Housewife

Some feminists[4][5] and non-feminist economists (particularly proponents of historical materialism, the methodological approach of Marxist historiography) note that the value of housewives' work is ignored in standard formulations of economic output, such as GDP or employment figures.

state that housewives frequently work long hours doing a variety of tasks such as cooking, cleaning, childcare, eldercare, and managing family finances.

[7] In addition, evidence from exercise science shows that women are better suited to endurance activities, which might have been conducive to pursuing prey over long distances.

[7] However, an attempted verification of this study found "that multiple methodological failures all bias their results in the same direction...their analysis does not contradict the wide body of empirical evidence for gendered divisions of labor in foraging societies".

Generally, girls did not attend school and, therefore, spent the day doing household chores (for example, cooking and cleaning) with their mothers and female relatives.

Many modern women work simply because one person's income is insufficient to support the family, a decision made easier by the fact that it is common for Chinese grandparents to watch after their grandchildren until they are old enough to go to school.

The husband or wife may engage in countless other activities which may be social, religious, political or economic in nature for the ultimate welfare of the family and society.

The traditional status of a woman as a homemaker anchors them in society and provides meaning to their activities within the social, religious, political and economic framework of their world.

[16] One sociologist, Sushma Tulzhapurkar, called this a shift in Indian society, saying that a decade ago, "it was an unheard concept and not to mention socially unacceptable for men to give up their jobs and remain at home.

A lyxhustru ('luxury or pampered wife') was a housewife, that didn't do any work at home, but rather let hired people cook, clean, take care of the children, and so on.

A common attitude was to accept the gender roles of the time as self-evident, but to advocate different kinds of improvements for women working at home.

More radical people argued that the housewife was trapped in her economic dependence on her husband, that it was unfair that she was not paid for her work and that she was deprived of opportunities to stimulate and develop her abilities.

"[27] Women, Boëthius argued, represented an underutilized reserve of labor that, if tapped, could significantly increase the purchasing power and standard of living of households.

[25] A combination of labour demand and gender equality concerns led to several policy reforms that made it easier for women to work and for families to care for their children together.

[23] However, women with children up to pre-school age generally continued to work at home until subsidized daycare was introduced on a larger scale from around the mid-1970s.

The idea was that children had more difficulty developing independence if they spent their days in an overprotected home environment than if they were in a daycare center with qualified staff.

[25] The reformers were opposed by more conservative groups, who believed that women's role was to look after the home, bring up children and support the working man.

While men had a sole duty, women were responsible for various, timely tasks, such as milking cows, clothing production, cooking, baking, housekeeping, childcare, and so on.

"[36] As a middle class housewife, typical duties consisted of organizing and maintaining a home that emphasized the male breadwinner's financial success.

If the mother chose to work, child care costs began to add up, therefore, decreasing the incentives for the woman to hold a demanding job.

Margaret Llewelyn Davies, one of the organization's key female leaders, spoke out on topics regarding divorce, maternity benefits, and birth control.

Similarly, Clementina Black helped establish a consumer's league, which attempted to boycott organizations that did not pay women fair wages.

[45] Black families, recent immigrants, and other minority groups tended not to benefit from the union wages, government policies, and other factors that led to white wives being able to stay at home during these decades.

[46] This gives her time to concentrate full-time on child-rearing and to avoid the high cost of childcare, particularly through the early years (before school begins at age five).

Others see their primary role as that of childcare providers, supporting their children's physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual development while sharing or outsourcing other aspects of caring for the home.

These nomadic tribes used gender differences to their advantage, allowing men and women to use their complementary adaptations and survival strategies to find the most diverse and nutritionally complete foods available.

For example, in the context of daily foraging, childcare itself was not a hindrance to women's productivity; rather, performing this task with her children both increased the overall efficiency of the activity (more people participating equals a greater yield of edible roots, berries, nuts, and plants), and functioned as an important hands-on lesson in survival skills for each child.

By sharing the burden of daily sustenance – and developing specialized gender niches – humans not only ensured their continued survival, but also paved the way for later technologies to evolve and grow through experience.

[49] The governments of communist countries in the early and middle 20th century, such as the Soviet Union, Cuba and China, encouraged married women to keep working after giving birth.

[55] Though the male role is subject to many stereotypes, and men may have difficulties accessing parenting benefits, communities, and services targeted at mothers, it became more socially acceptable by the 2000s.