Reddit mentions of The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home

Comfort the kid, pick up the kid, feed the kid, get the kid dressed, take them to school and pick them up, do their homework, make the dinner, clean the house, buy the supplies, run the errands. All part of Women's Work, aka Second Shift: the work you do after your career because men typically don't do it. This, plus The Motherhood Penalty, is a major reason why women's pay doesn't equal men's: we have to get jobs that let us do Second Shift because nobody else will.

Yet another reason for women to be Childfree.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/05/11/the-motherhood-penalty/

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/continuing-gender-revolution-brief-report/

https://thesocietypages.org/trot/2016/04/18/spring-cleaning/

https://thesocietypages.org/ccf/2015/07/21/interpreting-changing-household-patterns/

https://thesocietypages.org/ccf/2015/07/16/first-comes-love/

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Shift-Working-Families-Revolution/dp/0143120336

https://thesocietypages.org/ccf/2016/04/21/the-way-we-still-never-were/

​

We thoroughly discount women's labor in the world. This is one of the big complaints that feminists make.

> We are asked to watch, entertain, or help take care of younger siblings, cousins, and other children more than men because people automatically assume we must love kids and be naturally nurturing.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/08/women-femmes-emotional-labor/

There is a book called Second Shift which makes the point that many women work during the day, then come home to work again at home: their second shift. This is the issue behind a number of complaints that many wives have about their husbands: that she does more than her share of work.

> In the second wave movement, theorists can be grouped by their theory of how housework oppresses women. Typically, liberal feminists critique housework because it is unpaid. This makes women dependent on men and devalued, since their work is outside the meaningful sphere of public economic production

> One of the philosophical problems raised by the housework debate is how to draw the line between work and play or leisure activity when the activity is not paid: is a mother playing with her baby working or engaged in play? If the former, then her hours in such activity may be compared with those of her husband or partner to see if there is an exploitation relation present, for example, if his total hours of productive and reproductive work for the family are less than hers (cf. Delphy 1984). But to the extent that childrearing counts as leisure activity, as play, as activity held to be intrinsically valuable (Ferguson 2004), no exploitation is involved. Perhaps childrearing and other caring activity is both work and play, but only that portion which is necessary for the psychological growth of the child and the worker(s) counts as work. If so, who determines when that line is crossed? Since non-market activity does not have a clear criterion to distinguish work from non-work, nor necessary from non-necessary social labor, an arbitrary element seems to creep in that makes standards of fairness difficult to apply to gendered household bargains between men and women dividing up waged and non-waged work. (Barrett 1980).

> One solution to this problem is simply to take all household activity that could also be done by waged labor (nannies, domestic servants, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc.) as work and to figure its comparable worth by the waged labor necessary to replace it (Folbre 1982, 1983). Another is to reject altogether the attempts to base women’s oppression on social relations of work, on the grounds that such theories are overly generalizing and ignore the discrete meanings that kinship activities have for women in different contexts (Nicholson 1991; Fraser and Nicholson 1991; Marchand 1995). Or, one can argue that although the line between work and leisure changes historically, those doing the activity should have the decisive say as to whether their activity counts as work, i.e., labor necessary to promote human welfare. The existence of second wave women’s movements critiques of the “second shift” of unpaid household activity indicates that a growing number of women see most of it as work, not play (cf. Hochchild 1989). Finally, one can argue that since the human care involved in taking care of children and elders creates a public good, it should clearly be characterized as work, and those who are caretakers, primarily women, should be fairly compensated for it by society or the state (Ferguson and Folbre 2000: Folbre 2000, Ferguson 2004).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-class/

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/trickle-down-feminism
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/03/what-international-womens-day-teaches-us-about-the-divisions-between-feminists.html

edit: adding this:

> Liuba Grechen Shirley is the first female candidate to get federal permission to use the funds for babysitting.

> Grechen Shirley needs child care on a more ongoing basis — she currently pays her children’s babysitter $22 an hour for about 20 hours of care per week, according to Georgantopoulos. But the same principle holds true as in the male candidate’s case, Hunter writes: “The Commission concludes that the childcare expenses described in your request, to the extent such expenses are incurred as a direct result of campaign activity, would not exist irrespective of your election campaign, and thus may be permissibly paid with campaign funds.”

> Meanwhile, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) just became the first senator to give birth while in office. She also championed a rule change to allow babies on the Senate floor so that she and future parents in the Senate don’t have to miss votes while on parental leave. “If I have to vote and I’m breastfeeding my child, what do I do, leave her sitting outside?” Duckworth asked in April, before the rule change.

> She no longer has to make that choice, and Grechen Shirley no longer has to choose between caring for her kids and running for Congress. Grechen Shirley hopes Thursday’s decision will be an inspiration for other female candidates.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/11/17340698/mom-mothers-congress-child-care-liuba-grechen-shirley-campaign-funds-babysitting

First off, if your experience is anything like mine you'll see that as they get older they'll need to rethink their positions as they leave the college bubble and enter the "real world."

>Where can I find good sources that express this exact sentiment?

The problem is this sentiment is the culmination of years of study, hundreds of books and papers, and extensive debate and criticism. At least that's the way my classes worked. Mapping the Social Landscape; Readings in Sociology by Susan Ferguson is a good collection of several sociological readings over a broad range of topics. The Second Shift by Arlie Russel Hochschild is a good book for examining gender roles in a family setting, although it does have a feminist bias that has counterarguments that come up in debates. Sociology of crime and law enforcement also provide insight into topics that tend to disagree with the notion of male privilege. Companions in Crime is a good book that covers a range of criminology theories. Deborah Tannen also has several good books about the ways men and women tend to differ, and the consequences that result.

suggested reading: The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild. women tend to be held responsible for far more labor than men in today's society. it's worth a quick google search, if anything. don't be so quick to judge "housewives," particularly after not having experienced such a situation :)

Please look into a sociological term known as "The Second Shift", also a book written by Arlie Hochschild.

I used to dry hump my S.O. until I came to the realization that I shouldn't. Why did I stop? Learned about what sexual harassment is and learned about the second shift.

You should check out "The Second Shift" by Arlie Hochschild. It's a page-turner/concept burner. Hochschild found that because of our (U.S.) traditional ideas about gender roles women are still working hard in the home. Obviously, women have entered the labor force. They work a shift a day outside of the home and then they come home and work a second shift. This second shift includes taking care of children, husbands, pets, and the home. She found that this caretaking adds up to about a months worth of time for every year. At the same time the majority of husbands identify their role as breadwinner and dissociate their identity from caretaker. These husbands do contribute but not to the extent of their S.O.

There is a "stalled revolution" in the home and in society at large. We are still a patriarchal society. We still do not have economic practices that would help support women that have a second shift such as, free high-quality childcare, reasonable amounts of sick time, vacation time, maternity leave that includes fathers, and so on.

she also found that there is a third shift that women have, which is the emotional investments and worries which some men don't experience because of their powerful position.

I had to change my role in the home once I realized how hard women have it.

tl;dr Women work a second shift at home and I understand your frustration. I'm a dude, btw.

I have a pdf version if you would like it.