Talk:Housewife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Other use of the term[edit]

Reading my relatives letters and memoirs from WW2, a 'housewife' is used by them to mean some sort of cleaning implement. They are dead now, so I can't ask them, but it was not a scrubbing brush, nor a polishing cloth, but something along those lines. Does anyone know more specifically what a 'housewife' is in this context? It was obviously a term in general use at the time. ixo (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

2003[edit]

I'm confused, how's a link to a book (without mentioning anything about it) that seems to be just a piece of fundie propaganda more relevant than a link to the Wikipedia article on marriage? -- Timo Honkasalo 20:26 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I added a link to marriage

I resent anyone using biggoted terminology to describe people of the Christian faith as "fundies". I stay at home, I love raising my kids and being there for my family. There are many out there who do...get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.26.130 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Sorry for making this page somewhat uglier, but I was somewhat uncomfortable with some of the phrasing - boys now learn home economics and the like, and the idea of a life as a homemaker is a little old-fashioned: today it's more likely to be a few years. Martin


The rise in unemployment in the western world has led to a rise in the number of men without permanent employment who choose to carry out this role, often because their wives/female partners have greater earning power than they do.

Please indentify source for claiming there is a trend of men choosing homemaking roles due to being unemployed. Since unemployment has been falling over the past century, you might look for another cause and effect relationship.

Nod. Was just copying text from househusband :) Martin

I removed the apron link, the person who put it there obvioulsy has little experience about household chores if he thinks apron is central to domestic hygiene. I also removed the wall of 1.03 million yen and 1.30 million yen link as the article is rather peculiar stub, and google doesn't produce anything about the subject. I'm also going to remove the link to the book, unless someone can give a good reason why it should be there. --- Timo Honkasalo

If you search google in Japanese, you can get plenty of information about 103万円・130万円の壁. I know the title of that article looks odd but it is a real thing in Japan. -- Taku 19:12 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

To my disgrace, my knowledge of Japanese is restricted to the about 30 words I've learned in my Kendo practice. But since you seem already to have some knowledge on the subject, why not flesh out the article a bit. Right now, it tells practically nothing. --- Timo Honkasalo 14:52 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I should put more definitelly. Please just give me more time. I am doing research now. Wrong information is worse then absense of information. -- Taku 16:19 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
question is, what do English-speaking reporters call it (whatever it is) when they report on it? I somehow doubt they use the given name... :-/ Martin

I have same question and don't know the answer -:) -- Taku 23:10 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)



I strongly disapprove the sentence Men are increasingly adopting the role of homemaker. Unless someone will take care of finding a more twisted but proper and accurate sentence to express this, I will just remove the sentence as being strongly misleading. a Wikipedia:WikiWomen

I agree, this sort of statement desperatly needs a cite ("According to a research, Men are increasingly adopting the role of homemaker.." would sound more valid (in a junk science newspaper way...)) but I think we should think of a replacement for that statement... -- Rotem Dan 17:59 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
even better, in country xxx, according to the study from institute yyy, the number of hours men spent cleaning water closets and bathrooms during a year in 1960 and in 2000, compared to equivalent hours per women.
lol :) -- Rotem Dan 20:41 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the refactoring. :-)

Sources[edit]

Find sources: "Housewife" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

an F for feminidiots - where the hell did $138K salary come from?[edit]

I am talking about this nonsense: "As of May 2007, the average annual salary of a housewife in the U.S, if correlated to the total cost of outsourcing each element of his or her work to an external contractor, would be approximately $138,000.[2] Working mothers would earn $85,876 annually for the "mom job" portion of their work, in addition to their actual "work job" salary." Use your head, folks! Nowadays there is any number of women who are unemployed and desperately looking for work. Some are even homeless. Well, do you REALLY think that hiring one of them as a full-time 40 hours per week visiting housekeeper is going to cost $138K per year? I mean, people, helloooo! Keep it off the books and you can probably do it for $10K or so, and no need to do waste money on the "full time" aspect either. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if you took my salary, added a chef's salary for the food I cook, a network engineer for when I fix my PC, a car mechanic for the work I do on my car and taxi driver for when I drive my girlfriend somewhere, I would be a millionaire. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, I agree with the two editors above that this paragraph does not warrant inclusion. It's not a case of "I don't like it". The argument is simply flawed. If you look at that article, it claims that the housekeeper performs work that is worth USD 138k a year. But nobody is going to hire a full-time housekeeper for $138k a year. Most families don't even earn that much. See this page for more analysis. I feel this kind of bloated figure is sensationalist and not worthy of inclusion in the article. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the argument. It's just applying a figure to the work housewives are doing to make its economic value more palpable. Nowhere is it said or implied that housewives would actually realistically be paid this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
As argued above, and in the link I provided, the economic value of the work housewives do is not anywhere near $138k / year. If you have a realistic figure calculated by some other method other than "parcel the job out into subtasks, calculate the salary for the subtasks, then total the result", please share it. Banedon (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's your POV, and that of sexist society (patriarchy, in feminist lingo) in general; you're begging exactly the question. Basically, you are still saying "I don't like/believe it". You are nitpicking, without actually showing that a superior method exists. Economic value is extremely hard to rate unbiasedly, anyway. In fact, I must point out that there is no objective, inherent value to things or activities. It's all about what people are willing to pay. (Some people may be willing to pay millions for a bucket of piss because they consider it a work of art. Others may be unwilling to pay anything for a ton of gold because they consider it completely useless. A humble, poorly paid activity such as trash collection or care for the sick and elderly, and even a completely unpaid activity such as organising a self-help group – or, you know, a productive activity on Wikipedia – is extremely important for society, while the actual value of the job of a highly-paid entertainer, monarch, lobbyist, top exec, lawyer, stock trader or banker to society is much more questionable.) This is the notorious dichotomy between what somebody earns vs. what they actually deserve to be paid.
Let's just keep in mind that a housewife is frequently close to "always on duty" (even virtually around the clock, if she's got children to care for), has no days off, tends to work longer hours than most other people, and needs diverse skills. Even actually replacing all of those tasks with hired household servants (nanny, cook, maid, etc.) is more expensive than you seem to realise (of course, the argument is that these servants are still underpaid because society undervalues work considered typical of women). And ultimately, your whole argument is pointless because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia can report that feminists have made this argument without endorsing (or criticising) it (it would be different if we were using Wikipedia's own voice); if you don't like it going unchallenged, find criticisms published in reliable sources. (No anti-feminist blogs.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it's sourced. Did you actually read the link I gave you? Before you say it, that is not an anti-feminist blog. Banedon (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Self-published criticism is irrelevant. Nor are the precise figures relevant to the point – such a calculation will necessarily always be very approximate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As a compromise, I'll remove the part where the figures are given. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Self-published is fine if the author is an authority, and Professor Dutch is an authority on pseudoscience. I'm changing the source to a better one, and debating whether to include the figures and the criticism of it as well. Your thoughts on that? Banedon (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the inclusion of both the figures and the criticism.
However, I still think that the figures as such are not very important, as they are only very rough guesstimates. They may well be somewhat inflated consciously, or their inflatedness be tolerated, to reinforce the point didactically and polemically, for shock effect, so to say, since an accurate figure can probably never be provided anyway (I've found no more accurate figures anywhere, in any case). Just as a quick back-of-the-envelope (or rather, mental) calculation, and without going into more involved issues regarding method and assumptions, from this source, I conclude that a figure of close to 100 hours per week (not just 40, as the IP above assumes!), which may mean up to roughly 5,000 hours per year, is considered realistic, and even assuming a relatively modest hourly wage (BTW, as I've pointed out and the IP missed as well, you'd need not only a housekeeper but a nanny too), an annual salary in excess of $100,000 (the figure strongly varies between the sources I've found) doesn't sound extremely inflated to me, and it would definitely add up to a handsome figure in any case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As Professor Dutch argued, that kind of six-figure number is ridiculous. Hourly rates charged by e.g. cleaning services take into account downtime when nobody is looking for cleaners. Just imagine what would happen if, in a divorce settlement of a couple one of whom is a housewife, the judge decided to award the majority of the assets to the husband on the grounds that the husband is only earning $50k / year while the wife can now earn $100k / year performing homemaking work for other people. We would never see housewives complaining they are getting shortchanged in this kind of settlement. If the figures are to be included in the article, it would have to be in the form "Various sources claim housewives do work valued at ___. This has been criticized because ___". Emphasis on the criticism, because the calculations are pseudoscientific. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

changed However, in today's society (at least in the Western World), this oppression has ended to. However, in today's society (at least in the Western World), more options are available. as I think the former violates neutrality and the latter is more accurate Tydoni (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

women should be the bread winner since it is proven they are smarter than us men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.142.5 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

in my experience there is no difference in intelligence between women and men it varies from person to person but their gender doesn't affect it
Tydoni (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible Lack of Sources[edit]

I just challenged some unsourced material on "Feminist Critique" and I actually did it because i believe one or two of the claims actually DO have verifiable sources, but the rest is garbage and thus must be removed. Even in the second paragraph where it says "Some feminists, as well as some non-feminist economists" is a terrible appeal to the numbers mixed with an appeal to authority because the by saying that some feminists and economists, it sounds like lots of "authorities" (appeal to the numbers and to authorities, a conflated logical fallacy) are making this claim and then only a single author and her co author are cited as the many authorities. If there are sources for this claim, it would at least help not to justify this conflated appeal to large numbers of authorities but to provide those of us who are interested in more sources to read, which I think is a great idea. If anyone knows good sources for this material, please cite it, but please don't add third-rate websites or other sources. since this section is about feminist critique, prominent feminists (those who have published work that has been widely read by their feminist peers, like all good peer reviews) are the best sources for the critique, as would be the critics of the critics. But please, let's insure the sources themselves are good, no third-rate website from some propaganda site because this does not help further the cause of feminism. only good, disciplined research can battle all the misinformation that eventually bites everyone in the butt in the end anyways. I will try to find some sources, but being only a amateur follower of feminism, I may not come up with sources more experienced and scholarly students of feminism might bring. Skaaii (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


I have to agree. Now I'm really not experienced in editing articles, but this does not seem to be a true, fact based article. In particular I note the 'What a homemaker does' section. Remembering everyone's birthdays? Really, that is hardly a task that is specific to a homemaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.81.228 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Homemaker in the Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

"Homemaker" has content which could usefully be included here. (Adding an "Expand" template has not worked.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the Housewife Page[edit]

I would like to update and add to this page to reflect the important and unique role stay-at-home women play in our society. I would especially like to focus on the impact housewives have on their children's future, as well as their impact on the overall economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarczak (talkcontribs) 05:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename article Homemaker?[edit]

Since homemaker is the broader term and this article does discuss male homemakers somewhat, can we rename it homemaker and have housewife redirect to it?JaneSwifty (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is better not to rename it; one reason is that homemaker it primarily a North American concept and another that most of the content relates to societies or periods before "homemaker" came into common use.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I like Homemaker better too. I'm actually somewhat offended by housewife. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Homemaker is the preferable term, but if the article is renamed then it will need some substantial revision + the article Stay-at-home dad will need to be merged with it too. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As said above, homemaker is a North American concept. It would not fit a broader worldview. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sweden[edit]

Why not translate some information about the housewives of Sweden? (Expand + language is not obsolete)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Awful structure[edit]

Many of the sections can be combined, split, or simply left out. The section "Songs about the housewife's lot" is useless and frankly could be done without. "Notable women who were housewives" is far too vague and would be very hard to source. Its relevance is also debatable. Throughout the article there is stuff on history, which is spread between "History", "Housewives by country" and even "Sociology and economics". The "History" section itself is just one long line of text without any subheaders. Right now it's really tough to read. Sad, since Stay-at-home dad has such a good structure. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dubious tag[edit]

As pointed out by an IP, [1], the housewives in China section is self-contradictory. The section cites no sources, hence the tag (outright removal also an option). Banedon (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

2017[edit]

In the beginning of the article the definition used for a "housewife" or "stay at home mother" seems to be close paraphrasing of the sources definition. A few words were added in between almost the same exact text as the source used. Although it was an appropriate citation of the source and the link was accurate, the paraphrasing was too similar. Also, the paragraphs including the roles of housewives in different countries are too different in lengths. The United Kingdom section does not compare to the lengthy section about the United States. -Jessica.moore75 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Housewife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Housewife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)