Paid or ‘unpaid’ work in the household: How our concepts may be worsening the gender inequity
My first job was with a big NGO–said to be the biggest in the Philippines around that time–so my exposure to gender and development work is right at the foundation of my long career as a development and environmental professional. I consider those years in the CSO community as important in shaping the career that I built, with the support of team leaders, colleagues, mentors, and development partners. Women have indeed come a long way.
However, there are still areas of concern and some of them are not really being noticed because, well, humans as we are, we can’t help but put labels to things and concepts. This is true in all aspects of our lives. However, sometimes, our very own way of labeling and conceptualizing gets in the way of truly addressing gender inequity.
I trust change makers and gender advocates will not consider this as a mere criticism (it is not) because they truly deserve accolades and appreciation for all the work that they have done and have been doing. We have truly come a long way and owe the gains and milestones from all of them, including the men who support us.
However, I believe some rethinking is also going to help. I have actually shared these thoughts in a forum, which I attended recently so for those who have attended it, this might sound a little familiar.
One of the presenters discussed important findings, which are based on a study that an NGO has undertaken recently. I will not dwell on the study itself because it deserves a more detailed post. The presentation tackled disparity in income between men and women and how men are not participating ‘enough’ in household chores. The tendency to think of women as “not contributing enough” in household income is also at the center of these discourses.
Are women really not contributing enough financially? There is a need for rethinking.
For example, perhaps we need to veer away from the thinking of “house work” as “unpaid work”? Let us remember that even if the man is the one who works in an office or outside the home, for example, he could not do the work “outside” if his wife does not cook his meals or take care of his laundry, right? Where will he eat? Where will he get his clothes in order to go to work? Therefore, economically, home work is also paid work.
The amount of time spent by his wife to cook his meals and wash his clothes are the same amount of time that she could otherwise do outside to work (or maintain a business). This works both ways. If the roles are reversed (with the man as the homemaker), then we should also consider the work of the man at home as contributing economically to the “potluck.” Either way, there should be gender-based economic valuation–where we are genuinely acknowledging and accounting for the value of the work of the partner who is at home (whether man or woman).
Time is an asset, a valuable economic asset. If no one will do the laundry at home, then we go to a laundry shop–and that laundry service is definitely not going to be free. Clearly, household labor is essential for the economy to survive and thrive. However, the contribution of those who are left at home is not yet being fully recognized in terms of GDP. Its economic value is not really being credited or accounted for (Business Economics, 2017) although there is already growing awareness about this. [1] An initiative called, Counting Women’s Work (CWW) measures the full economic contribution of women, including paid work in the marketplace and unpaid care and housework at home (East West Center, 2018) [2]. However, again, even in efforts such as this one, there is still the tendency to compartmentalize paid and unpaid work.
While the differentiation serves a practical purpose, we may need to do some ‘deconstruction’ or re-calibration because the more we segregate paid and unpaid work, we may also ultimately contributing to gender disparity and inequity.
What we do and how we elevate the discourses are good and empowering, but also, it is also up to us to contribute to change in mindsets and that includes breaking the cycle of “me against others” mentality. We are also contributing to the divide (including gender divide), even if unconsciously and with the most noble of intents. It is time that both men’s and women’s work (whoever is at home to take care of the children and household management) is valued and quantified not as an uncomfortable dichotomy but as an intrinsic way of defining and measuring households’ and even countries’ economic value and performance.
As we always say, the change really begins in each one of us. And that change begins with how we look at, define, and embody concepts and practices.
REFERENCES
[1] Business Economics. (2017). Putting an economic value on a housewife’s job. Available at
https://businesseconomics.in/putting-economic-value-housewife%E2%80%99s-job
[2] National Transfer Accounts Project, East West Center. (2018). Counting Women’s Work: Measuring the Gendered Economy in the Market and at Home. Available at
https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/counting-womens-work-measuring-the-gendered-economy-in-the-market-and-home
Mama Earth loves you: To maintain independence, this website is self-funded and this write-up is not a commissioned work. There is no request for donation but if you can plant a tree (or two!) on your birthdays, it will really be awesome and will make Mama Earth very happy! P.s. It’s better if you could join the You’ve Got TREE-mail! Chain.
Leave a Reply