Assessing value, studying vibes

I swear, I only meant to ghost you for half of January. For the last several weeks, my planner has repeatedly instructed me to “write Substack post,” to no avail. Most recently I was derailed by the shutdown of my daughter’s daycare due to extreme cold (see screenshot below, lest you think we Wisconsinites are soft). This was followed in close succession by the shutdown of my body due to extreme stomach bug (no images available).

But with the mercury rising (as I type, it is 2 degrees F) and my nausea subsiding, I am seizing this rare opening to let you know that…you will be hearing from me less often in 2026!

If you read my last post, you may recall that things were feeling a bit ~unsustainable~ over here at TDD HQ. Over the holiday break, I tried to time-manage my way out of the problem. Literally, I sat down with one of those “ideal week” templates where you map out your weekly schedule, and I shuffled all my commitments around the grid like little puzzle pieces.

Even in this perfectly controlled fantasy, free from extreme weather and various bodily ailments, the math just wouldn’t math. So for the time being, The Daminger Dispatch is returning to its roots as an ad hoc publication. Don’t tell the substack deities I am flouting the golden rule of consistency! You’ll still hear from me, but the “when” part will be a fun surprise for all of us. (I’ve turned off paid subscriptions, too, since it doesn’t seem fair to ask for money under the circumstances.)

But lest you think I summoned you here just to talk logistics, here are two things I’ve been thinking about instead of writing newsletters (in addition, I hope it is obvious, to wringing my hands and hitting the “donate” button as I monitor the events in my neighboring state with horror).1

If we’re being honest, this is often something I’m thinking about. But this month, valuation questions have been particularly top of mind. I’m moving (maybe? hopefully?) into the home stretches of a paper that applies devaluation theory to the household context. (I’m going to be a bit oblique, since that paper is still in the works, but hopefully this is still semi-interesting.)

Devaluation theory originated as a way to explain why predominantly female occupations paid less than similar occupations dominated by men, or why women were paid less than men for doing comparable work.2 Perhaps, the hypothesis goes, work gets devalued when women do it.

Phrases like “women’s work is devalued” get thrown around a lot in the housework research, too, but devaluation theory hasn’t been systematically studied there. You can probably guess why: how do you ascertain value when there’s no salary and no employer?

What my coauthors and I argue (drawing on lots of other smart thinkers) is that wages are not actually the best way to assess social value. Because the way we judge something (or someone’s) worth isn’t just an economic process. It’s cultural, too. How warm or cold do you feel toward this someone/something? How prestigious do you think they are? Etc.

I try my darnedest not to pay too much attention to the Substack Notes wars. Nevertheless, I am vaguely aware of the camp who feels that by calling domestic activities labor, we somehow cheapen them. I wonder, perhaps optimistically, whether this broader understanding of “value” might soften some of the hostility.

My filter bubble over the last year or two has been full of (mostly) women telling (mostly) other women that it’s okay to get that divorce. Heterosexual partnerships, the thinking goes, are more or less doomed to fail—or at least make one or both parties unhappy. This general ~vibe~ was termed “heteropessimism” by Asa Seresin way back in 2019,3 but it seems (from a purely anecdotal perspective) to have grown even more prevalent in the years since.

My colleague and I are hoping to go beyond pure anecdote, though, and have been designing a survey that will assess people’s attitudes toward straight relationships with some rigor. It’s been fun to bring these nascent survey questions into real life. “Heterosexual relationships serve no one’s interests. Discuss.” “Men are only partnered with women so they have someone to do their housework. Thoughts?” (I’m a great dinner party guest, as you might imagine.)

If you have suggestions for our survey (real or satirical), send ‘em my way.