Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The sad record of fiscal austerity (Financial Times)

The ECB could have prevented the panic, says Martin Wolf. Tens of millions are now suffering unnecessarily.

2. The Lib Dems are not a serious national party (Times) (£)

Forget who said what to whom, says Daniel Finkelstein. Nick Clegg has failed to lead his MPs away from interest-group politics.

3. George Osborne hasn't just failed – this is an economic disaster (Guardian)

Coalition austerity has delivered depression and a lost decade, says Seumas Milne. Labour has to avoid locking itself into more of the same.

4. If Nick Clegg’s story won’t stand up, the Lord Rennard scandal could finish him (Daily Telegraph)

Even victory at the Eastleigh by-election will not put an end to the Liberal Democrat leader’s troubles, writes Mary Riddell.

5. Beppe Grillo's antics may yet shake the whole European system (Guardian)

From Italy to Eastleigh, the economics of self-flagellation have set off a wave of wildcat populism, with unpredictable results, writes Simon Jenkins.

6. Negative interest rates mean more pain for savers (Independent)

This suggestion by Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, may sound shocking, but it's a technical device, writes Hamish McRae.

7. Castro pledge is chance for change (Financial Times)

Lifting US constraints on Cuba will speed the regime’s demise, says an FT editorial.

8. Discarding Trident would not aid global nuclear disarmament; it would only imperil UK security (Independent)

It is imperative that discussions on the nuclear deterrent be driven by national security needs, not short-term political considerations, says Lord West.

9. Mr Clegg's voting system and the comedian who's exposed what a joke the euro is (Daily Mail)

Thanks to its proportional representation electoral system, the balance of power in Italy is held by a party whose leader is a stand-up comedian, writes Simon Heffer.

10. Britain's massive debt to slavery (Guardian)

Today the records that detail just how much the trade in humans benefited the UK will be made public, says Catherine Hall. 

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.