2021年6月2日 星期三

The Lazy Person’s Guide to Domestic Equality

No lists, no charts.

The Lazy Person's Guide to Domestic Equality

Lilli Carré

My husband and I have a division of household labor that is, statistically speaking, unusual for hetero parents. The American Time Use Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks how adults in the United States spend their days, shows that in families with children under the age of 6, on an average day women spent 1.1 hours providing physical care (such as bathing or feeding a child), while men spent 27 minutes. In my house, it's pretty much equal — I feed the kids, my husband bathes them.

But we have never kept a strict accounting of domestic work because nobody's got time for that. Much of the advice around equalizing both the physical and mental tasks of parenting — advice I personally have relayed from experts! — suggests that keeping a chart or creating a list of tasks and dividing them is the path to parity.

To me, this advice always sounds exhausting; at the end of a long day of working and parenting, I just want to lie in bed and watch my murder shows. I don't want to get out the calendar and plan the next three months. And, as Brigid Schulte, the director of The Better Life Lab, which helps reimagine gender equity at home, put it, who do you think is putting the chore charts in motion in hetero couples? Women. (Though to be fair to my husband, he is more game for calendar time than I am).

So I decided to talk to couples — and not just straight ones — who feel happy with their balance. I wanted to know how they manage to keep things equal, without creating a lot of extra work for themselves. The parents I spoke to had a range of personal and work circumstances; some of them did lots of tasks together, and some of them specialized in bedtime, laundry or lawn care based on their skills and interests. But a few themes about communication, mental health and organization stood out during our conversations. Here are four ways these couples maintain their equilibrium.

ADVERTISEMENT

They speak up if the balance is off. Almost all of the couples I spoke to said that talking when they were starting to feel resentful about the division of labor was essential to their happiness. "There's nothing left unsaid from my side," said Inbal Austern, 42, a toy designer and mom of two kids in Buffalo.

Part of that speaking up is also being observant about your spouse's level of work. Austern's wife, Ariel Aberg-Riger, 39, who works as a visual storyteller, said, "When things get out of balance, I become increasingly stressed, and I become angry and passive-aggressive." But Austern knows her well enough to know when Aberg-Riger is becoming overwhelmed. "You see her huffing and puffing," Austern said — and so she knows it's time to have a discussion about their division of household labor.

When Schulte's balance was off in her own home, and she was full of resentment about how little domestic work her husband was doing, they started going on long walks together. "I literally interviewed him: how did we get here? Why didn't you ever take a paternity leave, did you know I have been mad at you for 15 years about that?" Letting it fester for more than a decade was not healthy for her, but those walks set the stage for them to completely reorient their domestic world. They started with little tweaks, like it was always her husband's job to unload the dishwasher.

They take time for themselves. Jaclyn and Josh Greenberg are in their 40s, live in New Jersey, and have three children who are 11, 9 and 7. Their middle child is not able to walk or talk and is dependent on his parents, Jaclyn said, and has numerous appointments with doctors and therapists. They are both fully in the loop about care for all three children, so that when one of them is feeling burned out, the other can step in seamlessly. "If I need to punt to him, he's already pretty clued in," Jaclyn, who is a freelance writer, said. "I tend to be better about taking time for self-care, I encourage him to do the same. It's about knowing you have reached your limit," she said. She goes for a walk or talks to a friend. "There are times when one of us needs to hit the reset button," said Josh, who is an analytics professional, and the other takes over the domestic load.

ADVERTISEMENT

They push back against gendered expectations. Even if you are intentional and meticulous about not having a gendered division of labor inside your four walls, there is work to be done in training other people. Devan and Debora Sandiford, who are both 36, have two boys and live in Brooklyn, said that from their first pediatrician's appointments there was an assumption that Debora was the keeper of baby information. "The doctor would turn to me and ask me a question when we're all together, and Devan only has the answer," Debora, who works in global health and teaches Pilates, said.

Devan, a patent examiner and writer, said their older son's preschool teacher pulled him aside and told him to "thank his wife" for bringing in photos for an art project, but Devan was the one who remembered the pictures. "It irks us a bit, with the frequency that it happens," Devan said.

Harper S.E. Bishop, 36, who identifies as a trans man, said that the world sees him as a cis man, and when he and his wife, Jennifer Connor, 44, were fostering a 6-year-old and a newborn, "people from the outside world" would put the labor on Connor, as a cis woman. "It was often doctors who call Jennifer, teachers would return calls to Jennifer," Bishop said. Connor, who is the executive director at a nonprofit for immigrant justice, said she pushed back by looping in Bishop on a text or email. Both said it was very important for them to model for their children, as well, that there weren't masculinized or feminized tasks — that anyone could do anything.

Jaclyn S. Wong, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of South Carolina who has been following 21 college-educated, dual-career couples since 2013, calls the couples who have the greatest equity "consistent compromisers." These pairs acknowledge the structural issues at play, Dr. Wong said, and "recognize that the workplace is stacked against women and the domestic sphere is stacked against women," — and they fight against those inequities accordingly, with men sometimes taking on additional domestic work.

ADVERTISEMENT

They use tools. Most of the couples I spoke to use a shared calendar, whether it's a digital or a physical one. Though two of the couples chuckled about how long it took them to agree on what kind of calendar to use. Devon Sandiford said Debora loves a physical calendar and has been trying to convince him to use it. Some of them also use other digital tools — Josh Greenberg recommended an app called Remember the Milk that helps you share a to-do list.

It took me and my husband five solid years to actually use the shared Google calendar we made for kid appointments when our older daughter was in preschool. It remained blank for many years, and now that she's 8 it's working decently, though I can't say either of us remembers to log absolutely every dentist visit or birthday party. Which goes to show that balancing is a constant work in progress.

Want More on Dividing Household Labor?

  • The Better Life Lab has a series of experiments that may help you divide your household work more equitably, though I am definitely too lazy to do any of them. Still, my favorite is one called "The Mental Load Swear Jar."
  • Eve Rodsky, whose book "Fair Play" is recommended by many household equity experts, has a deck of cards that may help you divvy up domestic work.
  • In April, I interviewed Allison Daminger, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University who has broken down the mental load into four parts: anticipate, identify, decide and monitor, to figure out why the gender imbalance in cognitive labor is so persistent.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

My husband and I split the day care drop-off/pickup pretty evenly. Last week I was slammed at work and he offered to pick up our daughter every evening without a single request from me. It was the help I didn't know I needed.— Miriam Cohen, San Francisco

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年6月1日 星期二

The economic consequences of canceling Keynes

How the right tried to ban useful economics — twice.
Tim Gidal/Picture Post and Hulton Archive, via Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

These days it often seems that you can't turn on your TV without encountering a well-paid, influential figure being given copious airtime to explain how he's being "canceled" by our oppressive woke culture. Yes, some people really have been victims of unjustified smears, but the widespread exploitation of the "cancel culture" meme by people who are doing fine does some genuine harm.

For one thing, all this whining on the part of privileged people has the (intentional) effect of distracting public attention from the enormous real injustices facing many Americans.

It also makes it hard to talk about serious cancellation, which happens all the time.

What should we be talking about when we talk about cancellation? It certainly doesn't mean saying mean things — I'm not "canceling" Bitcoin advocates when I suggest that much of what they say is "libertarian derp." It also doesn't mean ignoring points of view that have little claim to be taken seriously; The Times is under no obligation to publish guest essays by people claiming that satanic pedophiles control the Democratic Party.

But there is a real phenomenon in which powerful interests try to block the dissemination of ideas they find threatening, for whatever reason. In fact, it happens a lot. So let me talk about one example I know a fair bit about: attempts to cancel Keynesian economics. I say "attempts," plural, because it has happened twice: an overtly political attempt to block the teaching of Keynesian economics in the 1940s and '50s, and a subtler freezing out of Keynesian ideas in the decades leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

ADVERTISEMENT

John Maynard Keynes's theory that depressions were caused by inadequate demand, and that governments could cure them with deficit spending, was accepted by many American economists in the late '30s and early '40s. And in 1947, when the economist Laurie Tarshis published one of the first economic principles textbooks embodying the new doctrine, many schools decided to adopt it.

But then came an organized smear campaign, with many university trustees and donors demanding that orders for the book be canceled. This campaign was successful, at first: Sales of Tarshis's book dwindled. It wasn't until a year later, when Paul Samuelson's "Economics" somehow slipped through, that Keynesianism became a staple of undergraduate courses.

Right-wingers continued to complain — William Buckley's "God and Man at Yale" was, to an important degree, a screed against the horrible fact that Yale professors were teaching Keynes. But the blockade was broken for the time being.

Round two was, as I said, subtler. In the 1970s some economists began arguing that Keynesianism must be wrong, because the phenomena Keynes described couldn't happen in an economy of perfectly rational individuals and perfectly functioning markets.

ADVERTISEMENT

You might consider this a weak critique — but in the culture of economics, with its demand for rigorous modeling, it carried weight. Defenders of Keynes, uneasy about a theory that relied on plausible descriptions of behavior rather than ineluctable mathematics, lacked all conviction; enemies of Keynes were filled with a passionate intensity. Just a few years into the anti-Keynesian backlash, influential economists were ridiculing the whole doctrine, declaring that whenever anyone engaged in Keynesian theorizing, "the audience starts to giggle and whisper to one another."

Many economists privately continued to find Keynesian ideas persuasive. But it soon became common knowledge that major journals would not publish anything overtly Keynesian. During my own early career, I and others simply took it as a fact of life that if you wanted to get tenure, you would have to build your publication record in subfields that steered clear of the core issue of depressions and how they happen; you could sometimes smuggle some Keynesian material into your papers, but only if it came wrapped in a model that seemed to be mainly about something else.

So Keynes had in effect been canceled.

Then came the 2008 crisis and its aftermath, which demonstrated that Keynes had been right all along. The slump reflected a collapse in demand; governments that responded with deficit spending were able to mitigate the downturn, while those that practiced fiscal austerity made it worse. And the anti-Keynesian theories that had dominated the journals for several decades proved perfectly useless.

ADVERTISEMENT

It may also be worth noting that current policy debates continue to be conducted largely in a Keynesian framework. Critics of President Biden's policies, most famously Larry Summers, aren't disputing the stimulative effect of deficits — on the contrary, they're contending that the stimulative effect will be too big for the economy to handle.

But the years of Keynesian cancellation had a heavy cost. Many economists entered the crisis ignorant of basic concepts that had been worked out many decades earlier, because you couldn't publish those concepts in the journals or teach them in many (not all) graduate programs. This intellectual impoverishment, I'd argue, weakened and distorted the policy response: We had a much worse, much more prolonged slump than we might have had if the ideas needed to fight the slump hadn't been suppressed.

So yes, cancellation can be a serious issue and should be fought. Unfortunately, making that case is harder than it should be when so many privileged people conflate the real thing with not being invited to fancy dinner parties.

Quick Hits

My colleague Branko Milanovic thinks discussion of inequality was canceled.

Some economists certainly tried.

But I plead innocent.

International macro stayed relatively sane.

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

Free your mind.YouTube

Mandolin Orange, renamed and better than ever.

IN THE TIMES

The Luckiest Workers in America? Teenagers.

Teens are picking up jobs — and higher wages — as companies scramble to hire. But that trend could have a downside.

By Jeanna Smialek and David McCabe

Article Image

News Analysis

Our Digital Pasts Weren't Supposed to Be Weaponized Like This

A recent firing at The Associated Press is the latest example of the way in which our digital pasts are never far from the present, despite what early internet evangelists thought.

By Kashmir Hill

Article Image

Talk

Ancient Rome Will Never Get Old. Take It From Mary Beard.

"What the Romans are teaching is always at that meta level of what it might be like to take a view different from your own."

By David Marchese

Article Image

Seminary Built on Slavery and Jim Crow Labor Has Begun Paying Reparations

The Virginia Theological Seminary is giving cash to descendants of Black Americans who were forced to work there. The program is among the first of its kind.

By Will Wright

Article Image
SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018