Woah woah woah, slow down. You are infering that childcare and other non-work flex time activity isn't work. I was not saying anything at all about time spent outside the job. I was trying to clarify the argument that you were responding to by demonstrating how it is not a straw man.
To follow the argument from it's origins, you led with
>I'd be amazed if there wasn't a correlation between time in the office and productivity.
And you were later responding to SamBam saying
>Regularly doubling your hours in the office generally does not even remotely double a person's productivity.
Which I was clarifying was not exactly a straw man because the fact that he chose "double" the hours was merely a hyperbole to demonstrate that productivity (in the office) does not scale positively with time spent (in the office).
So we are talking about correlation between time in the office and productivity (in the office). The negative correlation that was spoken of is a very measured effect, multiple studies and articles can be found [0] using the same tool that you so kindly used to define benevolent sexism to me with.
To follow the argument from it's origins, you led with
>I'd be amazed if there wasn't a correlation between time in the office and productivity.
And you were later responding to SamBam saying
>Regularly doubling your hours in the office generally does not even remotely double a person's productivity.
Which I was clarifying was not exactly a straw man because the fact that he chose "double" the hours was merely a hyperbole to demonstrate that productivity (in the office) does not scale positively with time spent (in the office).
So we are talking about correlation between time in the office and productivity (in the office). The negative correlation that was spoken of is a very measured effect, multiple studies and articles can be found [0] using the same tool that you so kindly used to define benevolent sexism to me with.
[0]:https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-hours-bac...