Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Talk of ‘shirkers’ echoes Victorian past (Financial Times)

If for Beveridge the welfare state was a vehicle for social solidarity, this government uses it as a partisan dividing line, writes Tristram Hunt.

2. Assad could still hold power in Damascus a year from now (Independent)

The rebel insistence that Assad’s departure be a precondition for talks is unrealistic since he controls most of the Syrian population, says Patrick Cockburn.

3. The Tories have a moral mission – and David Cameron should say so (Daily Telegraph)

After Labour’s failures, Conservative reforms are about saving lives rather than money, writes Fraser Nelson.

4. US pivot gives Europe an opportunity (Financial Times)

Atlanticist nominations offer the continent a chance to break free of euro-crisis introversion, says Philip Stephens.

5. Britain and the EU: Europe's lost voices (Guardian)

Pro-Europeans should shed their anxieties, says a Guardian editorial. Voices that have been silent for too long need to make themselves heard.

6. Our interests come first, not those of America (Daily Telegraph)

The United States wants Britain to stay in the European Union for its benefit - not ours, says a Telegraph editorial.

7. A long way to go in our response to sex crimes (Independent)

Weaknesses in the police and criminal justice systems are only part of the problem, says an Independent editorial.

8. Grayling takes one step forward, then one giant step back (Guardian)

The reform of the probation services and closing of creaking Victorian prisons are welcome – but the plan for new mega-jails is a disaster, says Ian Birrell.

9. To do or not to do – that is the PM’s question (Times) (£)

If David Cameron wants to win in 2015 he must find a big problem to take on, says Philip Collins. Championing care of the elderly fits the bill.

10. Europe offers the best deal for Britain (Guardian)

Britain's future in Europe must be defined by its national interests, not those of the Conservative Party, says Menzies Campbell.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.