It isn't so much bad or negative as it is risky. A homemaker, male or female, becomes financially reliant on his/her partner. A partner who can die, become too disabled/ill to work, or who can leave after the homemaker has missed his/her key career/skill building years.
Women are more likely to be pushed or encouraged to take this important supportive role to benefit others while putting themselves at risk.
It goes both ways, the partner can become reliant on this kind of support. And only sometimes partly you can cover the difference with money and/or power - typically much more expensive than cooperation.
In fact I'd say the housekeeping skills are always more marketable, more basic and easier to master - you can live off them, but not without. This gives rise to competition which drives both social perception of value and actual financial value down.
Mutual dependency has been the way of life for ages - for good reason.
Edit: Thought police strikes again! Instead of downvoting, please provide a coherent argument why a given point is invalid or how.
It is a lot easier to hire someone to take care of housekeeping duties or to do them yourself than it is to make up for 10+ years of little to zero non-homemaking skill development.
Not as easy as you'd expect if you want someone actually competent and versatile.
You would be surprised how big a bag "homemaking" is, ranging from cooking, through teaching, down to clerical work, through basic finances and back up with handyman (yes yes) fixes. Any of those skills specialized in is marketable, though not respectable on its own.
Note how few of them are true knowledge and research work.
All of them are in the areas where there have been major reductions in number of jobs due to automation and centralization.
Comments
It isn't so much bad or negative as it is risky. A homemaker, male or female, becomes financially reliant on his/her partner. A partner who can die, become too disabled/ill to work, or who can leave after the homemaker has missed his/her key career/skill building years.
Women are more likely to be pushed or encouraged to take this important supportive role to benefit others while putting themselves at risk.
It goes both ways, the partner can become reliant on this kind of support. And only sometimes partly you can cover the difference with money and/or power - typically much more expensive than cooperation.
In fact I'd say the housekeeping skills are always more marketable, more basic and easier to master - you can live off them, but not without. This gives rise to competition which drives both social perception of value and actual financial value down.
Mutual dependency has been the way of life for ages - for good reason.
Edit: Thought police strikes again! Instead of downvoting, please provide a coherent argument why a given point is invalid or how.
It is a lot easier to hire someone to take care of housekeeping duties or to do them yourself than it is to make up for 10+ years of little to zero non-homemaking skill development.
Not as easy as you'd expect if you want someone actually competent and versatile.
You would be surprised how big a bag "homemaking" is, ranging from cooking, through teaching, down to clerical work, through basic finances and back up with handyman (yes yes) fixes. Any of those skills specialized in is marketable, though not respectable on its own.
Note how few of them are true knowledge and research work. All of them are in the areas where there have been major reductions in number of jobs due to automation and centralization.
Yes because the entire value a husband receives from his wife is her housekeeping contributions.