Housewives vs. Working Women Battlefield Stockholm

This is an argument as old as feminism, well not really; it is as old as conservative definitions of feminism...I should dedicate some serious time to finding the original of the "feminists are against raising children" mantra.

I've recently quit my job, fortunately, I have a new one. However, at my previous job I met a girl, E, who came to speak to me about that organization and their policy stance, which didn't exist. E and I spoke for a while, and she mentioned that she was researching or interested in the dichotomy of stay at home mothers and working women. Specifically, the undervaluing of the labor performed by stay at home mothers/housewives. E had a lot of preconceived ideas about feminists and how they undervalue the work of stay at home women and the stigma attached to staying at home. I was pretty shocked by this for a few reasons: 1. I know lots of women who intend to stay at home when they have kids; 2. feminism is about choice, the choice to work or stay at home without placing a value on one or the other; and 3. some socialist feminists have worked out the idea of paid domestic labor. This paid domestic labor much like domestic labor performed by an outsider opposed to a family member isn't expected to be well received by the labor community. Additionally, the socialist feminists also speculated that the majority of this work would continue to be done by women and not divided equally with men. I found myself explaining that women can choose to do whatever they like, but staying at home isn't for me. Which is what I think this argument really comes down to: if it is ok, then why don't you want to do it?" The explaining of your personal choices in such a way as to not offend.

All this happened about a month again, and then just yesterday an article shows up in the New York Times on the "Stigma of Being a Housewife"by Katrin Bennhold. A Swedish journalist, Peter Letmark attempted to track down a housewife in Sweden, but failed. The article postulates that feminism has "overshot its objective." That women are pitted against one another along class, ethnic, etc. lines, and everyone is one of two camps: pro or anti housewife. In the "developed world" housewives are seen as lazy, etc. The article also references that economists, internationally place domestic unpaid work above the manufacturing sector. It is noted that women feel compelled to conform to the standard of working mother instead of staying at home. Everyone interviewed in the article argues for a value and acknowledgement of their work, but not a wage.

This is a brief summary, but let's just look at a few of the limitations to this article.

1. Placing feminism in this for the argument. They mention it once, just to draw attention with little explanation. Merely, perpetuating the idea that feminists are ending the conventional notion of home.

2. "developed world" I'll just leave this alone...I obviously there is privilege in this article that isn't being acknowledged. So we're looking for housewives from a specific socio-economic class. Alluding to poor women who stay at home with their kids are just lazy and not expected to value their domestic labor.

3. Housewife vs. domestic work. I mention this because nowhere in this article does it mention children and child raising, but we are talking hetero-normative relationships surrounding the "home." We're also talking gendered labor, and this article does not address a househusbands or stay at home dads. Though it does mention paternity level.