Comments on: The division of feminism and economics

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:45:15 +0000

Another issue at hand is the differing value placed on having the chore done. In the home setting having the dishes done and the floor clean is a communal good, but the task of cleaning is a private cost. So as the cleanliness deteriorates the individuals in the household will engage in a game of chicken until they can not stand the level of slovenliness in order to avoid cleaning. For some reason, women have a tendency to have a different threshold for proffered levels of cleanliness, and will tend to give up and clean first. This would also explain why having the primary interest in the partners happiness is a huge factor in chore sharing. Is there any work on the source of gender discrepancies in proffered cleanliness?

By: Markus

Markus — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:59:11 +0000

That might depend on the branch of sociology that you want to assign your brand of feminism. Conflict theorists lean towards radical feminism and they see the society’s capitalism as the reason why egalitarianism cannot be achieved even at home. Other sociologists take different views on feminism in which different sections of society can be compartmentalized. You can have capitalism in the marketplace, yet maintain an egalitarian home. I think this is even evident in economics, in which the government (of a democratic society) involvement is sometimes necessary to correct market failures.

A good economist should determine whether or not the resources have been divided most efficiently even when there is division of labor. A bad economist would just assume they have.

By: Diversity

Diversity — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:24:57 +0000

I have always applied the simplest economics to egalitarian chore sharing. The object is to minmise the sum of both parties dissatisfactions; dissatisfactions with the standard to which the chore is done and dislike of doing it. In my experience this is easy when both parties have a high component of the others’ satisfactions in their personal welfare functions. In that situation comparative advantage theory applies. and chores get shared naturally. And joint investments in easing the burden go where they are likely to do most good.

My impression is that it is people with strong “role models” – traditional, feminist, masculine, or sociological – who get in a twist about this. The lack of such models in homosexual pairings is probably an advantage, though i have no experience by which to judge.

By: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Feminism v. Economics

Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Feminism v. Economics — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:13:33 +0000

[...] a NYT article positing that gay unions “shed light” on gender and marriage, Economic Woman wrote a provocative post, noting: When economists see a division of labour, they are likely to assume that it is a mutually [...]

By: Thene

Thene — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:32:12 +0000

Is asking your boyfriend to do more dishes an isolated, personal event, or does it help to reference social science?

My policy is to keep it a personal event. ‘You are fucking with me’ is what’s relevant; ‘You are one of a group of people who is fucking with people who are like me’ would feel passive-aggressive and none too useful.

By: Nate

Nate — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:19:44 +0000

Good points. It’d be interesting to chart the effects of developing tech on “egalitarianization” of relationships. By reducing time requirements for household labor, and even by pulling us techie geeks into the mix. I know that once I got the roomba, I became the master of the floors around my house. But then again, I am a stay at home dad, not exactly representative to begin with.