening / fitting into school hours

• the huge imbalance between maternity and paternity packages

• expectations from school, society etc about extra tasks that can be managed

If we had started off with both partners working being the norm, most jobs would look very different.

Angelton we have similar issues.

@Angelton your post makes me so sad and frustrated for the expectations society has foisted upon us. I’m sorry

We got along fine when we were equals who both had jobs at roughly the same level and no kids. The problem is that time has passed and extra work has come along in the form of kids and promotions - and it’s just assumed that I’ll take the kids and he’ll take the promotions. But that’s not what I want and I’m not willing to accept it, no matter how angry it makes him.

Honestly until I had kids I didn’t understand that women hadn’t achieved equality. Because until that point I felt pretty equal.

@Angelton

We got along fine when we were equals who both had jobs at roughly the same level and no kids. The problem is that time has passed and extra work has come along in the form of kids and promotions - and it’s just assumed that I’ll take the kids and he’ll take the promotions. But that’s not what I want and I’m not willing to accept it, no matter how angry it makes him.

Honestly until I had kids I didn’t understand that women hadn’t achieved equality. Because until that point I felt pretty equal.

I was exactly the same. My career and salary matched DH’s step for step right up until I had kids. During my first mat leave he massively overtook me with a huge promotion and pay rise and from then on i felt like my own currency was devalued.

Germaine Greer has written about domestic appliances and modern cleaning products raising standards so, far from having more time for leisure or paid work, women end up doing as much household labour as they did in the past.

Whenever I read a biography of a 'great man' I always think of how much easier it must be to be great and brilliant and dynamic if you never even have to think about cleaning and laundry and cooking and shopping, let alone actually have to do those things. It must be like having a team of magical elves working for your success.

@EmpressCixi

This is all bullshit based on a romanticised narrow segment of society in the golden 1950s/60s where all the middle class white men had perfect little housewives at home to cater to them. Not sure why only the white men had this, when in fact it was all men. So that’s racist.

But anyway, the productivity norms of the 1950s/60s are not even remotely similar to the productivity norms of today. The statement is assuming they’ve remained unchanged for over half a century. They haven’t due to technology advances, they’ve gone up. Mobile phones brought in expectation to be available outside working hours. Email doubled this on duty 24/7 expectation and also brought in expectation for immediate, instant answers compared to the few days you could take to the written letters in your inbox. Industries moving to “just in time” or lean logistics added to the working round the clock because if supply chains stutter, you don’t have any stock to draw from. Social media then amplified all this because the second some asshole tweets a complaint your public relations teams have to investigate and then respond publicly as fast as possible.

It’s a racist and sexist statement with no factual basis. It “feels true” because we all feel hard done by and think earlier generations “had it easy” but when you dig into why productivity norms have changed to be more demanding, is all due to technology advances.

good answer. Both of my parents worked as did both of my DH's parents. They had to because one working class salary didn't support a family (3 kids in mine, 2 in DH's) Both sides council tenants. Home ownership was unimaginable for them. I think its not just work productivity expectations that have gone up. At risk of going all "we lived in a cardboard box and licked the road clean with our tongues" We were considered among the better off in our circle because we had a week a year on holiday in a caravan in Sussex. Flying to spain???? impossible! There wasn't so much material stuff to expect to have and expectations of living norms were different. We had no central heating or running hot water, outside loo and only one cold tap in the house.I am aware that there are many people today who don't have everything but now they are considered poor and we were considered to be "comfortable" We never went cold or hungry and we all had decent clothes but sometimes the food was what was left at the end of the week (parents were paid weekly) and the clothes were hand me downs....our own hand me downs though within the family and not given by others or bought at jumble sales.

This next bit is going to be controversial...heigh ho.....I think in a way we have done it to oursselves as well as being forced into it by changes in industry norms.....we judge and are judged by "work" Some of us stay late and see the job as the be all and end all even when we needn't.....I used to see this as a manager in the NHS....people who would do the martyr "I stayed late again last night" when there was no need or pressure for them to do so....anybody remember the Gordon Gecko line "lunch is for wimps"

I also think (know) that the woman at home's role was A LOT harder....no washing machine, no tumble dryer, no freezer, maybe not even a fridge, no car to drive to the supermarket and get everything in one go, definitely no online ordering, fabrics needed more care than today's versions....I well remember the amazement that nylon sheets that didn't need ironing caused! and that's just a tiny slice of the increased work it took to run a home.

so yeah, feels true but not.

@EsmaCannonball

Germaine Greer has written about domestic appliances and modern cleaning products raising standards so, far from having more time for leisure or paid work, women end up doing as much household labour as they did in the past.

Whenever I read a biography of a 'great man' I always think of how much easier it must be to be great and brilliant and dynamic if you never even have to think about cleaning and laundry and cooking and shopping, let alone actually have to do those things. It must be like having a team of magical elves working for your success.

actually I think she's wrong about the raising of standards.

Very interesting. I'm a sahm but I occasionally look to see if there are any jobs available for me. Twenty years ago when I got my first job, 9-5 office jobs were the norm. It's virtually impossible to find a 9-5 anymore. It's often 8.30-5.30 or 9-6...we have so much more technology available now to make our jobs easier, we should be working fewer hours not more. In my opinion, it's not because they need staff in the office for that long, it's because they want to get their money's worth from you and make the point that you're lucky to be there.

When my children were small, my team manager used to do all these things to create team spirit (in his mind). So he would announce on a wednesday than on Friday his team were doing a cake sale for charity, or there was a team breakfast before work the next day, before nursery starts. When pay rises were calculated I got marked down for team spirit against the rest of the team so got a smaller chunk of the pot.
In the end, on one of his impromptu bake sale I asked who made his cakes and it was his wife. I then snapped 'we havent all got a wife at home to get our team spirit pay rises you know'

I think that the statement in the OP (which does refer to a profession, rather than all workers) is part of the issue for the middle classes. However, the history books show that for working class people being over worked and with no leisure time is nothing new- you only have to look at documents relating to conditions in many factories during the industrial revolution.

For the middle classes, I think this is definitely part of the problem. But I also think that the expectations of professionals have increased in the last generation. For example, my Dad had a well paid, director level job. He often worked away- often with little notice as it was just expected that Mum would be around to take care of the family. However, when he was working at his office he would always be home in time for tea and didn't have to leave in the morning until after a family breakfast. It was very rare for him to bring work home, or to do any work at weekends. If we were on holiday, we would not be contactable so he would never be disturbed. Nowadays someone in a similar role would be expected to work long hours as standard and be constantly available for calls/e-mails etc.

I also agree with a pp that nowadays there is an 'up or out' culture in many professions. There is simply not an option of getting to a level where you are comfortable and can do the work well and fairly easily.

I do think there's a large element of truth in this. Society is still wholly geared to an environment where there is one FT "provider" and one FT domestic worker. You see it everywhere, from the requirement that people be in an office 9 to 5 to the way the school schedule is structured to impose maximum difficulty on working parents. A large part of the reason why workplaces are so reluctant to move to flexible patterns IMO is that men don't like having to have their schedules adapt to the needs of women and children.

But the answer is not for everyone to return to the template of having one person working FT and other at home. The solution is to make sure that the domestic work, childcare and life admin (which are often the real straw that breaks the camel's back) are more evenly distributed.

The rich are getting richer at an ever increasing to the poor. And I don’t just mean the super billionaires. I mean the top 10%. The people with the worse increases in wages are those at the bottom.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

The above is for the US, but it holds true across the West. This has been going on for decades. The richest in society absolutely love the divides along feminism/ identity politics/ racial / boomers vs millennial lines because it’s a perfect distraction to this huge transfer of wealth.

Because that’s what it is - the richest 0.1% 1% or even 10% have been enjoying a huge transfer of wealth from the work and efforts of normal working families, slaving away on their behalf, to their own bulging bank accounts. But it’s seems people either support this or are more concerned about woke issues.

So the whole premise of the article is wrong. We’re not all burned out. Instead theres an incredible squeeze which is now starting to reach even the upper middle classes as Western politicians allow the super elite to become ever richer. Apple alone made $100 billion PROFIT in 2020. The moneys out there alright, it’s just most families aren’t seeing any of it.

@supermoonrising
YES, entire premise is wrong. Productivity norms have escalated dramatically in order to maximise profits for the rich. They aren’t something caused by fictional white men with fictional white women perfect housewives.

There’s a whole book about this - called Half A Wife. It’s a really interesting read.

@dreamingbohemian

The technological changes should be allowing us all to do less labour for the same output, in reality corporate owners simply require more and more output thus reaping all the reward.

This exactly. I agree with the statement overall but I think unchecked capitalist exploitation is the biggest issue.

Yes and profits tend to go to shareholders, at the expense of staff wages, training, facilities, liabilities like pension schemes etc.

Before WW2 most women didn’t work outside the home. Prior to marriage they would probably be a domestic servant to a married woman with children - and the vast majority of middle class homes had such a servant.

The the war happened and the women who used to be servants went to work in factories etc. Better conditions, better pay. They didn’t want to go back to domestic service after the war. At the same time domestic appliances were invented and women were told you don’t need your servants back because these appliances can replace them. It’s no coincidence that early appliances were marketed with female names. Middle class homes were redesigned to hide the lack of servants - for example serving hatches to pass food through, to create the illusion of there being a cook in the kitchen.

However the new opportunities for women to go out to work didn’t relieve them of their previous duties for managing the home and children. Of course that isn’t an issue before children come along, which is happening later and later. Modern women can easily work for 20 years and feel equal to men - until they have children at 40 and realise that these newfound domestic duties are dumped squarely on their shoulders.

That’s exactly what happened to me. I had very few domestic duties so I wasn’t trapped by them. I was free to work and live my life. I thought I was equal. But as soon as those domestic duties materialised (i.e. when I had kids) they were dumped on me and I realised I wasn’t equal at all.

@EmpressCixi

Nope. It’s a racist and sexist statement. It is also white supremacist as it suggests that productivity norms are too high for nonmale, nonwhite workers...as in nonmale, nonwhite workers are inferior to white men in productivity. I hope twitter deletes it.

No, it isn’t. Quite the opposite.

It says white men are the epitome of privilege, not ability.

[quote EmpressCixi]@supermoonrising
YES, entire premise is wrong. Productivity norms have escalated dramatically in order to maximise profits for the rich. They aren’t something caused by fictional white men with fictional white women perfect housewives.[/quote]
Exactly.

In my organisation (and I am sure I am far from alone) the work is created by top brass decisions which are made with zero reference to our capacity to make them happen - and deadlines with a similarly loose connection to reality. Any attempt at realism is met with a requirement for multiple daily meetings to explain why we are so behind at which "not enough people" is never considered.

The rich are getting richer at an ever increasing to the poor. And I don’t just mean the super billionaires. I mean the top 10%. The people with the worse increases in wages are those at the bottom.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

The above is for the US, but it holds true across the West. This has been going on for decades. The richest in society absolutely love the divides along feminism/ identity politics/ racial / boomers vs millennial lines because it’s a perfect distraction to this huge transfer of wealth.

Because that’s what it is - the richest 0.1% 1% or even 10% have been enjoying a huge transfer of wealth from the work and efforts of normal working families, slaving away on their behalf, to their own bulging bank accounts. But it’s seems people either support this or are more concerned about woke issues.

Completely agree, redistributing wealth would go a long, long way to sorting out a massive chunk of society's problems. Yet any attempt, or even the merest suggestion, that we should do this is met with resistance, not just from the top but from all.

I have no idea how we've been conditioned into it but people genuinely prefer to see others suffer and struggle than to take from those who have too much. It seems the majority have been tricked in to thinking they too can become rich and that by creating a more equal society they somehow risk missing out. The truth is virtually none of us, no matter how hard we work, will reach the top of the pile, but millions will still defend the system.

The world's billionaires hold enough wealth to completely end GLOBAL hunger and homelessness AND still not reduce the total number of billionaires. That's just the billionaires, the top 0.1% or so.

Yet if you suggest we take that wealth from them and use it to do just that you're met with a chorus of objections.

"If you work hard you should be rewarded"

"Why should they get something for nothing"

"They should just get a job if they want a house or food"

"No one helped me"

"They should work harder if they want more"

And so on. But imagine the difference to our lives if, instead of giving those at the top £££££££££ and those at the bottom £, we created a system where the top only got ££££££ and the bottom got ££££.