[p/a/s, hist, biz/econ] Fwd: "I Would Prefer Not To" (Follow-up: Massless Ropes)
Oh, WOW.
When I wrote "[p/a/s, biz/econ, sysdyn, Patreon] Massless Ropes, Frictionless Pulleys", it kept trying to spiral out of control, so I made some ruthless decisions to cut some lines of discussion.
One of them was about misogyny. I couldn't help notice that a huge amount of the job functions, today, that are entirely coordinative communication, are gendered female in our society, today: secretaries, admin assistants, receptionists, telephone operators. And in traditional gender roles in marriages (presumed heterosexual) much coordinative communication with subordinates (children, servants) and outsiders (extended family, neighbors, social contacts) is assigned the woman: managing the social calendar, sending Christmas cards and thank you notes, booking appointments.
And then there's the thing that the treatment of coordinative communication in business has a particularly weird, characteristic status: it's treated simultaneously as incredibly important and vital to the enterprise, but not something that you (can, should or do) pay for. Which it exactly the same weird, characteristic status that women's domestic labor has had for at least 100 years in our culture.
So, of course, I started wondering if there was a connection between the literal economic devaluing of coordinative communication in business and the devaluing of work that is seen as "women's work".
Turns out, somebody else wrote that. On March 24, the same day I posted "Massless Ropes", Longreads posted an excerpt from Nikil Saval's Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace, titled ‘I Would Prefer Not To’: The Origins of the White Collar Worker.
It makes the case. Back to the 19th century. Or even earlier, depending on how you look at it.
It does so incidentally. Misogyny is not its primary topic, but it's so core to the issue it comes right through. No, it's about the history of, well, coordinative communications workers and the rise of the concept of the "office".
It is absolutely fabulous, and though long, highly recommended, most especially for those who like secret histories.
When I wrote "[p/a/s, biz/econ, sysdyn, Patreon] Massless Ropes, Frictionless Pulleys", it kept trying to spiral out of control, so I made some ruthless decisions to cut some lines of discussion.
One of them was about misogyny. I couldn't help notice that a huge amount of the job functions, today, that are entirely coordinative communication, are gendered female in our society, today: secretaries, admin assistants, receptionists, telephone operators. And in traditional gender roles in marriages (presumed heterosexual) much coordinative communication with subordinates (children, servants) and outsiders (extended family, neighbors, social contacts) is assigned the woman: managing the social calendar, sending Christmas cards and thank you notes, booking appointments.
And then there's the thing that the treatment of coordinative communication in business has a particularly weird, characteristic status: it's treated simultaneously as incredibly important and vital to the enterprise, but not something that you (can, should or do) pay for. Which it exactly the same weird, characteristic status that women's domestic labor has had for at least 100 years in our culture.
So, of course, I started wondering if there was a connection between the literal economic devaluing of coordinative communication in business and the devaluing of work that is seen as "women's work".
Turns out, somebody else wrote that. On March 24, the same day I posted "Massless Ropes", Longreads posted an excerpt from Nikil Saval's Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace, titled ‘I Would Prefer Not To’: The Origins of the White Collar Worker.
It makes the case. Back to the 19th century. Or even earlier, depending on how you look at it.
It does so incidentally. Misogyny is not its primary topic, but it's so core to the issue it comes right through. No, it's about the history of, well, coordinative communications workers and the rise of the concept of the "office".
It is absolutely fabulous, and though long, highly recommended, most especially for those who like secret histories.