Why at least half? Why not exactly half? Or Roughly half? At least half is just as bad, but favors your own side.

Or she's a house wife and he works full time. Or he does do the dishes often and just thought they changed dish soap. Or, I dunno, let's just assume she has low standards and is being exploited because he refuses to do housework and is pathetic... that's cool, too, I guess...

You're really annoying. Relax.

I don't think that comment was necessarily directed at Op. I think it was directed at the readers.

#40- You have a weird idea of what "at least half" means. Most people interpret it as meaning the same thing as "half or more." In other words, a guy can do exactly half the dishes and be up to the standard- and you agree that's fair, right? He can also voluntarily do more than half the dishes and I wouldn't complain because it would be really silly for me to be upset over a guy washing some of my portion of the dishes for me. So yeah, I will accept equality and I will accept favors but I won't accept exploitation, which should be understandable to everyone. You're seeing unfairness where there is none. fyi "logicnazi", I grade college logic exams as my job. You fail.

Responsibility anyone? Is he 7?

He must lack common sense? Works as a short bus driver?

For the readers: we have had an at length message debate as well on this. But I feel it needs a public reply as well. quacklmapenguin, you have a weird understanding of what exactly half, or roughly half means. You cannot count favors into the equation of sexual inequality. No one is going to say "no, he can't do any favors for you! that's absurd!", .... that idea is, frankly, absurd. Saying "at least" is equally as oppressive as the current status quo of females generally doing at least half. I'm a male, and am saying that we should all be completely equal in terms of expectation. Going above and beyond the call of duty is something someone would appreciate in a relationship, but to expect someone to do so is unjust. You seem to feel that if you ever have to do more than half, you are being exploited, but that its okay for the other person to do you favors. And don't get me wrong, if you want to have these high expectations of your own personal relationship, that is not my place to deem or to judge. But for society, if we could all agree to exactly half, that would be fairest for everyone. I'm truly sorry for your students. Unless you only are this oblivious when talking about feminism, in which case I hope you haven't assigned them this topic. I have an "almost medical degree" that is equally as worthless as your "almost BA in philosophy" to this particular discussion. Maybe you have not taken a Calculus or Stats course, I do not know, but I was suggesting an interval of equality set around a mean of exact equality. A very simple and fair concept that actually requires no philosophy training to understand.. Thank you for the debate, it is what I live for!

As a quick response I will say that the man is only obligated to do exactly half the dishes. He is not obligated to do any more than half the dishes but he can if he wishes. I am willing to do up to half the dishes to meet his obligation, but I will not go beyond that because as a woman I must set boundaries in order to not be exploited as a homemaker. I'm not expecting "above and beyond," from a partner, just leaving the option open to him. I see no compelling argument as to how this is unreasonable. You're the one expecting women to be open to going above and beyond the minimum dishwashing obligation. Yeah, sure, willingness to go above and beyond in some areas is a good thing in a relationship, but those areas don't have to be the areas in which women are at risk of being exploited. Sorry you're having so much trouble understanding critical theory-based feminism. It's a bit more complicated than mindless chants of "equality," but once you actually make an effort to understand it it's actually a much more logical and coherent system. Logic, formulating arguments, etc. literally is the method by which philosophy operates, so having a background in philosophy is relevant to who knows more about how logic functions, mr. "logicnazi".

#82 um.. I'm not sure what world you live in but men and women can be exploited in all kinds of ways; nobody is more 'at risk' of exploitation than any other. To try and ensure you're not exploited 'domestically' by refusing to do more than half of domestic housework, to me, an idea based on a slippery slope argument. If you don't want to do housework cuz it's not your thing and you're not interested or you believe in fairness and expect exactly the same from him then that's fine. But if you believe yourself utterly unable to resist being exploited if you were to do more than 50% of housework then this suggests that you don't aren't able to openly communicate your needs to your partner and/or do not trust him to not take advantage of you. I'd actually be quite upset if I was going out with somebody and they said they would never commit more than 50% in any aspect of a relationship because they were afraid I was going to use them. I'd rather them say they would never commit more than 50% because they were damn lazy; that I could handle, and not take as an insult. If a guy told you he would only ever pay 50% of your dates to make sure you would never exploit him for his money, would you be ok with that? Cuz again, I'd be more than a bit offended by the implications. Ironically, quite sexist implications too. I'm not sure if you realise that by stating a woman can only avoid exploitation if she never goes above 50% in domestic work, otherwise she makes herself vulnerable to explotiation by men. Cuz you know, all men OBVIOUSLY are only after women because of what they can do in the kitchen, and don't know how to get their head around 'favours' or just 'being nice'. Way to perpetuate the stereotype rather than challenge it. Geez.

No, you are not. Everyone else is just too ashamed to ask... Including me.

I literally just commented that lol

I believe its a sweet syrup like alcoholic drink thats usually fruit flavored.

Considering it's a favourite for Aussie kids, it is most definitely NOT alcoholic lmao. It is a highly concentrated fruit drink that is diluted with water to resemble juice :)

Yeah, are you the husband?

It's a very concentrated syrup that you mix with water or soda water or something

It's medicine, lol

I wish more people would realize that doing the dishes isn't impressive.

He's an idiot

Read the comments, it's juice

Right, well in North America a Cordial is typically an alcoholic fruit based beverage.