←back to thread

139 points cdepman | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.461s | source
Show context
bcatanzaro ◴[] No.23882880[source]
Stay-at-home moms are another big reason for this besides the missionary experience. It is very common for Utah Mormon women to stay at home raising children.

The traditional full-time workplace totally disrespects that choice. SAHMs are not compensated for the hard work they do. It makes sense they would look for something part time to do to make a little money and think about something besides kids. But how can they do that in the traditional American workplace that expects 40+ hours a week and a resume with no gaps?

Many MLMs are built for SAHMs. They build on SAHM social networks and many of them are explicitly about making domestic life more bearable (kitchen gadgets, home goods, clothes, beauty and health products).

I think there’s a story here about SAHMs as a neglected overlooked and disrespected population, and how MLMs fill a need for them.

BTW, I hate MLMs generally, I’m just pointing out that Mormon missionary service isn’t the only thing attracting MLMs to Utah.

replies(6): >>23882973 #>>23883127 #>>23883198 #>>23883220 #>>23883249 #>>23883673 #
ineedasername ◴[] No.23883220[source]
To say they're not compensated is a fundamental misunderstanding of such a relationship, when it's really very simple: there is a pool of tasks that need to get done, and between the two partners there is a division of labor on who performs which tasks, often with at least a little overlap. If the person who works for pay happens to mop the floor at home, is that "uncompensated"?

Take a relationship where both people work, mine: My spouse does laundry. I go food shopping and cook. To say that either of us is uncompensated for those tasks is a complete misapplication of the term, and a gross oversimplification that attempts to reduce the rewards of effort to solely lie in the monetary realm.

replies(1): >>23883303 #
coliveira ◴[] No.23883303[source]
You write as if there is a division of work between the couple. That would be true if men and women could decide who would stay at home and who would work at a company. In fact, women are required by their society to stay at home, so this is in fact a relation of oppression.
replies(3): >>23883418 #>>23883479 #>>23883584 #
1. ikRwS3Nb6Y ◴[] No.23883479[source]
Apologies in advance for the snark, but I find this statement equally valid:

> You write as if there is a division of work between the couple. That would be true if men and women could decide who would stay at home and who would work at a company. In fact, men are required by their society to go to work, so this is in fact a relation of oppression.

So I reject your assertion that this is a relation of oppression, unless you are conceding that both members of the relation are equally oppressed (in which case, I would argue that nobody is).

replies(1): >>23894373 #
2. jgwil2 ◴[] No.23894373[source]
This inversion is a bit misleading: being able to work is how people achieve financial independence, and if society discourages women from seeking financial independence the result is obviously an imbalance of power between men and women.