Skip to content

Well, yes…..

So The Guardian is starting a series on idiocy:

Feminist economics: the obstacles US women face under capitalism

Guess what won’t be discussed. Sowell’s “Compared to what?”

An opening error from The G:

But should we be celebrating?

Lifetime healthcare costs are a third higher than for men,

OK, so wimmins’ are more complex, cost more to treat. OK. The connection of this with capitalism is what? I’ve yet to hear of how the form of economic organisation determines biology.

They can’t even read their own sources:

If time is money, then here, too, women are behind. Many readers won’t be surprised to learn that American women spend an average of two hours more a day than men on household labor and care work.

Erm, from their own source:

On the days they did household activities, women spent an average of 2.6 hours on these
activities, while men spent 2.0 hours.


On the days they worked, employed men worked 34 minutes more than employed women. This
difference partly reflects women’s greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among
full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked more per day
than women—8.2 hours, compared with 7.9 hours.

Oh, right.

And a glorious point:

Gender disparities are often explained as matters of personal choice, “like women choosing to go into professions that happen to be paid less”, says Dr Kate Bahn, a feminist economist and the director of labor market policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

In modern America, however, women have not necessarily chosen how value is apportioned in the economy. It’s past time, many argue, that they had an equal say.

None of us get to decide how our own input is valued. Everyone else is doing that valuation. This being as true of women as it is anyone else.

Of course, the entire series is going to be oppression under capitalism. Entirely missing the point that capitalism is what has made American women the freest, richest, set of the gender ever to bestride the Earth.

Oh, and, this:

Oxfam has estimated that unpaid labor performed globally by women and girls is worth more than $10.8tn annually – three times the size of the world’s tech industry. Yet unpaid labor – the backbone of a functioning society, which keeps us fed and sustains our children and elders – isn’t just unremunerated, but uncounted.

Wimmins’ aren’t sharing in the household incomes of those households they’re doing that caring unpaid labour for?


26 thoughts on “Well, yes…..”

  1. Oxfam has estimated that unpaid labor performed globally …

    Does this estimate include the unpaid labour of their own shop workers?

  2. capitalism is what has made American women the freest, richest, set of the gender ever to bestride the Earth

    That is not the strongest argument in its favour…

  3. “None of us get to decide how our own input is valued. Everyone else is doing that valuation.”

    Why is it so hard to get this small factule over to people? Prices are ultimately decided by the buyer because they are the people with the money. The variable. Even in the extreme case, when demand is vastly over supply – a unique offer – the sole person who buys it sets the price. They always have the option of not buying. You will or will not realise a sale depending on what other people value what you’re selling. What you value it as is immaterial. You are only setting the price below which you will not sell. And the price other people are offering to sell at may be telling you that price is too high. For if it wasn’t, it would have been bought.

  4. As far as I’m aware, Ed, Oxfam pay their store staff. Oxfam’s a shop pretending to be a charity. The charity aspect is the people donate stuff to Oxfam for them to sell.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset


    The problem with your buyers argument is that the buyer is increasingly becoming the State, and they really don’t give a shit because it isn’t there money and they’ve been invested by tossers who believe all this nonsense.

  6. “what has made American women the freest, richest, set of the gender ever to bestride the Earth”: yep, and cats across the USA celebrate it.

  7. On the perennial gripe about men not doing enough round the home, I used to happily wash the dishes, every day if necessary. Didn’t dry them and left them to drain though. 3 people in our gaff. Say 30 mins a day, 3.5 hrs a week.

    Wife always unhappy with this (on the argument that there’s a shiny machine that we should have to do it and everyone else uses one). So we get dishwasher. As expected, we end up with shortages of dishes or cutlery regularly when machine is full but has not been switched on or is still completing its 3-4 hour cycle.

    Also, she won’t let me fill the machine up on the grounds that in her opinion (disputed by me) I’m fvcking useless at doing it. So one of my old regular household tasks is now done (less efficiently) by her and the machine.

    I also used to fill and empty the washing machine and hang the clothes on a ceiling pulley to dry, but now she won’t allow me to do it on the grounds that, again (and again this is disputed by me), I’m fvcking useless.

    Her household task hours greatly up, mine greatly down.

  8. BraveFart

    Absolutely echo you on this.

    I did (and indeed still do when she is away on business – I very rarely go away on business these days) the washing but was gradually moved aside as ‘the kids washing wassn’t hung out right’ – as though the kids are in some kind of commercial and therefore the creases in a pair of tracksuit bottoms or a sweater might somehow cause the Earth to collapse – so the majority of that chore now goes to my wife.

    The kids will bring out their toys and play with them and the clearing away is sporadic, especially on a Friday as my logic is that they will continue to play with them over their weekend. But No, everything has to be cleared completely away (which usually takes half an hour or so) and again, ‘I can’t help it – it’s just the way I am’

    In both cases the additional work is certainly quantifiable but it is also completely unnecessary. And I’m sure there are households where the roles are reversed and its the man who is more of a stickler for doing things ‘a certain way’ but in any event I tend to take this kind of statistic with a Block or two of salt.

    As for the source article – anything termed ‘Feminist economics’ could well make Richard Murphy look like David Ricardo or Milton Friedman…

  9. “Lifetime healthcare costs [for women] are a third higher than for men”

    Or to put it another way, the NHS spends 1/3rd more on women than on men. Funny how the usual equality campaigners never mention this.

    (Aside: in the USA, do women pay higher health insurance premiums?)

  10. Wonky Moral Compass

    My experience, such as it is, is that charity shops run on 2 or 3 part-time paid staffers and the goodwill of a bunch of elderly or unemployed volunteers. Also that asking donors to complete gift aid declarations is standard practice for all but the most inept outfits.

  11. “Lifetime healthcare costs [for women] are a third higher than for men”

    S’only fair: they live longer and (I suspect) die longer.

  12. Girls genitals are being mutilated. Half a billion women live in slavery.

    Western feminists:

    ‘American women spend an average of two hours more a day than men on household labor and care work.’

    Whah! Whah!

    What was it a hundred years ago? TEN hours?

    ‘Dr Kate Bahn, a feminist economist and the director of labor market policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.’

    What are you doing about slavery?

  13. Didn’t I read somewhere that women spend 70something percent of the money? I can’t remember that exact terms in which it was couched, but it’d be true in this household. Oh, they speak more than 70% of the words, too.

  14. @Wonky Moral Compass
    It depends which charity shop you’re talking about. Some of them, a very few, are run by volunteers. I know a woman works in a shop in Highgate supports a hospice. She’s 6 days a week full time manager. Salaried, pension rights etc. There’s one I know in Sussex, purports to be a charity, is pretty obviously a second hand furniture/antiques business run by a guy with a top model Range Rover. I’d put him down as a variation of what the antiques game call a “knocker boy”. He just waits for the mugs to come to him rather than banging on doors & relieving old ladies of their heirlooms. What benefit the charity concerned gets out of it, who knows? Uncle of mine used to have a bird sanctuary that was a registered charity. Just happened to be the private golf course he & his mates amused themselves on & got billed for the upkeep of a large slice of the Home Counties, provided the views from his house. He did keep a parrot though. Scruffy mangy thing with a bite like a pair of bolt cutters.

  15. Is the time men spend travelling to work valued? No. Unpaid overtime? No.

    If we are going co count time spent getting the fucking laundry out of the washing machine as some sort of valued Labour then men have a whole stack of tasks and chores which are, mysteriously, not valued by “feminist economists”.

  16. (Aside: in the USA, do women pay higher health insurance premiums?)

    If taken out as an individual, almost certainly, but most health insurance is done on a group basis, because underwriting individuals is both invasive and expensive. You can get away with less (or no) underwriting by having a lengthy starting period before full cover commences.

    In lovely, rational EU land, it’s now ‘discrimination’ to charge differential rates for men and women – I don’t know what this has done to the health insurance market, but it has meant females paying more for motor and life cover (and men more for annuities).

  17. Oh, they speak more than 70% of the words, too.

    True, rhoda, or to put it another way, they are responsible for 95% of the interrupted silences.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    What are you doing about slavery?

    Or Iranian women who are be jailed and gang raped for taking off their headscarves.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    My son ran a large charity furniture shop in Bath and then set up a smaller one doing specialist stuff for the same hospice charity for a coupe of years. The pay was crap but he enjoyed it for a while.

    The problem was that volunteers resented the idea that someone was paid but then thought they could turn up as and when they pleased. Most of his time was spent trying to ensure they had enough cover so he didn’t have to close or miss promised pickups from people’s houses, which really upset people who’d donated their furniture, especially if they had new furniture being delivered that day.

    He had quite stiff sales targets because hospices are quite expensive to run and you can’t just turn out terminally ill patients if you’re running out of funds to save a bit of money. They did sack managers who didn’t make their targets.

  20. Lifetime healthcare costs are a third higher than for men

    Are Guardian backing Noa Yachot and Nicole Clark’s campaign for hysterectomies at birth?



  21. @BiND: given that we’re talking U.S. wimmin…. They’re sending their “Thoughts and Prayers”. Absolution Achieved…

  22. I’m not sure how they get male healthcare costs as high as three-quarters of female healthcare costs – must be allocating maternity costs (excluding prenatal) by the sex of the baby. Paying a private hospital for pregnancy and giving birth is around £20k, more if there are complications.
    Even excluding pregnancy women take more sick leave and spend far longer than men being nursed in old age – male healthy life expectancy is close to female healthy life expectancy but male total life expectancy is about three years less.
    I don’t believe the claim.

  23. Bloke in Wales said:
    “Didn’t Oxfam have a tax scam running whereby the donated items were sold “on behalf” of the donor, who could then choose to gift aid the sale amount saving Oxfam millions in tax avoided?”

    Nice to know someone read it, thank you. But yes, most of them are at it, and still are, although Oxfam seemed the most hypocritical in objecting to tax planning in others whilst busily doing it themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *