Yael, you did it again. Thank you. For many years I have been frustrated with the way in which the female partner who chooses to stay at home is seen as 'less than'. Far too often I've been at gatherings where, almost inevitably, the first question of new acquaintances has been "... and what do you do?" & when asked of my wife I've seen its effect for we've both known that if she answered that she supported me, organised our home, cared for, educated and enriched our children's lives, she would almost always be seen as not having a 'real job' and be written off.
I accept that I am of an earlier generation and now past my three score years and ten. However, when I was young, married man actually receive a higher wage than single men doing the same job - because it was recognised that another adult was provided for with that wage and perhaps children, too.
Of course, that justification would not fit with today's views about 'equality' and social pressure, not least levied by governments and employers, to have 'all' adults in paid employment, mostly for others and mostly for purely economic reasons.
I remember the arrival of vacuum cleaners and washing machines and spin-dryers and all manner of appliances that would 'make life easier', 'reduce tedious chores' and 'provide more free time'. Perhaps some of that was true but most of it wasn't. Today it appears that most employees work harder than ever and in many cases seem to be expected to do so without extra payment. Those who choose to work only the hours for which they are paid tend to be frowned upon.
No, I don't say that all 'house-wives' were well off or that some, (perhaps even many), would rather have had careers than stay at home and be financially supported. That may be the case but the difference, I believe, was not as simplistic as a 'paternalistic' conspiracy to keep women in the home. I think that there was a genuine respect for women and that particular role in society and a recognition that it was deserving of economic reward, even if not at the level it truly deserved.
I support every woman to determine for herself what she wishes to do with her life and would not presume to decide that for any partner of mine.
At the same time, I find it hard to understand why so many mothers who don't *need* to work outside the home so willingly put their children into the hands of others so that they can do so. I accept that there are many more needs than simply financial ones but my experience of working life in predominantly female occupations has given me no indication that most of my colleagues, superordinates or subordinates have particularly *wanted* to be at work. Indeed, the contrary has been the case.
Constantly today we are assaulted with messages about the importance of 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. I'm not sure when or where that arose. Certainly, if one considers human evolution across the World, it would seem to be a relatively modern preoccupation and one particularly associated with capitalism and societies in which materialism is seen as a virtue.
My view is that much of what ails society is related to this preoccupation with making money, i.e. paid employment and, for most of us, 'working for the man (or woman)'.
Your article, for me, is fundamentally about values. My view is that society has generally lost sight of what compose true values and that we confuse morality and ethics and put more value on 'codes' than we do on respect, service, compassion and the affective areas of life.
One of the most important of those areas is, as you so well suggest, the home and those who make it. Predominantly, that has been and perhaps still is, women, house-wives or simply and obviously, home-makers.
Why else would we have so many songs, memes, narratives that herald its worth?
"There's no place like home."
"Home is where the heart is"
"Home is the nicest word there is"
"Charity begins at home"
Thank you for reassuring me that there are still others who consider that being a home-maker is a multi-faceted role that can vary from relatively simple to extremely complex. Without it, I posit that little 'work' would be done or if it were to be done, would be less than effective. I also suggest that the economy of any society would collapse. One only has to consider the result if one took away the value of that 'unpaid' home-making, child caring, partner supporting, social relationship building, nurturing, caring, nursing, and etc.
However, economic disaster would not be the greatest catastrophe, rather it would be the loss of the emotional adhesive that sees us through.
