Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Traditionally, housekeeping was taken to reflect on a man's resources but on a woman's character. A man with a dirty house is just broke, which is not that humiliating (if you don't have a family to provide for) in times like 1935 or 2013. Thankfully, that attitude is peeling away and it's only taken to reflect on a woman's resources, and nothing more. It isn't right to have cleanliness (or the lack thereof) interpreted differently for the genders.

What I find screwy and wrong is that cleaning services (which are necessary if two people are going to work career jobs, since career jobs rarely come in under 50 hpw including commute) and childcare come out of after-tax income. That is fucked up and probably a bit misogynistic. There are a lot of women who leave the workforce involuntarily because, after having a couple of kids, they can't afford to work. This is the kind of shit we get from a predominantly conservative political class which (a) isn't fully sold on women working, largely because (b) they, unlike most of us, don't need two people working.

A cleaning service is not necessary for most people. (Admittedly, "most" = me in this case, but do you have a better argument?) And even if it were necessary, I don't see why it should be tax-subsidized. Lots of true necessities, like food, aren't.

To contest your second point, people should work where they are most productive, and the government shouldn't deliberately subsidize inefficiencies. Taking care of kids is work, just like working at a retail store or writing novels, and the government shouldn't subsidize one or the other.

(Owning few possessions) + Roomba + Scooba = tolerably clean bro pad.

In this case technology really is driving a social change. Even 10 years ago my dudely apartment would not have been anywhere near this clean. You can eat off my hardwood right now.

I agree. I often saw these cleaning bots as decadency or superfluous gadgets, but since I've gotten one I have changed my opinion of them. They clean good, consistently, and on schedule. My living room -- the place my bot lives in -- is spotless. The other rooms I clean them once a week by placing the bot in one of the rooms to clean while I tidy and wash another room. It takes less time, it is less boring, and my house is cleaner than ever. And as a bonus, my allergies are less problematic to boot.

You'd think conservatives would support a domestic work tax credit then since they would be most likely to afford domestic employees and thus benefit the most.

No, the attitude I hear in the Deep South is: If you are successful, you can afford professional services and your spouse doesn't need to work, if not, you are a loser and not a good enough Christian. Work harder! (And send my kids to St Thomas for spring break while you enjoy your stay-cation.)

Even the executives where I work don't really comprehend the stresses of a "normal" two income family. They have evolved to live in a disconnected reality.

Actually in Sweden there is a tax break like that. It covers domestic cleaning and house hold refurbishments.

Originally you used to collect the receipts and at the end of the year you recieved 50% of the cost as a tax break.

Now the cleaners/builders include the 50% off when they quote for the work. This just means they all doubled their rates.

Yeah it's really annoying that once you have kids, you also have to spend time with them.

Emotional commitment can't be outsourced. You have to be there for their most important moments (recitals, ball games, etc.) You have to spend at least a couple hours every day with your kids, sure. But, for most people, I'd say that if you can outsource cleaning up messes, you should. That way, when you are with your kids, you're energetic and happy rather than overburdened and worn.

Kids with two successful parents who engage with the world on their terms are going to be better off-- they'll have the confidence to expect the world to meet them on their terms, and because they have this, it will-- than if they get somewhat more with-parents time, but their parents are constantly worried about housework and money.

Any citations for your latter claim? Never mind that you set up a false dilemma, as if it could only either be "both parents working and worry-free" or "time with kids and constant worries".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com