Is “women’s work” under-compensated? How do we determine that? Is it merely because of the amount of work that goes into it? Well, that’s the labor theory of value, and it’s nonsense. No amount of effort or time put into anything, in and of itself, makes it any more valuable. That effort must be put into changes that others will see as valuable improvements. Indeed, there is no such thing as inherent value.
Rather, value is ascribed by the individual perceiver. It’s in no way universal. If you own or can otherwise provide something, the amount of effort you put into it has precisely zero impact on that. A very young woman might be stunningly beautiful without having tried at all. She can charge a man just to touch her, just to look at her in less than the average amount of clothing. She can get paid for just being a walking platform for designer clothes. Or, she can spend ten hours slaving in a kitchen over an anchovy casserole and find only people willing to pay her to get the smell away from them.
For a person to value something, such that they would pay for it, it must satisfy two conditions. First, it must be something that person wants or needs. Second, it must be hard to get. It must be scarce. Supply and demand, in other words, basic economics. Air is vital for life in an immediate sense, but it still lacks monetary value, because it is extremely abundant. The exception in this case is where air is scarce, such as during a scuba dive, where people do indeed pay for breathable gases in appropriate containers.
In general, the only time a person is paid less for a good or service than another person would value it, based on supply and demand, is when they are coerced into providing it. Otherwise, a good or service is provided at precisely the monetary value both people agree to. If you provide a service without being paid, or being paid very little, this necessarily implies that you agree that its value is such. No amount of complaining that you should be compensated more can change the fact that you yourself have agreed to that price. Your actions state your position more truthfully than words ever could.
There is also the possibility that women are, in fact, compensated for these traditional roles, but in subtle ways. One form this takes, in basic numbers, is that men, as a group, are the net tax payers, while women, as a group are the net recipients of tax money http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/.
But I think the truth is even more basic to our nature than this. There is a sort of biological contract, inherent to the fact that men have an instinct to protect women and children, to put themselves in harm’s way when they are threatened. In the past, such defense might include wild animals, although in the developed world this is not much of a concern anymore. Today, the big risk to women is men, but that is not the fault of any individual man, nor does it diminish the risks inherent to the protective instinct. Feel safer when someone walks you to your car? You are, but he would have been safer if he’d stayed indoors.
The truth is that strong communities and social structures are of the greatest value to those who are weak. Where communities break down, the strong have the ability to contest with each other to establish new hierarchies, and subdue their those lesser. These contests are enormously dangerous to all involved, and so, really, it is to almost everyone’s benefit that societies not break down, but it is of greatest benefit to those who would almost certainly lose if such contests occurred. And when it comes to force, even the most athletic women often come up short against even an average man.
An ugly truth is a truth nonetheless. The primary beneficiaries of “women’s work” are women, and this is more true today than ever. Look at the article you respond to. Does that sound like the position of someone trying to build communities comfortable for men? Suitable to them? I don’t think so, and ever more men agree. MGTOW is a growing movement of men who are checking out altogether, basically deciding to sideline themselves until society collapses, and relationships reform in a way that is actually beneficial and less dangerous to them. Without the participation of men, that collapse certainly will occur.