Paid housework? No one'll clean up from that idea

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/paying-for-housework-domestic-women-men

Version 0 of 1.

Lawyer Giulia Bongiorno is floating the idea, in her native Italy, that women who do housework should be paid for it. Bongiorno and her team want housewives (or husbands) paid a salary cum allowance. This was initially inspired by women Bongiorno met through her domestic violence charity, who could not leave home because of a lack of money. However, Bongiorno is keen for everyone, male or female, to feel that housework has as much social dignity and economic importance as work outside the home. The hope being that housework would become gender-free, losing the tag of "women's work".

Here then is the sticking point, and not just in relatively more traditional Italy. Housework is still predominantly "female", both in reality and in general perception. With this notion of "women's work" still so entrenched, would paying for housework be enough to stop it being "female"?

The concept of wages for housework has been debated before, with valuable gains made regarding the acknowledgement of unpaid under-appreciated efforts of work in the home. However, who would be paid for housework? Is it just those who stay home with children? What about mothers who work, and then do the housework on top? What about the child-free: while people might be happy to pay mothers, would this extend to a woman looking after a man?

As for payment, Bongiorno suggests that this would fall to the state (interesting if workable) or the spouse (if they are rich enough). This latter idea rings loud paternalistic alarm bells. Are we back to the man of the house doling out pin money to the little lady? It seems important not to presume that payment equals higher status per se. It doesn't, not if it's a pittance, a token. Or if payment merely transforms an undervalued housewife into an undervalued quasi-housekeeper, on whom the onus is to "perform". Meanwhile, the other adult would be relieved of doing their fair share, on the basis that the "housewife" is paid. Since when did home-based wage-slavery translate as a feminist advance?

Moreover, there is the enduring problem of male resistance to, and contempt for, housework. Things may slowly be getting better (especially with the rise of the female breadwinner and, correspondingly, the house husband). However, it seems no accident that the phrase "women's work" persists. While there are men who believe that housework deserves respect, many others still don't. How can housework achieve genuine "value" and be fairly remunerated while there are still some men who not only feel emasculated by it but are proud of the fact, believing that it makes them more manly?

This is where the idea of "women's work" comes from. Don't be fooled by chauvinist baloney about homemaking traditions ("seeing their mothers doing it"), this is about power and status. It's about a particular brand of entrenched male aversion to any ("female") work that is difficult, boring and relentless but also unpaid/poorly paid and low-status. Never mind all the rot about women looking "so feminine" dusting – inbuilt male dread of being perceived as "low status" remains a strong reason why many women still get lumbered with boring old housework.

Of course housework should have value, the same as any other form of hard graft. However, payments could only work if they weren't "female"(token) but "male" instead (proper remuneration). Nor would it be advisable to have male "sugar daddies" benevolently paying female housewives, in some bizarre replay of the 50s. As any kind of salary for housework looks a long time coming, another idea might be to challenge any men who persist in viewing housework as women's work to examine their fears and prejudices. While the debate goes on about paying for housework, certain men could be getting their heads around the fact that it's really not the end of the world if you do something for your family for free.

Churchillian, Dave? Close but no cigar

Amusing to see the Twitter lampooning of David Cameron, who tweeted about being on the phone with President Obama, using a photograph showing him (yay!) on the phone with Obama. In the photo, Cameron's facial expression says: "I'm on the phone with a really big boy in America who likes me and is my special friend, so there!" Which wasn't remotely sad or needy in any shape or form.

Cameron betrayed not only his awareness of his audience but also his need to pose as "Churchillian". Big mistake. Cameron needs to learn about genuine phone etiquette. As in, unless you're the kind of sick twisted exhibitionist who actually uses FaceTime when you're on the phone, by definition, no one can see you, hence, standards slip.

I've had all sorts of "formal" conversations where, in the unlikely event of a photo being taken, I'd probably have been caught flicking through Grazia, looking on Amazon, stirring coffee with a pencil, or licking a digestive, wondering if I could get away with crunching into it without being heard by the other person. It might not be pretty, it's definitely not Churchillian, but at least it's real.

Give this pirate a stash. He's earned it

Somali-American Barkhad Abdi won a Best Supporting Actor Bafta, and was nominated for, among other awards, an Oscar, for his portrayal of a pirate leader in the film, Captain Phillips.

Abdi was paid the near-minimum of $65,000 (£39,000) for the film, which has thus far taken an estimated $218m, against a $55m budget. Two years after making the film, it's reported that Abdi is so broke that he had to borrow clothes, and live on per diem, to help promote Captain Phillips during Oscar season, also asking to be placed in an airport hotel so that he would be near a friend who could ferry him around for free.

In fairness, Abdi, who moved to America as a child, was an unknown when he made Captain Phillips, and it was a major break. Moreover, another Oscar nominee, Jonah Hill, worked for minimum wage for Martin Scorsese in The Wolf of Wall Street. Then again, Hill had already made his millions – until the Oscar ceremony, Abdi was working in his brother's mobile phone shop in Minnesota.

For those who'd say that $65,000 is a lot, this isn't about firemen or nurses, this is about Hollywood and a major film that made $163m profit. Which must surely be connected to the kudos attached to its award nominations, one of which was garnered by the electrifying Abdi. With this in mind, did Sony Pictures or any others involved in Captain Phillips at any point consider that Abdi deserved recognition in the form of a bonus? The film's star, Tom Hanks, seems a decent enough cove – does Abdi's treatment make him feel uncomfortable? All I can say is, best of luck to the hugely talented Abdi in his future career, and let's hope he's nabbed himself a decent agent.