jabhatta@umail.iu.edu wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
The idea that equipping homes with electrical appliances and other “modern” household technologies would eliminate drudgery, save labor time, and increase leisure for women who were full-time home workers remained largely unchallenged until the women’s movement of the 1970’s spawned the groundbreaking and influential works of sociologist Joann Vanek and historian Ruth Cowan. Vanek analyzed 40 years of time-use surveys conducted by home economists to argue that electrical appliances and other modern household technologies reduced the effort required to perform specific tasks, but ownership of these appliances did not correlate with less time spent on housework by full-time home workers. In fact, time spent by these workers remained remarkably constant—at about 52 to 54 hours per week—from the 1920’s to the 1960’s, a period of significant change in household technology. In surveying two centuries of household technology in the United States, Cowan argued that the “industrialization” of the home often resulted in more work for full-time home workers because the use of such devices as coal stoves, water pumps, and vacuum cleaners tended to reduce the workload of married-women’s helpers (husbands, sons, daughters, and servants) while promoting a more rigorous standard of housework. The full-time home worker’s duties also shifted to include more household management, child care, and the post-Second World War phenomenon of being “Mom’s taxi.”
,
GMATNinjaTwo,
bm2201For Q4 -- why is E accurate ?
Per the passage, the font in in purple clearly states the "Workload" has reduced for helpers
Putting on my critical thinking hat -- i thought okay, even if the workload has reduced -- does not necessarily mean, the overall time spent on household chores by these helpers has reduced.
It's quite possible even with less work-load because of technological advancement , the time spent on chores by these helpers still remains the same.
Example : if tomorrow, my work load has been cut by half -- i still may end up spending 8 hours at work because a) i could stretch out the existing 50 % work i still have on my plate b) i could be given additional brand new chores
Put on my Critical reasoning cap -- i thought E was iffy.
Instead, i found it hard to eliminate B (I chose B)
B has to be true in-fact because if B is not true, the entire argument [i.e. with technological advancement, helpers see their work load reduced but not mothers, in fact mothers work-load may increase] put forth by Cowan and Vanek falls apart (B is a necessary assumption to be true)
Thoughts ?
Hi
jabhatta@umail.iu.edu,
I'll share my thoughts on the question. Let me know if this helps.
The lines you have highlighted above imply that time taken by married-women’s helpers reduced, since they could do the same work in less time, resulted them doing more work, as then the standards of living also improved, so then people got more conscious about living nicely, properly.
Quote:
Example : if tomorrow, my work load has been cut by half -- i still may end up spending 8 hours at work because a) i could stretch out the existing 50 % work i still have on my plate b) i could be given additional brand new chores
True, even though you are spending same amount of time on chores, the work done with the aid of electrical appliances, i.e the part of household work in question is already complete, thus you have more time to do more other household work.
What's mentioned in the passage is that suppose the work that took 8 hrs , could now be completed in 4, so the helpers were to focus on other house hold works, as then work in other sections of household chores increased.
Option B is incorrect, as no the industrialisation of the home, did not affect the time spent, as work that was to supposed to be done with new electric appliances was already complete. Yes, the helpers worked more, but just not on the same tasks. The industrialization just created more work for them.
Thanks.
close
10 Aug 2020, 10:43
