3 ms·

She is not working for pay. Her freedom comes from the man she is dependent on. And many feminists found when they tried to work that the job market was, surpri

• AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > She is not working for pay. If the transaction was formalized so that she was receiving a salary and then paying the same total amount for rent, food, insurance, etc., what difference would that make in practice? > Her freedom comes from the man she is dependent on. And many feminists found when they tried to work that the job market was, surprise surprise, not welcoming to women. You are referring to the job market in the early 20th century. This is obviously no longer the case, given that a majority of working-aged women do in fact now work for money. The argument you would have to make now is that homemaker is a specialized profession that doesn't translate into another profession. Leaving aside whether that's even true (it's easy to prove you know how to cook and there are such jobs in many diners etc.), how is it different than many ordinary professions? If you have ten years experience as a calligrapher when you decide it isn't for you, you can't just instantly jump onto the middle of the career ladder as a mechanical engineer. Nor is someone who prefers to be a homemaker tied to a specific person. There are many other men (and women) willing to enter into the same kind of arrangement.