Return to South-East Queensland Men's Issues Page
Unpaid Labour | Domestic Duties | Domestic Violence
All work done by a man with a family, is unpaid labor. It is his family, not him personally, that gets the benefit of his income. The greater income earned by men is not an indicator of economic power, but of economic exploitation, as it is women who determine how the money is spent (just ask any retailer, advertiser, or salesperson: consumerism is a female phenomenon). This explains how many companies can justify blatantly anti-male advertising - they don't care if they offend men, because it is women who do the spending.
Both men and women contribute substantial unpaid labour to their own households. Although the female contribution has been tallied in cash terms by some experts, the male contribution is overlooked, as most people look only at the man's income-producing activities. Male contributions might include chauffeuring his partner and kids (especially after late-night social events, where is is typically the man who is expected to take the wheel, even when they are both tired and inebriated), security and bodyguard duties (it is invariably the male who is expected to go alone to investigate mysterious noises in the house at night), messengering (whenever something is needed around the house, it is the man's job to go fetch it from the corner store), and household maintenance.
An aspect of unpaid labour that is overstated is the relative contribution of men and women to voluntary work for charity and community groups. Women make the largest contribution in this area for the simple reason that they have that option - women have the right to work, while men still have the obligation. Women may find it a pleasure to contribute to the community, whereas men who perhaps would like to contribute in this way are bound to their role of providing for their family; taking the job that pays more, rather than the one that is most fulfilling. A woman who spends her time with community groups is doing so at the expense of her partner, who must work harder to fill the gap left by her forgoing paid labour; her voluntary work is not entirely selfless, as it demands corresponding sacrifices from her partner, and often her children as well.
A woman is generally advised to take twelve weeks off work for the birth of her child - six weeks before and six weeks after. Arguably this should be paid leave, although just as arguably it is the result of a lifestyle choice which the woman makes consciously (women are rarely required to have children in our culture). Any time over and above this amount, however, is always the result of a lifestyle choice, to care for the children herself rather than put the child into daycare or let her husband care for them. It is discrimination against men to insist that women can take up to a year off work, have their job held open for them, and then have the option of not returning, while men are denied the same option, and to then demand that women who make this choice should be regarded as being as committed to their career as anyone (male or female) who does not exercise that option. It is not sufficiently recognised that "giving up a career" to look after children is a lifestyle choice, and one that is commonly denied to men. The only fair option is to allow both men and women, access to parental leave.
Men are told constantly that they don't really count as parents, from the carefully mixed messages given by staff in the delivery room, to the policy of making Family Payment to the mother regardless of which parent is at home taking care of the children, to putting a childs' name on its mothers' Medicare card. Although seemingly trivial, these things send a strong message to fathers who would like to be a larger part of their childrens' lives.
Anytime a writer explains differences between male and female behaviour with something to the effect of "women often have to care for children", the stereotype of men not counting as carers is reinforced. At home, often the women who most complain about men not doing their share are the ones most guilty of not being willing to share the work evenly; they will often simply assign the man jobs, and then reserve for themselves a supervisory role. Either the man feels that he has no responsibility and no control over how he does the housework/childrearing, and becomes discouraged, or she will lose patience with "correcting" his different style and approach, and take back the job, all the while subjecting him to recriminations. Both these responses come from the assumption that women are naturally more competent than men at domestic duties; she will often back up her commands with something like "I'm just thinking of what's best for the children" (implying that he's not).
Studies that report that men do less housework/childrearing than women, even when both partners are working "full-time", fail to take into account that even among full-time workers, men work longer hours than women. Mens' total time contribution, both in and outside the home, usually exceeds that of women, and yet men are still denigrated and not given credit for their efforts.
Feminists typically claim that 98% of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women. Even if this claim were close to accurate, it does not explain why womens' domestic violence services receive 100% of government funding, or why the same feminists actively campaign against mens' domestic violence services getting any funding at all.
Sources other than feminist groups paint a different picture. The Brisbane City Council reported some figures from its own domestic violence hotline, such as the fact that 90% of callers to the hotline are women. That is to say, 10% of those reporting domestic violence to the hotline are men, which raises the question of what proportion of victims overall are male; men, more than women, are reluctant to report their abusers to anyone. Of course, this didn't stop Lord Mayor Jim Soorley from appearing on television and pontificating on how appalled we should all be at the violence against women and children (shouldn't we be at least 10% as appalled at the violence against men?). Casualty sections in hospitals in Australian capital cities report that more men than women are admitted with injuries related to domestic violence. Yet men are not only intimidated into silence by their abusive partners, but further silenced by feminists who don't want to admit that domestic violence goes both ways. For instance, recently we've heard much about how guns are used in domestic violence situations; in fact, women are more likely than men to use a weapon when bashing their partners (typically a kitchen implement or motor vehicle).
Women who bash their male partners do so in confidence that he cannot strike back, either by reporting her, leaving for a domestic violence shelter, or hitting her back. Police and related authorities do not take battered men seriously, whereas they will arrest even a man who strikes back at his tormentor out of desparation. Murder is the ultimate form of domestic violence, yet women can murder their partner and get away with it by simply claiming that he abused her; the standard of proof required from the woman is much less than what would be needed to convict the man were he still alive; as with claims of rape, she needs no corroborating evidence.
The much-publicised Mens' Health Initiative seemed like a good first step, if nothing else. However, the only visible things to come out of it were two advertisements on workplace safety, and a few exhortations to men to pay more attention to their health. Of the two TV ads, the later one addressed the safety of road-workers; it portrayed two female road-workers being narrowly missed by speeding traffic. Evidently, the public has to see womens' safety being threatened before anyone cares.
This no doubt also explains why the initiative completely failed to address domestic violence against men, even at the same time as the Office of the Status of Women (OSW) was launching a major survey into violence against women.
Even though some services exist for battered men (none government-funded), they are hard to find; there is insufficient warning under the listings for womens' services that they are women-only. Some services (notably Brisbanes' Domestic Violence Research Centre) are notorious for their inappropriate treatment of and insensitivity towards male victims of domestic violence. Services who openly abuse and ridicule men should have their funding reviewed.