Staying at home is difficult, but I can't say no to family

If not hanging the laundry is not an option, then why are we struggling between rope, clips, and the dryer? The real issue might be questioning why there is so much laundry. Perhaps it's necessary to reduce the load, not just the method.

If the main issue is why there is so much laundry, perhaps someone is using too many clothes? In other words, we need to take a look at consumption habits. Can we make an adjustment here to reduce the effort and resources spent on laundry?

Perhaps, as much as we look at why there is so much laundry, we should also consider who is hanging this laundry, who is washing it. Is everyone taking care of their own laundry, for example? Or is the work falling on one person's shoulders? 🤦‍♀️

So, have we ever looked at why laundry is washed so often? Maybe our perception of what is "dirty" has changed. For example, the same pair of pants used to be worn for a week. Now, there are people who shame those who wear them for just one day... Is it really that urgent?

To me, the issue is less about the perception of laundry as "dirty" and more about the question of who it ultimately falls to in practice. Instead of asking how much each t-shirt is worn, we should consider who puts that t-shirt in the washing machine, who forgets it on the line, and who sustains this cycle? Is everyone in the household treated equally when it comes to washing?

Is laundry such an important issue? Why is it prioritized so much compared to other household chores? This habit can lead you to overlook other tasks.

Maybe we should take a look at why laundry is considered such a "constant chore"? I mean, is it really necessary to do it several times a week, or is that frequency just societal pressure? What is it that places this routine at the center of the entire household routine, as much as the practicality of hanging laundry? Why aren't other tasks talked about as much?

Isn't the fact that the laundry job is being discussed so much actually an indication of the division of labor at home? Is it because it is labeled as "the most boring job" in everyone's eyes that it becomes such an issue? Or is it that the person doing other tasks also avoids doing laundry, causing the burden of this job to fall on one person?

Perhaps the reason laundry is such a topic of discussion is that household chores are seen as "automated" tasks. In other words, everything operates in a cycle of "it happens on its own," and no one questions who does it or how it's done. If these tasks were put into rotation, like a system of "who did it and who's next," would it still feel as tedious?

The question of "who did the laundry" is as much about "what it was done for". For example, what happens to shared items (towels, sheets, etc.) if everyone washes their own laundry? Who is responsible for shared chores, or is no one taking ownership? Let's not let these "gray areas" complicate the system at home.

Laundry was always the "least favorite" routine at our house, so it tended to get rusty, and my mom would grumble about it. Then we made a detailed list to decide who would handle what each week. But still, no one carried it out that diligently; it was always the "most bothered" one who ended up doing it... Is it the same for you, or is there actually a proper system in place?

Lists are being made, but if no one is following them, what's the point of making a list? I mean, if they're not going to play, the "who's bothered" issue is already resolved from the beginning. The real question is not who it bothers the most, but how are we going to activate those who never get bothered?

Sometimes, the way to get something that never sinks moving is to actually sink it. So, what happens when nobody takes care of the laundry for a while? How long can that "unbothered" stay unbothered? I think it's worth a try.

If the state of the laundry is never addressed, it makes you think about how much it disrupts the other order in the house. For instance, is no one able to find a towel, or is everyone just managing in some way? The threshold of discomfort may vary; some only notice the lack when they reach a crisis point.

The real question is this: is laundry such a critical issue that it disrupts the order of the home, or does it become a problem because it affects relationships among household members? In other words, I can't say that when laundry piles up, the house falls apart, but the discussion of "why am I doing it, and you are not" disturbs the peace of the home. It's not about the laundry itself, but rather the perception of "fairness" surrounding that task.

The laundry issue seems deep, but the essence lies in everyone's own "threshold level." If what each person finds "unfair" and what they see as "disturbing" are so different, it's already difficult to come up with a common standard solution. But let me also ask: is this laundry being talked about like a representation of the issue, or is this really the biggest debate at home? Because it seems to me that it has become a symbol of other things.

Maybe leaving the laundry behind and thinking through another routine will show things more clearly. Let's say the topic is cooking at home, or doing the dishes. How do things operate in a routine that isn't as "critical" as laundry? Is there still the same discussion about the "threshold level" there, or does it remain less symbolic?

The laundry issue may be symbolic, but even if it is just a symbol, it still represents a task that has not been completed. The difference from cooking or dishes is that it also affects others. For instance, if someone doesn’t wash their laundry, it’s not just their clothes that are left out, but also the towel you share. That’s why it might not be so easy to say it "doesn’t disrupt the order." If we were to find a solution, wouldn’t it be more accurate to define this task as a shared need rather than an individual burden?

You're right that this is a common need, but now it seems like whoever is less bothered will always sidestep a bit. How is it even possible to establish a common standard? For instance, the mess in our living room was also discussed; everyone said, "common area, shared responsibility," but it always fell to the one who used that area the most. Wouldn't it be more realistic to match usage with responsibility?

Common needs are one thing, but who will set the "common standard"? For example, in laundry, if everyone's threshold is different, do we wash once a week or twice? How will we find the balance where one isn't left without a towel, and the other isn't saying "more laundry again"? What we call "justice" is actually based on whose perspective, and according to what criteria?

Sure, but we're discussing the weekly routine of this job, and the real issue isn't about "who is responsible," is it? For example, instead of expecting everyone to be uncomfortable to the same degree, what if the person who is more uncomfortable tries to make the work visible? Sometimes, it's not the work itself that causes conflict, but rather whether or not that work is acknowledged.

But when we say "the more uncomfortable person should make the work visible," isn't that person already both uncomfortable and having done the work? Are we also placing the responsibility of making it noticeable on top of that? In other words, there seems to be an inequality between doing the work and ensuring visibility 🥲

And there's also this: If everyone knew what to do, there wouldn't be a need to make it visible. So why are these roles not clear? Who determines the order of the house, or doesn't determine it? It seems like there's a lack of planning from the start 😂

Even if there is a roller net, the application generally slips because everyone works according to their own "urgent" list. Perhaps the main issue is the *timing* of the work; it's not clear who will do what and when. Take the laundry example: how many days will it be left before washing, and who will take action?

You mentioned timing, but I think there's also this: When that part about "who will do what and when" isn't much of a written rule, sometimes people really test each other. Like, the longer the task is delayed, who can’t take it anymore and gets up to do it first. I sometimes think that the pile of laundry, the dishes, etc., can turn into a passive tool for struggle rather than just tasks. Could this be the case, do you think?

It could be passive resistance, but sometimes it drags on in a complete "don’t anyone interfere with me" mode rather than just like a test. In other words, the person doing that job might be waiting not to annoy others but to their own limits. So then is the issue shifting to a lack of communication or different thresholds, what do you think?

Here, we should also discuss the matter of "how important cleanliness or order is." For some, cleanliness is a necessity, while for others, it’s something done only if the conditions allow. For example, if one person is worried about "running out of clothes," another might be comfortable with "I can manage without running the machine." So, in this case, does the more obsessive person have to be constantly responsible?

It's inherently problematic when someone who is obsessive feels "obligated" to be responsible, but I think the most overlooked aspect is that this issue you call "different thresholds" isn't limited to cleanliness alone. For example, someone might be okay with dishes piling up but becomes irritated by clutter in a shared space; the opposite could be true for someone else. So even in the same area, different priorities are actually clashing. In this situation, is it possible to seek a solution based on just one topic like "cleanliness vs messiness"?

It seems to me that these "threshold differences" are already an accepted reality from the start, right? If one person can handle a mess while the other can't stand it, then isn't the division of tasks based on "how much each person can tolerate"? Why are we still trying to reach a common standard? Maybe if we just say, "you handle this, I handle that," everyone would optimize their own stress threshold and we'd be less tense.

This "you look at this, I'll look at that" system looks good on paper, but it doesn't always work. Because what is considered "disturbing" for one person can remain completely invisible to another. So how are we going to overcome this invisibility situation? Does the one who is disturbed always need to take the initiative? Or is it possible for the other party to "learn to see"?

The "learning to see" part is a bit strange, actually, because everyone has a different duration for seeing things. On the other hand, the idea that the one who is disturbed should constantly take the initiative is not a solution either. Perhaps the issue is to agree on a "minimum standard" even at points where no one is disturbed. That threshold difference can then be balanced.

The issue of minimum standard is complete, but determining that standard can sometimes become a crisis in itself. Which criteria will we agree upon? Time, space, or level of organization? For example, one person in the kitchen might say, "as long as the countertop is empty, that's enough," while another might say, "I can't feel comfortable until the floors are sparkling clean." So in this case, whose "minimum" will be accepted, and how will a decision be made?

Perhaps before achieving the minimum standard, we should talk about "why things are postponed" or "why they are invisible." Because sometimes the issue is not just the threshold of discomfort, but also the perception of responsibility. That is, one person might postpone a task simply because they find it boring, while another might ignore it by thinking "someone else will do it." Does the same solution approach work for these two different motivations?

Perhaps we should discuss why things are considered "important" rather than why they are "invisible"? For example, for one person, it might be vital for the counter to remain empty because "visual calm" is important, while for another, cleanliness is prioritized because of "hygiene." Isn't the real conflict the inability for this importance to be mutually acknowledged?

Sometimes, even getting mutual acceptance is not enough because accepting something and putting it into action are different things. For example, someone who says "visual calmness is important" may not want to tidy up the counter every time even after being persuaded. So, how does an accepted priority turn into shared responsibility?

In the matter of shared responsibility, if simply "accepting" is not enough, perhaps a system of "mutual benefit" should be involved. That is, if someone who tidies up the mess knows that they will receive some flexibility or support regarding their own priorities in return, it may be easier for them to take on this task. So, does such a "benefit balance" create a more sustainable equilibrium in relationships, or does it complicate matters further?

The balance of effort system makes sense in theory, but it creates this problem in practice: One person is constantly doing a lot of work because the "support" or "flexibility" from the other requires minimal effort. For example, if you say, "Clean up the counter, I'll handle the dishes," there are no penalties for the one who doesn’t clean the counter, and no extra reward for the one who does handle the dishes. Thus, the balance of work is disrupted again. Perhaps a more concrete or binding method is needed?

Introducing penalties or binding methods seems to take the work out of partnership. It becomes more like a "refereed system" rather than equality, which can be exhausting in the long run. Perhaps instead of focusing on "who gets what" in this sharing of work, we should think about "what one wants to contribute." Is the issue always about what is lacking, or is it more about an inability to share excess?

I've honestly gotten stuck on the issue of "not being able to share excess." Because in some situations, there really isn’t any excess; everyone is already at their limits. So, doesn’t the matter become more about "leaving something to give" rather than "wanting to give"? Or to put it more clearly: How can partnership be sustained in a situation where everyone is simultaneously in the negative?

I don't think a partnership is sustainable when everyone is simultaneously at a loss, but it can be minimized. That is, everyone should at least agree to the line of, "If I do at least this much, I won't go deeper into the hole." But what if there is resistance even at that line? That's where we seem to reach the breaking point.

If there is resistance on the line, perhaps we need to return to the question "why are we sinking?" If everyone is already at their limit and this limit is constantly being challenged, maybe the problem is not due to work distribution, but rather that the overall burden is too high. The partnership may not be unsustainable, but if the load does not decrease, everyone may be burning out one after another.

So if the burden is due to being too much, why does that excess burden fall more on some than others? For example, even if everyone in the same household is at their limit and the division of labor is equal, would the weight of the burden still be felt in the same way? Or is it more that the inequality in sharing, rather than the excess burden itself, is what accelerates burnout?

Equal division of labor sounds nice in theory, but in practice, everyone's "pace of work" and the "meaning they attach to their tasks" are different. So, while you might finish a job in 10 minutes and clear your mind, someone else could be accumulating stress over the same task for 20 minutes. Therefore, equality doesn't always mean fairness; stress-sharing must also be considered. So how can you tell who is accumulating stress?

To understand where stress accumulates, we first need to look at the ways stress is expressed. But here's another issue: Some people hide their stress, while others show it openly. Which one finds themselves in a more "unfair" situation then? Is the one who hides it struggling more, or does the one who shows it have more rights?

Is the one who hides struggling, or is the one who shows getting their due? Let me add this: Some people can increase the stress of others by hiding their own. Because when they signal that "everything is fine," the other party does not notice their burden or may not feel obliged to take on more responsibility. The one who shows plays openly, and yes, this sometimes creates an uneven perception, but the one who hides initiates a completely different imbalance. Perhaps we should also consider not just where the stress accumulates but also how this stress spreads at home.

Hiding stress may unintentionally make others feel overly responsible, but doesn't one also burden oneself by saying "everything is fine"? In other words, even if no one understands, doesn't one end up deepening the stress they conceal? I believe that someone who not only shows openly but also accumulates internally can disturb the balance at home, but how do you resolve this internal accumulation?

Addressing internal accumulation is a separate issue, but sometimes no one is willing to tackle it because there’s the excuse of "I get more confused when I try to solve it." But isn’t ignoring it without solving it a heavier burden in the long run? Especially if everyone is at their limits, won’t that accumulation explode somewhere anyway?

There isn't really a thing that gets complicated when you try to solve it; that's more of an excuse. If everyone withdraws and says they can't solve it, or if someone constantly takes on the burden saying "I'm fine, I'll handle it," the house will never recover. It's not about before the explosion; it's necessary to be clear about who can't handle what before it gets to that point.

Up to the part "What can't Kim carry?" yes, but there's also this: some have taken it upon themselves to pretend to carry a burden they don't actually bear, maintaining the image of a "working person" at home by saying, "Look how tired I am." What's the way to understand this? Do they really look like they've done a job, or is there just the noise of work?

If you ask how to understand this, I think you need to look at the output of the work. The difference between making noise and actually finishing the job is clear from the tangible difference at the end of the work done. But there's also this: if the rest of the household overlooks this and doesn't question, "how are you getting tired when so little is coming out?" that person will continue to comfortably use this tactic. The overall perception of the household also becomes part of the work here.

But looking at the output of work may not always be fair. There are some jobs where the result is not visible; for example, you may have gotten used to the routine of adding the same thing over and over again, and it goes unnoticed. So who determines what is truly considered "work"?

Well, you say you've gotten used to the routine and that it doesn't get noticed, but why do you expect it to be noticed? Does everyone's work have to be visible? Some tasks at home flow quietly on their own anyway; is it a necessity to go back and say, "look, I did this"?

But isn’t there a balance between letting things flow quietly and saying, "I did it, look"? If everyone is doing things in their own way and no one cares about visibility, then why do certain tasks always accumulate with the same people? The silence issue feels a bit like one-sided justice.

While trying to find the balance between quietly flowing by and saying "I did it, look," could it be that one side is already shouldering more from the start because there's no discussion of task sharing? In other words, some tasks accumulate with the same people because the silence seems to be filled with an initial acceptance of "you can handle this." I don't think that the absence of any sound always means equality.

While the silence may initially relieve some of the burden, what about the tasks that remain unresolved? When no one takes clear responsibility, even just "getting things done" turns into an advantage. Let’s say it stays quiet, and the workload isn’t shared—how will we break this cycle? Will everyone just have to express their troubles through looks?

If you're wondering how the silent load will be resolved, I think first everyone needs to write down the tasks they think are invisible. Expecting those tasks to naturally distribute themselves in the right places without openly discussing, "I noticed this, you are doing that, but whose tasks are those?" is like trying to iron a shirt without turning on the iron. You can't convey it just by observation; you need to ask vocally, "Who is responsible for this?"

You've mentioned breaking the silence, but I think sometimes these things just turn into a "who cares" situation. I mean, a detail that is very important for one person might be unnecessary for another. The question "Why should this be done?" should also be discussed so that everyone starts from the same priority. Otherwise, the work remains invisible and is perceived as an "extra" effort by the person doing it.

But if we delve too much into the "why should it be done" part, it seems like things are shifting into the realm of personal preference. Everyone then chooses according to their own priorities, and no one can maintain a common order. The important thing is that when one person needs the work to be done, the other should step in without seeing it as "unnecessary," right?

Isn't everyone going to have a different threshold when it comes to whether something needs to be done or not? For instance, the threshold of someone who says "I'll live in filth, no problem" may have already been surpassed by someone else. Then doesn't the issue turn into a struggle of "whose threshold is more dominant"?

You say it seems like "the one with the upper hand wins,” but who determines that upper hand? If someone is constantly taking a submissive role throughout their life, isn’t this more of a personal boundary issue than a matter of work sharing? Sometimes, it seems we need to shine a special light for those who don’t want to see.

Someone will shed light on it, but will everyone also accept to look at that light? For example, whenever I say, "Why didn't you do this?" the answer is often, "But I didn't notice it." Is the luxury of not noticing a method when it continuously remains on one side, or is it a habit?

Sometimes not noticing can indeed be real, but if it's constantly coming from the same person, doesn’t it start to look like "choosing not to see"? I mean, we need to question whether there's any effort made to notice. If it's always overlooked, I think we need to talk about where the eye is actually looking.

But beyond not noticing, what will happen in the case of postponing the work even if one does notice it? I mean, doesn’t saying "I saw this but I’ll do it later" create a similar problem by always putting it off? If the eye sees but does not take action, it seems to turn into something like an invisible burden.

The issue with the "I'll do it later" mentality is not just the postponement of tasks, but also how this situation becomes normalized over time. For instance, it leads to a cycle of thinking, "I was going to do it, but you did it instead." This ultimately gives the person delaying the task an opportunity to evade responsibility once again. So, what should be done in this situation?

When we talk about the normalization of postponement, we also need to consider the part of "whose perspective it has become bothersome from." For example, as one person keeps postponing, the threshold for the other lowers further, and at some point, the system adjusts itself to designate one person as the "doer." So, doesn’t the person who postpones transfer not just the task but also the feeling of annoyance?

Yes, but doesn't the person who takes on that discomfort reinforce the other side's comfort in procrastination as they continue to do the work? So the problem may not just be the transfer of burden, but also a lack of showing a "determination not to do" that would disrupt this arrangement. For example, have you ever tried not doing it at all and saying, "Since you were going to do it, why did you procrastinate?"

It often feels like when you stop doing something without actually doing it, you come back with the worry of "what will happen to the state of the house." To show such determination, two things are needed: either the ability to tolerate that chaos for a long time or to completely lose interest in the burdens of getting those things done. Do you think such a scale of "not doing" is practically sustainable?

I don't know if it's sustainable, but everyone's threshold for not doing something is different. For example, one person can't stand a salt shaker being moved, while another won't lift a finger even if there's a mountain of dirty dishes. The real issue here might be recognizing the presence of someone who can move comfortably, knowing "who will blow up first." The real discussion should be about how that sense of ease can be disrupted.

To break the comfort zone, you first need to invalidate every moment that the person assumes you "won't explode." But this can turn into a competition of "who can endure longer," which raises the question: where does this race end? Does winning lead to starting another battle? 🫠

If this competition doesn't end, can we say that it has turned into a matter of power balance rather than the burden of the relationship? In other words, is the real solution not so much about who is right but rather understanding why this power struggle began? Where does the motivation to maintain one's own comfort come from, and without resolving that motivation, isn't all this "disturbance" effort in vain?

Speaking of comfort zones, why does the issue of "who needs to solve what" always fall on the one carrying more weight? I mean, the one who procrastinates is comfortable, while the one who takes on the burden is doing the work and seeking solutions. In such a system, why should the responsibility of solving even fall on the one who is disturbed? Let the turn to ease go to the other, for a change.

You say "let it pass, please," but doesn't waiting for that relief only feed the same cycle? So when you just leave it to "let him do it now," he leans on the comfort of thinking "he won't be able to handle it anyway." The real question here is: does the one who is comfortable enjoy the ease of this comfort, or is he truly unaffected by the task not being done? Because if it's the latter, even if you stress yourself out, he remains unbothered.

Even if one is not affected, is this a completely valid situation? After all, there is a necessity for a shared life; at some point, to "not be affected" is also a preference or an escape, in fact. So, if not being disturbed corresponds to not being involved, shouldn't the responsibility be raised to a broader dimension at that point?

Neglect expands responsibility, but who benefits from this expansion? Ultimately, if the "comfortable" person is not going to take a step, the burden seems to fall on the individual who continuously bears that responsibility. Perhaps it's time to clarify the boundaries of this shared life: Does everyone have to want the same comfort?

Of course, one doesn't have to want the same comfort, but this isn't a matter of "wanting"; it's a matter of distributing what is "necessary". Doesn't the uninterested person still have to do some tasks, even if they don't want to, so that they can maintain a regular shared life? Or should this be reduced to an illogical notion of "let those who want to do it"?

What you call "laziness" can sometimes be an excuse for avoiding action when one is capable of it. What grounds do they have to ignore even what is "necessary"? Or are they confident that they are passing on the responsibility for the conditions under which the work is not done to the other party, and that's why they are at ease?

But the question is whether the one who is comfortable is even "sure that they handed over their responsibility." Perhaps this started as an unwritten mutual agreement from the beginning, but over time it became a norm for one side and a burden for the other. So, the issue isn't about this state of "being sure"; it's about how the twisted rules underlying that comfort were established. Would it have been different if we hadn't taken on any burden from the start?

If we hadn't loaded at the start, maybe that rule would never have been established, but at home, things don't get done unless someone does them. The existence of a need is certain; what’s important is whether the one who does not meet that need is simply comfortable or relying on the convenience of thinking "there's someone else to do it." Because in the latter case, you can't escape from it, neither at the beginning nor at the end.

But not being affected by the work not getting done doesn’t mean that need doesn’t exist. In other words, saying "I am not affected" doesn’t erase responsibility. This is communal living; just because you don’t want it, cleaning and trash don’t solve themselves.

It's not being affected but still knows that it needs to be done and leaves it to the other party; this no longer seems like "laziness" but rather a conscious strategy. Because knowing that the one constantly bearing the burden won't let go, it seems like a mutual endurance race. So, if we tried to let go, how long would it actually take for things to go wrong? Is it our preference not to want to see that?

If we try to give up, when things go wrong, who will intervene? That's a bit complicated. Because the person who doesn't do their job here generally seems to have immunity; pollution has increased, garbage has piled up, and they don't care at all. How much worse does it need to get for them to feel disturbed and take action? Perhaps instead of trying, we should just ask outright, "When does this situation bother you?"

So let's say we exceed the discomfort threshold, how will we tolerate those few weeks of inactivity? Or worse, what if during that time no one surfaces to "disturb" us? If the situation is only going to worsen, does this strategy even make sense?

If there is a threshold that won't cause any discomfort, then essentially the following question should be asked: Why are these people creating a shared life? Shared home, shared responsibility, shared comfort... What does someone who doesn't want these think about "partnership"? Is it just about being physically together, or do they envision a model where everyone lives in their own world? In this case, has that "model" been discussed from the beginning?

The so-called pre-negotiated model can change at some point; does everything in life remain constant? Let's say everyone agreed initially, tasks were shared, but then one person got tired, and the order was disrupted. What will happen then? Is it possible to establish a new balance, or will we be slaves to the original agreement?

But okay, people get tired, they change and all that... Do those who are tired communicate? Is there open communication such as "I can't do this anymore" or "this is too heavy for me," or is everyone just waiting for the other person to understand? Because sometimes the issue is not just about sharing the work, they even hesitate to ask for that change.

But what will happen if the change request is rejected, even if they talk? I mean, one said, "I’m tired," and the other replied, "but it doesn’t work for me." In this case, instead of sharing the work, does everything just go back to a new gain-loss balance?

How much can we trust the other party's honesty to be able to establish the new balance? I believe this is the real question. Some people may try to avoid work by saying 'I'm tired,' but it's difficult to distinguish between those who are genuinely tired and those who are not. How will we measure everyone's sincerity and establish this balance?

Well, we keep talking about this "balance" thing, but if no balance is being established and one side is always making concessions, then why does the relationship continue? What does partnership mean then? If one side pulls away, will everything collapse completely on the other? Is this sustainable?

Everyone is talking about sharing the workload and discussing balance, but let me ask this: Is anyone talking about the "invisible" burdens of these tasks? It's not just about the physical work being done; it's about planning, timing, and making sure nothing is forgotten... Who usually carries these loads? I think true equality starts there; otherwise, the conversation ends with "I swept five times, you took out the trash three times."

Invisible load is one thing, but who determines the "order of importance" for these tasks? Because sometimes what is crucial for one person might be trivial for another. Who sets the priorities, and if there is a conflict here, how will it be resolved? I think the issue is not just about sharing, but everyone needs to be convinced that they are in the same boat.

But is the "we're all in the same boat" feeling really there? In my opinion, usually everyone is in their own little boat, tied together with ropes. Who is the captain of the ship, what is the roadmap, when a storm arises who will hold the ropes... These things aren’t discussed from the start.

Everyone is talking about sharing the work, balance, the invisible load, etc., but I’m curious about one thing: What about the possibility of things not getting done? I mean, when a storm hits while everyone is busy with boats, who will be willing to hold the ropes? Sometimes it feels like everyone avoids taking responsibility and just waits; how will the order be restored at that point?

But when we talk about the possibility of things not getting done, it seems like a kind of crisis plan is needed at that stage. For instance, how often is the question "Okay, what happens if nobody does this job?" asked? Because sometimes, everyone running away can also show that nobody actually cares about that job.

The part about "no one cares" is actually a bit complicated. Maybe it's not so much about the job not being done, but rather how it's done that becomes a problem. For instance, there's a lot of talk about who will do it, but the "how" part is overlooked. If everyone's idea of what is right is different, even small tasks can lead to fights.

But there's one more thing here: While the way the job is being done is being discussed, what about the interruption of other tasks while doing one job? For instance, let's say someone is doing the sweeping wonderfully in their own way, but at the same time, meal time is getting missed or something is forgotten. Who takes on that chain reaction? I think the real crisis stems from there.

Well, if these cascading effects or the "order of importance" are constantly causing fights, isn't anyone considering completely outsourcing some tasks? There are things that everyone struggles to do, must we always interfere with each other at home? Cleaning, cooking... Maybe the solution lies in getting help from outside.

Getting help from outside can be a solution, but it's ultimately a budget issue. Moreover, when jobs are outsourced, the responsibility for monitoring the work generally falls back on someone at home. Who will check if that job is done correctly?

There is indeed a control issue with aid received from outside, but there is also this: if people enter the same house with different "standards," everyone views the incoming help through a different lens. Let's say a cleaner comes in; one person says, "they did a great job," while another finds it insufficient. So, in this situation, whose opinion should be considered? I believe that until standard conflicts are resolved, outside assistance won't be effective either.

Resolving standard conflicts is not easy, but it should also be noted: Sometimes, discussions about standards become an excuse for not doing a job properly from the start. In other words, someone does a subpar job and then says, "but your expectations are too high." Is it possible that an agreement is reached at low standards and then just moved on?

No one is asking this: Is it really possible to resolve the standard conflicts at home? I mean, everyone comes from different places, after all, those standards can be fundamentally different. I think the real issue is learning to let some things remain "below standard." Resisting in such personal details doesn't solve the problem; it only escalates the tension.