> This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Homemaker labour didn'

> This is going to be a very western perspective, but I thought that historically women's labour has been mostly valued as a homemaker. Homemaker labour didn't pay well. It still doesn't, and it didn't back then. It's vital to the operation of a household, but it doesn't put food on the table, or earn money, which allow you to buy any of the things the household needs, but can't make for itself. ---- Note: Spinning was a large component of household work - which did allow women to earn money, by selling any surplus textiles they produced. There's a reason that 'spinster' became a synonym for 'old, unmarried woman'. Unfortunately, keeping your family clothed was a full-time spinning job to begin with - thousands of hours of work a year. And if you were to sell the products you produced outside the household, you wouldn't earn much with them - as a 'profession', spinning did not pay well at all.