How could staying at home be "compulsory"? If you don't want to stay at home, don't get married to someone who insists you do, or if you make the mistake of doing so, get out.

Thought:

It doesn't necessarily take economic privilege to live on one income. The woman at home often adds economic value to the partnership in excess of what she would earn elsewhere. While the economic value of cleaning and cooking and keeping order is substantial itself, it also enables a husband to work 50 or 60 hour weeks and earn much more than he would if he had to do those things himself. Therefore, the combined standard of living achieved can be much higher with a one-income family.

Another thought:

The economic value of a woman raising great kinds (not alone, but for her part) by staying home is hard to measure, but enormous.

You really gave my mind something to gnaw on while I defrosted the freezer this morning.

And well, since I'm currently waiting for the floor wax to dry, I think I'll respond and share some of my musings.

Seriously, if you had posed the question this a.m., I'd probably, initially, have made the move towards coming down on the "it IS a choice" and "I made my decision/I did it, so can you…. or not, …if you so choose… whatever you think is right for you…"

Ah but yes, you opened my eyes, it is not truly a choice for everyone in this society, and even much less so in the great wide world as a whole… not yet.

If h and I had not had college degrees and good jobs AND if I had not worked for 7 years before having a child (and if I had not contributed to the down-payment on this house…), then there might not have been a "choice" for me to do the stay-at-home mom thing.

This life does suit me though, personality-wise.

However, it has also most definitely been a financial hardship, especially when we stand in comparision with other folks/parents in our community, who are driving environmentally responsible hybrids and "struggling" over decisions about their IRAs, while I'm charging dtr's college tuition to a high interest credit card….

Question is – where does one draw the line? Seems very relative to me… How many Americans are truly malnousished for a lack of money to buy food? Can these families really not afford to care for their children? OR are they simply susceptible to the over-whelmingly consumer-driven economy/culture, and might they be making "poor choices" about how to spend their money?

But let me get back to why I chose this life, – my mother was crazy, and I mean, psycho-crazy.

I decided long ago that anyone under my care, anyone who was dependent upon me, would experience true love and dedication.

Unfortunately in recent years I've come to realize that some of my caregiving is compulsively given and maybe not such a good a thing… as it is possibly psychologically grounded in insecurity…. Ack! Well, so much for feeling good about the choice/decision to be a "home-maker"/"house-wife"…..

Honestly, some days, I don't know which end is up. But in the end, I wouldn't change a thing because personal human relationships are to be valued above all else. Love and acceptance is the

only way, and that means love of ones self and of others. Unfortunately it seems that the times in which we live, place more value on material goods and production, than on rocking babies to sleep, and providing a comfy home, and juggling a modern family's busy schedule…..

And so where does that leave us? gender-wise? individualy? moment to moment, every single day as we muddle through, trying to survive? Are we loving and supporting each other, or not?

My dtr starts college next week. I look forward to seeing where this next generation of women will take this life-challenge.

AND I look forward to where the next phase of my own life leads.

Oh and thanks for providing me with some new reading material suggestions.

Sincerely,

!Spark!

P.S. OMG that poem made me cry… Grrr, you owe me a box of kleenex!

While the "choice" framework is compelling and you use it effectively, I agree that choices are always made within systems (patriarchy, heteronormativity, racism, economic injustice, etc) that define the forms they take. This is what I like about a lot of the discussion here; much as we would like to, we can't wish these systems away. With this in mind, I really appreciate the dialogue about the ways in which capitalism structures our "choices."

For a queer historical take on the relationships between capitalism, gay/lesbian identities & cultures, and the family, I highly recommend John D'Emilio's very short & wonderfully readable essay "Capitalism and Gay Identity."

About Aveshadee's point, a few thoughts. The distinction between use and exchange isn't quite right here. Every commodity is defined by the contradiction between use and exchange according to Marx. What I would say is that "women's work" has historically been defined as outside production and value. It's not that we *can't* put a "monetary value" on domestic labor, caretaking, etc; rather, capitalism requires these forms of labor to be conceptualized as ideological and social (through the family). This keeps the labor of "housewives" (sorry, I hate that word) unpaid and invisible. As materialist feminists have shown, capitalist production refuses to recognize its dependence on domestic labor for the reproduction of the labor force, etc.

Thanks for weighing in on these issues.

Because society values labour inside the home less than labour outside the home, it's an uncomfortable fact that if the relationship in question fails, the person who has stayed in the home may find hirself economically disadvantaged. So I suppose I worry that it's a situation of economic dependency on another person, which can cause major problems. I suppose I feel like when you're economically dependent on another person, it may well restrict other choices further down the line. Perhaps this is a bit different in the US, where you have allimony, etc. I suppose all choices have consequences that restrict our ability to make choices later though. Hmm.

I am married, and am the breadwinner (although I am not sure my income would call it 'winning'). My husband stays home, and sometimes takes care of the kids. His health problems and overall douchbaggishness makes this a necessity although they are also in daycare during the school year.

I have always worked and have had career goals out of a necessity to work, not any hard fast desire. I don't think, though, that I ever had any strong desire to stay home and raise kids/ care of the house. Even if I had the husband and financial ability to do so, I don't think I would have wanted to.

I feel like I have been forced in to this "I'm every woman" role and while there is a certain amount of "good for you, girl" that goes along with it- I also resent it.

I don't know what that means… it just is.

Obviously, I'm still thinking about this post…

Two other books that might prove interesting in regard to oppressed women/feminism/gender definition (with a definite hetero bent but still valuable): "No Nice Girl Swears" by Alice-Leone Moats and "Hope in a Jar" by Kathy Peiss.

It seems to me that our willingness to buy into the idea that 'having ever more money and stuff is essential to happiness' is part of what's driving this messed-up system of women forced into the home. Or, for that matter, people forced into work if what they want to do is stay home. The position of 'housewife' is really the ultimate economic status symbol now, as most can't afford to be or have one.

A really interesting book about women's work is "A Midwife's Tale" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich.