I can’t speak for Mr. B, but to me it means that our priorities are fucked up. Being a janitor is a hard, dirty, necessary work–and it’s compensated at $6 an hour. Being a migrant farm worker is even harder and you’re lucky to make $6 a day. Working in a slaughterhouse is the 9th circle of hell. “Beneath” doesn’t mean overqualified or overeducated. It means nobody should have to perform vital tasks under horrendous working conditions for no money with society only paying lip service to the dignity of work. No one who provides vital services should be exploited, nobody should act like because we as a scoiety need these workers, they owe us and we can subject them to conditions we wouldn’t inflict on an animal and then act like we’re being generous for not expecting them to pay us.

“part of being a grown up is doing unpleasant necessaities even if they’re not much fun”

Yeah, which is why we all take our turn at the slaughterhouse instead of exploiting immigrants who we then deport after they’ve debilitated themselves for life to provide us with steaks. How many of us haven’t done physically crippling soul sucking socially necessary labor? Then we can all talk about unpleasant necessities and being a grown up.

“being a dustbin man’s not morally inferior to being a CEO”

No, and unlike the average CEO the dustbin man’s actually necessary, so we should probably pay the dustbin man the CEO’s salary. Which would then mean that nobody would have to spend his life being a dustbin man. You could do it for a while and then move on to something that’s more interesting to you, engages your faculties and employs your fuller potential as a human being without having sacrificed your life for a lifetime of hard, physically damaging, virtually unpaid unrewarding work. Sounds good to me.

caromboard–”anyone who felt that strongly about shit work”
I think that’s key. I agree with everything Mr. B feels, and more, about the degrading nature and structure of work and system of rewards.

Thing is though, feeling that way I don’t think it’s just me who deserves better than what we currently have, I think everyone does.

I can’t see explaining to someone I love that I don’t want to be exploited or soul sucked or demeaned so I’m opting out but it’s good/necessary for him/her to do what I won’t as it benefits me.

The problem is that a lot of people have internalized ideas about what men and women should and shouldn’t be doing for each other, and it often happens that men end up feeling entitled to have their wives support them in ways that most women would never expect from their husbands. I don’t think most people would have a problem criticizing a woman who sat on her ass all day while her husband slaved away to support her. Women get a lot of societal shame for not taking care of their homes and families whether they work outside the home or not, so it’s not very likely that we’d see an article like this written about women.

It’s not a personal attack on anyone to examine societal attitudes and beliefs about what men and women should be doing for each other. If you are truly secure and happy with the decisions you make, they will stand up to examination.

Well, I apologize if you’re taking anything I said personally.

I have to confess that I take the piece personally, too, because I see a lot of my parents’ situation in the Biggerows (except in my case my father would be Mrs. Biggerow and my mother Mr. Biggerow, but whatever).

It’s not that anyone thinks a guy is an asshole for being out of work or automatically feel sorry for anyone who’s the family’s sole support, or that not doing housework makes a person uncaring and selfish *IF* neither one of them cares about it and it’s not adding any extra stress to either party, it’s just certain attitudes in the article. The wife is very very concerned about what’s going to happen to them, and he really doesn’t seem to want to deal with their reality. She’s frustrated, he thinks everything is perfect. What’s worse is that he feels entitled to a fulfilling job, which I think we all agree everyone should be, but he used to have a fulfilling job, she probably never even had that opportunity from what we can gather from the piece, and it doesn’t seem to enter his head when he’s thinking about jobs and personal fulfilment that maybe it would be nice if SHE could have a fulfilling job, too. Maybe it would be nice if she weren’t so stressed out about how they’re going to survive.

Maybe there should be more to her life than having to go off to work, come home and do all the housework, and still have to reassure him that he deserves a job and a life better than anything she can hope for, maybe he could do some thinking about what would make her happy and what he could do to make her life happier and easier since they’ve both given a lot of thought to what would make him happy. One thing that bugged me is that Mrs. Biggerow is sympathetic to her husband and doesn’t want him to take a job he hates, but he doesn’t seem to have anything to say about her and what she has to put up with, it’s all about him and his feelings with no empathy at all for how worried she is or what a bad position she’s in or if she gets a lot of personal satisfation out of her job and her life.

I just can’t see someone coming to the reasonable conclusion that most work is so demeaning as to be beneath him and not give a second thought to his partner, who’s seemingly faced with an even bleaker, less fulfilling and more demeaning situation than he was. God, I’d like to think that anyone who felt that strongly against shit work would be the one to take it on him/herself to spare his/her partner if necessary, isn’t a partnership about putting the person you love first even over yourself sometimes, being unselfish? She seems to put him first, it’s just not clear how he puts aside his feelings to consider hers. From the little that we know about their situation, she seems to be a lot more caring and concerned about him and his well being than he is about hers, and that’s what I’m reacting negatively to, personally. This apparently isn’t a decision they made that’s working well, it’s more a decision he made with little concern for how it affects her that isn’t working out but she’s going along with it without too many options.

Of course the article is slanted and doesn’t present the full picture, but still when you put yourself out there like that, it’s a fact that strangers will form opinions (and trying to present yourself in a positive light is one of the main reasons for putting yourself out there like that).

“We ALL want our partners to have fulfilling, well-paid work. We L*O*V*E them ! But there is a degree of fucked-upped-ness about the premise that shitty wage-slavery is OK for women, but anethema for men….I am just as remarkable a genius as any man….I don’t really think people should HAVE TO do work that is beneath them or get teated shitty, no matter what their sex. HOWEVER: THere is NO EXCUSE for living parasitically off people you “love”, and causing them additional hardship and stress”

That’s what I’m trying to say. I hate the fact that there are men out there who seem to think that they deserve a fulfilling and engaging job not because they’re human beings, but because they’re men. Fulfilling work is important to men. And me? Well, I’m supposed to be fulfilled just by the prospect of washing this guy’s socks and mopping floors at McDonald’s for him. I’m not saying I wouldn’t ever take a shitty job to help out someone I love, not even just a husband or boyfriend but a family member. I would, BUT I’d like to do it out of free choice based on mutual respect and the knowledge that they’d do the same for me, not because it’s just assumed that I’m not important, I don’t matter, I don’t have feelings, dreams, ambitions, great things to offer, and I was just put on Earth to facilitate someone who deserves more out of life than I do whether I agree or not.

No-one should be treated badly at work, I’m with you on that. But this idea of a job being ‘beneath’ someone - what’s that actually mean? You’re too educated or overqualified for the skills it requires? That’s irrelevant if you need the money it’ll pay you, and you can’t find anything else that fits your talents better. Part of being an adult is being responsible for yourself, it’s looking after your own needs instead of hurting someone else (financially or otherwise) by sponging off them when they can’t afford it. I can quite accept that people might not *like* such work, but again, part of being a grown-up is doing unpleasant necessities even if they’re not much fun.

To say, “This job is beneath me,” also implies an enormous arrogance. By and large, an activity is a job because it needs doing - people value its completion, and this is expressed economically. Thus even less desirable jobs, such as cleaning toilets or working in a slaughterhouse, need to be done by somebody. You’re no better than anybody else; if it’s ‘beneath’ you it’s beneath everyone, and that kind of attitude’s invalid as it leaves an awful lot of essential tasks undone! It also implies a rather fragile sense of self-worth… It’s disappointing not to be working at one’s full capacity, perhaps, but being a dustbin man’s not morally inferior to being a CEO…

I don’t think men are their jobs, but I think that many people think men are their jobs.

I apologize for the confusion on that. I didn’t mean to be insulting.

“It’s your marriage and your business.”

Well, that’s the thing. I think the folks interviewed were judged pretty harshly based on how their marriages looked to outsiders, through the very narrow lens of this particular issue. And the point I was trying to make was that marriages are way more complex than simply “he’s a jerk and she’s a saint” or “he’s taking advantage and she’s a fool to put up with it.” On the one hand, the interviewees put their lives out there to be read and dissected and commented on, but on the other hand, it’s their marriage and their business and outsiders can’t claim to understand the subtleties of a relationship based on an article in the Times.

“Most people would expect their partners to pull their weight either by earning a paycheck or helping out around the house if they’re not, and that doesn’t make them the least bit selfish, materialistic, or unloving.”

neither does being a crappy housekeeper make one selfish or unloving, which was another point I was trying to make. in my case, I can’t in good conscience get on my husband for not “helping out around the house” when I know that I myself am a blue-ribbon slob who just doesn’t give a shit about housekeeping.

I didn’t mean to insinuate that people who have higher standards are selfish/materialistic/unloving. I can see where I might sound that way, but that wasn’t my intention.

I will try to be clearer in the future.

You might be happy in your marriage. It’s your marriage and your business. Most people would expect their partners to pull their weight either by earning a paycheck or helping out around the house if they’re not, and that doesn’t make them the least bit selfish, materialistic, or unloving.

god willing. but I have to be prepared for the possibility that this is a long-term state of affairs, with the same net result (no job) as if he was purposely malingering. It’s been a year, after all.

It’s not like I really love the high-tech high-speed thrill-a-minute world of the front desk, and all its commensurate prestige and gravitas. But I love the fact that I’m the so-called “breadwinner” at the moment.

“Why is it OK for a woman to take a crappy, demeaning, poorly paid job, but “beneath” a man?”

because men are their jobs. still.

Fortunately, Though this line of thinking was tried out on me several times, I did not buy. Despite the “art” trappings, it is the same as the blue collar premise. I don’t really think people should HAVE TO do work that is beneath them or get teated shitty, no matter what their sex. HOWEVER: THere is NO EXCUSE for living parasitically off people you “love”, and causing them additional hardship and stress, That applies to your spouse and your parents. Pulling your own weight is an excellent philosophy. It is dishonorable to make your spouse (or parent) do work YOU would decline to do, to pull your weight for you.

AntiPrincess: I have often read your postings and I think you are far from a fool. One difference between your spouse and the men we are discussing is that your spouse is Looking For and Intends to get a job…these guys in the article just can’t adjust to the ego-bruising of taking a crappy job, so they let their wives take the crappy job so they can nurse their egos. (Well, Mr. Beggerow anyway. The other guy’s story was quite different). ALso you say you enjoy your job, which makes a difference too. I think the crucial issue under discussion here is: Why is it OK for a woman to take a crappy, demeaning, poorly paid job, but “beneath” a man?