>On Apr 19, 2007, at 8:06 PM, bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> > Moreover, it also depends on what kind of work we're talking. If
> > you just
> > talk normal "chores" you leave out a whole bunch of stuff that
> > people don't
> > consider such as "caring work" and "emotional work" (see Arlie
> > Hochschild's
> > work).
>
>About that, the authors say:
>
> > The fact [i.e. the equality of work time] is thus not new in the
> > sociology literature, although it is new in the economics
> > literature. The difficulty, however, is that it has been swamped by
> > claims in widely circulated sociological studies (Hochschild, 1997,
> > and earlier work) based on ethnographic research on a few non-
> > randomly chosen households that women's total work significantly
> > exceeds men's. Indeed, even sociologists who have demonstrated it
> > (e.g., Mattingly and Bianchi, 2003, for the United States, and
> > Bittman and Wajcman, 2000, for several countries), quickly move
> > beyond it to focus on showing that women's work is more onerous
> > than men's, and why women's leisure provides less pleasure.
ah. so it's apparently "wrong" to demonstrate such things! w00t! there are many more studies than hochschild's by the way. they are presented each year at ASA meetings and published in journals. but, you know, i think economists are the worst offenders for not really doing lit reviews -- the results of research yoshie dug up on academics who don't actually read the lit they are reviewing because they are simply copying the material from someone else's lit review. (they tracked errors as they circulated in various jounrals, one author picking up the error and a host of others picking it up too.)
b
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)