SIMONE writes:

Judging by the title of your blog, it is fairly safe to assume that you refer to yourself as a ‘housewife.’ I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention that nowadays many married women who stay at home to raise their children and support their husbands prefer to be known as‘homemakers’ or a ‘stay-at-home-moms.’ If pressed on the issue, these women would probably argue that ‘housewife’ is an old-fashioned term which is not inclusive of single mothers and unmarried cohabitants who are not employed outside the home. 

This leads me to wonder how you would react if someone called you a ‘homemaker.’ Would you politely correct them in the same way that you (presumably) would if someone referred to your husband as your ‘partner’? In both cases, language is being manipulated in order to marginalise marriage and normalise non-marital relationships. 

Having not reflected on the issue in any great depth until now, I have been putting ‘home duties’ or ‘homemaker’ down when asked my profession on forms or over phone. On the few occasions when I have referred to myself as a ‘housewife’, I must admit that the word has not rolled easily from my tongue/pen and the subsequent feeling of self-consciousness has been quite intense. The term ‘homemaker’ seems (at least to me) relatively innocuous and yet the emerging traditionalist in me is telling me to harden up and start using the term ‘housewife’ without apology. Homemaker vs housewife – what are your thoughts? Sorry if I sound schizophrenic – reprogramming one’s mind after a lifetime of liberal indoctrination and immersion in popular culture is not always easy or straightforward, to be sure! 

Laura writes:

That’s interesting. I had never really thought of ‘housewife’ as an offense to the unmarried, but perhaps it is. That makes sense and partly explains why it’s become passé. I think the main reason why housewife is not used anymore, except ironically for trashy television shows, is its association with committed domesticity, along with that outdated wifeliness to it. As you know, I’m not a fan of “stay-at-home mom,” which strikes me as infantile. No one speaks of a “go-to-work mom.” But I understand the former is popular.

‘Homemaker’ is a fine word, though I have the same trouble with it that you have with ‘housewife.’ I can’t say it. Somehow it sounds pseudo-professional to me, in the way sanitation engineer does. That’s just a personal thing. I do think it’s a good term and I do typically use it on forms, if not the word “self-employed.” Perhaps the best words, however, are plain old wife and mother. I am a big fan of these. They once implied a complete way of life.

One habit that traditional women need to break is the tendency to say “I am just a stay-at-home mom” or “I am just a housewife.” There’s that familiar self-loathing that you rarely see in the professional woman. When people have asked me what I do, I have sometimes just said that I work at home, as it makes the whole discussion proceed more quickly, without the pause for raised eyebrows and searching glances into my eyes, glances that seek to ascertain my financial status as well as why I am so weird as to be a housewife and to actually admit it.

On a final note, another reason why I like the term ‘housewife’ is that I have often felt married to my house. It has been a rocky relationship, sort of like one of those bad marriages you read about in John Updike books, including long periods of sullen resentment on both sides and verging on divorce many times. I would never leave my husband, but I would gladly take my house to court. It is a naughty, naughty house.

                                             — Comments —

Jenny writes:

I am a housewife. I refer to myself as one on all sorts of forms and when asked what I do, I reply that I am a housewife. Women will usually reply with a friendly “Oh, that’s nice.” Every man I’ve ever said it to says, “That’s great. We need more of those,” or something along those lines.

When I was younger and unmarried, I always told people I wanted to be a housewife, and that was in the 1990’s. Now that I think about it, none of the other mothers I know who don’t work outside of the home have ever referred to themselves as housewives — only as stay-at-home moms.

I don’t think I’m “making a statement” when I refer to myself as a housewife. It’s just the word I grew up hearing and the word I now use. Homemaker is acceptable to me though, and I wouldn’t take offense at being referred to as one. I think I’m just old-fashioned.

A.H. writes:

In the course of some genealogical research, I’ve noticed that on some of the U.S. census data from the 19th century there is an “Occupation” listed for each adult person–man or woman. My great-great-great grandfathers are shown to have been occupied with “farming”; my great-great-great grandmothers are shown to have been “keeping house.” I was struck with the noble simplicity of the terminology “Occupation: keeping house,” which brings to my mind all the various household management tasks that must have been involved in 19th century rural Tennessee.

Josh F. writes:

I would tell Simone that traditionalists have no time to worry about  giving offense to liberals. As such, when one uses more specific  terminology to describe oneself as opposed to a more liberalized  variation, the idea of another being offended at this self-description is wholly irrational. In fact, anyone acting offended at your truthful  characterization of yourself is nuts and is trying to banish a deeper  understanding of yourself.

Laura writes:

Josh writes, “The idea of another being offended at this self-description is wholly irrational.”

Oh, I don’t think it’s irrational at all. There’s a very good reason why some people feel offended when a woman describes herself as a housewife.

Natassia writes:

I think people use the term “stay-at-home” because it differentiates one kind of mom (the kind that works) as opposed to the one who doesn’t (which is somewhat of a rarity nowadays, or at least it seems that way.) 

I think I use the term “a stay-at-home mother and wife” because when someone asks, “What do you do?” I feel like I need to provide a qualifier…otherwise it’s as if I’m the equivalent of unemployed. At least, that’s how it feels anyway. 

I don’t use the term housewife because while growing up it always seemed to be used in a negative way to connotate a gold-digging woman living the life of leisure or a woman who did not have the education or work experience to do anything else. (I’m 27, so you can imagine what sort of feminist influence I’ve been subjected to.) Also, it doesn’t help that there are shows like “Desperate Housewives.”

Karen I. writes:

I remember the first time I ran into a working woman who was not impressed when I told her I was a full time homemaker. I was going into labor and trying to register at my local hospital, where my doctor had told me to go immediately after he examined me. Between contractions, I was answering the registration questions being asked by the nurse at the front desk of the maternity ward. When she got to “occupation”, I told her I was a homemaker. “Oh, so you’re unemployed,” she announced, loud enough for everyone on the ward to hear. At the next contraction, I doubled over and acted like I was in complete agony. I was shown to my room, leaving my husband to deal with the witch. 

Since becoming a reader of this blog, I have started referring to myself as a housewife. It seems like the most honest way to describe myself, though I would not have had the guts to do it without your brave example. I find it odd that describing myself as a housewife feels liberating, but it does. I don’t feel like I am apologizing for what I do when I say I am a housewife, because only a very secure woman would dare to say that these days.

Laura writes:

It’s interesting how many people are interested in whether a woman works or not. When my children were young, it seemed like every time I stepped out the door someone was confronting me and asking whether I worked or not. I always had to respond, “No,” because when people ask you whether you work what they really want to know is whether you work for pay. I think people ask this question so often because they are searching for answers.

Paul writes:

Is it appropriate for a woman to rely on a man’s money? The answer is a premise for the issue whether a woman can be called a housewife or a homemaker. The House of Mirth(2000) is a fine traditionalist movie, where the underlyng message is that it is appropriate.

The thematic protagonist is a beautiful, cultured woman who wants to be the homemaker of a rich man she loves, but such a man does not exist. Instead, she rejects the invite (implied for suspense) of a bourgeois lawyer she loves because she does not want to be a dependant housewife. She chooses death.

By the way, it was exquisitely acted by the surprisingly beautiful Gillian Anderson (The X-Files),who deserved an Oscar nomination. Her love was the always excellent Eric Stolz (The Mask).

Maybe the Academy was too troubled by the largely obscured theme?

Josh F. writes:

In response to Laura’s point above that there is reason behind the negative reactions housewives receiv, I agree that liberals have “reason” to be offended at those who self-
define in ways illiberal. But since they are liberal, “reason” can be  irrational and still be “principled.” These are their rules and we  are under no obligation to acknowledge, let alone, be persuaded by 
them. We ought feign indifference to the liberal’s irrational need to  be offended by the mere fact that one offers up his own truthful self- description. We ought recognize that the liberal desires for us to  live in a state of all-accepting indiscriminancy (nondiscrimination/ tolerance) and his “offended ego” is actually a tactical weapon having  us either redefine ourselves in increasingly liberal ways or to have  us define ourselves out of existence all together. That is the  practical result of an all-accepting indiscriminancy (nondiscrimination/tolerance) that is sweeping the masses. And giving 
credence to the “offense” taken by liberals when one defines  themselves traditionally is to simply lose.

Laura writes:

Yes, I agree we ought to feign indifference. The important word here is “feign,” because the truth is that most of us are sensitive to the opinion of others.

Ilion Troas writes:

The English word “wife” … and especially in the term “housewife” … is being seriously misunderstood. 
 
The English word ‘wife’ means at base, ‘female,’ and the English word ‘man’ means ‘person’ or ‘human being‘ … and thus, the English word ‘woman’ (Old English ‘wyf-man’) means “a female person/human being.”
 
Thus, techically speaking, a “housewife” is the “mistress of the household” … regardless of her married state.  It is only because the word “wife” has come over the centuries to be so associated with the married state that the various misunderstandings of (and silly objections to) the term “housewife” get their traction.
 
And don’t even get me started on the childish “mom” of “stay-at-home mom.”

Laura writes:

Thank you for the clarification. The word ‘wife’ now seems inalterably associated with the married woman. 

“Stay-at-home mom” is part of the sugary sentimentalization of motherhood, to which Sarah Palin has contributed, with her “mama grizzlies” and her frequent reference to herself as a “mom.” Being a mother doesn’t entail being a child onself or talking like a child.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

What a pleasure to find this discussion of “housewife” vs. “homemaker.” I can barely stand the word ‘homemaker.’ Something phony and contrived about it, I’ve hated it from the first time I heard it.

A couple of decades ago, a reporter from a large daily newspaper came to our house to interview me on an “issue” I was involved with. In the final printed version, I was correctly quoted word for word – except when it came to my occupation, where either the reporter or editor changed my self-description from “housewife” to “homemaker.” I cringed when I read that.

Laura writes:

Yes, ‘homemaker’ seems technocratic and artificial. On the other hand, it’s much better than ‘stay-at-home mom.’ 

Josh F. writes:

When I used “feign,” I wasn’t suggesting that we should be sensitive  to a ploy. For one to be offended by another who describes herself as  “housewife” is to hatch a devious liberal ploy on the latter. This  ploy first and foremost plays on your sensitivity to the opinions of  others. But what “opinion” does this “offended ploy” offer? What does it say about the person who is “offended” by Mrs. Wood proclaiming  herself “housewife?” Should we be sensitive to liberal irrationality?

There is no “opinion.” There is the assertion of the radical autonomist and how the “housewife” isn’t playing nice by her exclusionary self-description. She doesn’t want to be “equal” with the 
rest of us. She thinks she is superior. She doesn’t like our all-accepting indiscriminancy.

This is wholly irrational, but entirely “principled” in the liberal worldview. So when I said “feign indifference,” I was referring to the irrationality of the “offended.” It is a ploy and we shall not be 
sensitive (meaning, emotionally persuaded) by ploys. To be sensitive  to liberal irrationality is to slowly but surely assimilate it and  hence desensitize one’s self to rational critique by those “not able”  to act in an irrationally “principled” manner. So like a vicious cycle  we pay heed to falseness and have less sensitivity (meaning, acute perception) to the truth.

Laura writes:

To be sensitive  to liberal irrationality is to slowly but surely assimilate it…

This is very true. This kind of sensitivity always reflects uncertainty. The convinced housewife doesn’t care if others do not approve of her chosen life. This disapproval is irrelevant. The woman who does not show pride in this life, this life which is more than simply a personal choice but is also the right way to live, capitulates to her detractors and might as well join them. She lives in a no-man’s land between truth and falsehood.

Reader N. writes:

On the one hand it is a sad thing when what a traditionalist woman chooses to call herself is a complicated issue. On the other hand, surely it is right to push back against the absurd modern world,
in some way. Each woman must choose her own way of doing so.

Again I must point out that feminism is pretty clearly a variant of Marxism; the chant back in the 1970’s was “The Personal Is Political.” Very well then, proceeding to push back from that point
is one way to reclaim the culture. “Housewife” is a term that needs to be reclaimed. If a married woman is in the mood, she might refer to herself as “A happy housewife…not one of those desperate ones”.
Really, there are any number of clever things that can be said to end such intrusive, pesky questions.

A married woman, with or without children, with an appropriately puckish sense of humor might use the older term “Mistress of the house.” This would cause all manner of confusion on the part of modern libertines, if said with a straight face while breezily moving  in to some other topic. Clearly it is not a response for every, or even most, women. But it could be very effective in some ways.

Women who are not nearly so socially oriented, such as some of my ancestresses, could respond a different way: “None Of Your Business.” One aged woman in my family had to go to probate court after her husband had died. She was frail, and didn’t walk well, but still strong in spirit and informed the probate judge he would refer to her as “Mrs.”, not by her first name. “I am Mrs. John Jones, my
first name is none of your business”. This surely set the judge back a bit, but the grieving widow really did not care what any probate judge thought of her, she wanted procedures done
properly and she was demanding the respect due her. She got that respect, too.

Wisdom requires that proper terms be used, and incorrect ones shunned. Therefore, defiantly using older, traditional words such as “wife” and “husband” in the place of neutered ones like “partner” is a subversive, and restorational, act.

Laura writes:

Really, there are any number of clever things that can be said to end such intrusive, pesky questions. 

Cleverness and wittiness can work on occasion, but there are many cases in which the emotional dynamics do not allow for cleverness and wittiness, as N. indirectly acknowledges when he speaks of his relatives who were not so “socially oriented.” Something very serious is often at stake and that involves maternal feelings.

Many working women are saddened that they are away from their children for much of the day. They may be away out of conscious choice, but still they are typically troubled by this choice. Others are away because of financial pressure, or the belief that they cannot possibly afford to be with their children and could not handle very modest living. Women are so troubled by their inability to act upon their maternal instincts that they seek confirmation for their way of life from others. When a woman calls herself a housewife, especially a happy and proud housewife, another woman may be visibly crushed. Now, N. and other commenters here might say that this is all just a liberal ploy and a housewife should remain indifferent to the feelings of others, but I’m afraid that’s an impossible expectation for women if they have any feelings for others at all. Often the person whom is visibly crushed is a longtime friend.

So the hesitation for a woman to call herself a housewife does not purely stem from uncertainty or lack of confidence, it also comes from deference to other mothers. A housewife often feels she must hide what she has in the same way a rich person may feel the need to downplay his wealth. The housewife possesses great riches in the time she has to act upon her love for her children and husband and even though she may have traded material comfort and live in reduced circumstances in order to attain this gold, she may not want to show off her enormous wealth. Therefore she hedges when asked to describe who she is.

All this is inevitable in a society that does not explictly affirm the role of full-time mother and wife. A society that does not explicitly affirm this role becomes one that explicitly affirms the opposite: the absentee mother. The idea of balancing social approval is a myth; such balance is impossible to achieve because these are mutually exclusive ideals. Society cannot approve contradictory standards. People often say, well, we live in a world where women can be anything they please. While technically true, this is not practically true. This statement ignores the role of social conditioning, especially early in life, and children are never taught to just be anything. They are always guided toward some goal and if they are not guided toward some explicit goal then they are led to imitate whatever they see around them. What children see around them today is the absentee mother.

 Most middle class women who become full-time mothers and wives in America do so only after having rejecting this social conditioning, an often onerous task. And, absent this explicit affirmation of what they do, traditional women are often the last people to defend their outpost because they by nature tend to be senstitive to the feelings of others and thus will not confidently say what they are.

Reader N. writes:

Well, here is another fine case of the unexamined premise, and since it’s my premise that’s involved, I’ll examine it. When I think of a married woman being questioned as to her status, what comes to my mind is some rather snoopy, prying, slightly catty woman at a social function, or perhaps in a shop or even in a library, archly querying another woman (possibly with children), “And what do YOU do, dear?”. Thus my suggestion regarding wit and pushback, as an act to reclaim words and ideas from the larger society.

I did not entertain more everyday possibilities, such as a woman with children encountering another woman, more tired and hassled, in the supermarket line at the end of the day. You are surely correct that basic kindness would lead a married woman who keeps her house in order to downplay what indeed is a form of riches in order to not sadden the other. In this case, the housewife is challenged with essentially an act of mercy, and a sort of evangelism. She should, as you suggest, be as kind as possible to the other woman, but also it would be good to let it be known that there
is a better way.

And it is a better way, let there be no doubt about it. I have known married couples that sat down and added up all the monthly expenses incurred in child care, restaurant meals, etc. and
found that the wife’s job outside the house was basically a financial wash; the money she brought in went right back out again. More than once I’ve seen wives quit their jobs after
that calculation, and the entire family gradually become happier as a result.

Laura writes:

Yes, it is a form of evangelism. It’s not only the tired mother a housewife may encounter but a grandmother, a woman who never sees her adult daughter or grandchildren or who is in charge of babysitting her daughter’s children or who looks down on her own past as a housewife because of changed standards. This older woman may harbor disappointment or resentment and seek affirmation from others. I often find these older women to be the most hostile, which is surprising since many of them grew up in more traditional times.

You are right, it is a better way. But it often entails financial sacrifice, even with all those work-related expenses. Statistics clearly show that the traditional family is on average poorer in real spending money than its dual-income counterpart.

Please follow and like us: