dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) (01/07/91)
Sean suggests that society should directly pay homemakers for the work they do. I won't bore you with all the obvious economic reasons this is a terrible idea. I just want to raise one point: quality control. I'm a scientist. Just because I like being a scientist doesn't mean I'm *entitled* to get paid to be one. Before they fund my research proposals, sponsors demand to know, first, my qualifications for the job (degrees, publication record, etc.) Second, they want to know exactly what I plan to do with the money, and these plans are subject to peer review. If the reviewers don't like the way I do research, then I don't get the money. If *nobody* liked the way I did research, I'd have to find some other kind of job. This kind of basic quality control applies to every "job" in the normal (not socialist feminist newspeak) sense of "job". So, Sean, if you want society to pay people for the work they do as homemakers, then I think we need to institute some quality controls up front. Let's see: how about requiring government-paid homemakers to hold at least a bachelor's degree in some relevant field (home economics, nursing, etc.) Also, before allowing them to raise children they should have at least 24 credits of child psychology and development courses, with no grade lower than a B-. Homemakers will have to undergo periodic medical and psychiatric evaluations, and those who hold unpopular political or religious views (like white supremacists, or Christian Scientists who would deny their children medical care in favor of faith healing) will be ineligible for government funding. Also, since these people are supposedly working for *society*, society should have a say in how much work it desires done. If we decide we don't want to increase our population quite so rapidly, we might just require our homemakers to stop having children for a few years, or perhaps limit them to 2 children each. Like any other government contractor, a homemaker who violates any of the terms of his/her contract could be barred from receiving further funds, and possibly sued for return of monies already spent. Sounds like a lovely little police state, doesn't it? -- Dave Touretzky, contended homemaker for a large green parrot, and it's none of the government's business, thank you. (But my *job* is Research Computer Scientist.)
dst@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) (01/15/91)
I wrote:
; Sean suggests that society should directly pay homemakers for the work
; they do. I won't bore you with all the obvious economic reasons this
; is a terrible idea. I just want to raise one point: quality control.
In reply by private email, Alan Taylor wrote:
My accountant read the original post and just laughed herself
silly. She then explained, "If you are going to pay for
household services, EVERYTHING must be assigned a cost...."
I get the joke....I'm sure you do, too..
P.S.
I dunno how to post to soc.feminism....can you forward
this for me?
Regards,
ataylor@gauss.nmsu.edu
Okay, I forwarded it. And for those who don't get the joke, let's
just say that "servicing" one's spouse would be an interesting part of
the federally-mandated job description. Quality control, indeed!