This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Home Living C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Gender studies C‑class This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Women's History C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 19 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henshena. Peer reviewers: Jaidajeter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wellcaffeinated109. Peer reviewers: Bear606, Bear102938.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone deleted this part. Why?

Historically documented information is available re gender roles - Human Anthropology. It notes the physical attrubutes that benefit the mother or closest female within the unit and being the prefered partner for the childs early years, prodominatly due to postnatal changes, yet also impressivley details the stronghold relationship a father should develope with the child from 9-12 months and their 5-9 years of age. Noted in these documents is that men develope higher levels of stress than the woman at times of change in the infant, ie; initial birth, then full physical ability without the aid of another, then the infants enviornmental awareness, and in retrospect should the father not be around this can lead to family disputes and cognitive and chemical disruption & imbalance within the child.

A stay at home mom in the United States in the year 2006 could earn the equivalent of US $134,121, if paid for all of her work, according to a study by Salary.com [1]. (under Economics heading) I thought that was interesting, but the link's expired. It's just annoying. Would that article be gone forever, or does the link just need to get updated?

PS. I wish there were more links in the External Links section with more info about the history... the 1950's, stuff like that. Basically, more info on what I had just read. Right now it's all links to tips for homemakers. --Nuggit 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I think that this section should be removed from the article until there is a reputable source. -- User:Starcreator

There's a gaffe here: first the article says that women and men are homemakers. Then the formal education segment talks solely about women taking courses. These sort of courses are available to both men and women. --70.30.59.2 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it is a load of crap.

Well, I'm English, and I only got to this page becuase I wanted to explain the etymology behind "husband" and "housewife" and their having the same root of Nordic (I think) "hs" for house.

I think it is dreadful that Wiki automatically reroutes me to this page in a tornado of political correctness. It even does so from "huswife" which is the close relative of "husband".

Please, please, please let's have a proper "housewife" page. On it we can state all the politically-correct bits we fancy.

Simon Hallam Birmingham, UK 18 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.37.124 (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The introduction to this article is decidedly US-centric. Homemaker would generally be seen as an American term on the European side of the Atlantic. Usually people just use "housewife", if referring to a stay-at-home married woman. There are no commonly used terms for other stay-at-home people, male or female.

Even if academically and for political correctness it makes sense to use the term "homemaker", it is nevertheless not a common term in the UK and Ireland.

If editors wish to include a diatribe on the social backwardness of the UK and Ireland mostly still only using the term "housewife", well and good. But the term needs introduced in the first line, and dealt with.

zoney ♣ talk 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur totally with Zoney's comment (though wonder how long this will continue to be the case!) Hogyn Lleol 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have changed the section to clarify that it is an American term. I established this to myself by doing google searches limited to UK or US pages, but added a citation to a less WP:NOR source. I have also clarified that it refers to two highly overlapping, but slightly different concepts. Kevinpet (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This clarification regarding this American term appears to have been lost in the aftermath of a reconstruction of the article following a brief redirect of the article to housewife on April 20th 2009, and consequent disappearance of the previous text. The result is that the article seems rather US-centric again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the economics section, it is still stated that:

A stay at home mom in the United States in the year 2006 could earn the equivalent of US $134,121, if paid for all of her work, according to a study by Salary.com [1].

However, the link given is now inactive. In light of there not being a source for this assertation, it should probably be removed from the article until we find a reputable source.

The following link might suffice ...

http://swz.salary.com/momsalarywizard/htmls/mswl_momcenter.html Hogyn Lleol 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or better still, this link ...

http://www.salary.com/careers/layoutscripts/crel_display.asp?tab=cre&cat=Cat10&ser=Ser253&part=Par622 Hogyn Lleol 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have to say that is bollocks. If a "homemaker" decided to be paid for all her work, the price would drop, given the sheer number of "homemakers".

Also, do we really need a full list of "skills" that the homemaker can do? I don't understand this constant need to justify how hard housewives work. Yes, it's a 24 hour job for a while, but after the child reaches a certain age the excuses start to wear. Get back into work - or stop trying to justify yourself! 89.213.25.50 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 I'm wondering what exactly you do that makes you feel that a comment like that is justified.  It is more of a "9 to 5" job than the commuters on the road at four o'clock everyday.  Some people work hard in what they do and others don't.  I don't think generalizations or people's personal judgments should rule how articles are edited.

So would a fully employed single person not count as a homemaker too? Lance Tyrell 2.102.74.246 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the sentence saying that 'househusband' was a tautological term (the word husband having its roots in a word meaning house, apparently) since this isn't the case in modern English usage and is irrelevant to the article. Fauxvegan 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of this information is cited and really seems like someone just giving their opinion about what it means for a woman to be a homemaker. Especially this part:

"Considering the above multi-faceted roles of women as wives & mothers & sisters in society, it really surprises me when a woman is asked what job she has, and her archetypal reply is "Oh, I don't work. I just sit at home. I'm a housewife." Housewife indeed! This "housewife" is actually the CEO, the general manager of the house. She ensures that everything runs efficiently & on time. She is one person who does things selflessly placing her family members needs before hers all the time. She is in fact the Home Maker."

This is written in first person - encyclopedias aren't written like this. And the entire section is uncited and really has no base in fact and no place in an encyclopedia. I motion to delete the entire section. --Nadsat

I question whether this article should really be using the term "homemaker" rather than "housewife". Homemaker is not used outside the US at all, and a google search shows 4.5 million hits on homemaker, 11.5 million hits on housewife, which seems to show that housewife is a much more popular term. The introduction says, "Finding a term to describe the modern man or woman who has left the paid workforce to care for their family is problematic. The term homemaker is used in preference to either housewife or househusband", none of which is true outside the US. Perhaps the article should be moved to "Homemakers in the United States". --Xyzzyplugh 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The term housewife is still dominant, as the TV show Desperate Housewives indicates. The simplest thing would be to give the Housewife article an independent existence which can readily done done. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a balanced and informative article. It would be nice to spice things up with some peer-reviewed article citations, though. I guess I'll try and find some, in between domestic duties. Alastair Haines 06:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that I need to be critical about this article, but the use of the word "traditional" is something I find needs to be justified much better than it is done here and not taken granted. As far I've understood (as a former history student) the housewife or homemaker concept is new, western, strongly middle class and born only after industrial revolution, in early 19th century. And this is not theory - it is well known fact among social historicians easily found in any good basic level text-book. The "traditionality" is well spread common myth, not a fact, as far as I've acquaint myself with this issue and wikipedia should be about facts not about myths. --193.210.145.13 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fact" among academics amounts to group consensus. It is not a fair academic who would pass off any such consensus as truth without admitting its hypothetical nature.

Musttask (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HOUSE VİFE NİN İNGİLZCE ANLAMI EMLAKÇIDIR...File:MUSTAFA KORU' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.177.165 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 April 2008

I came to this page hoping for some basic history on the term 'house work' and its origin. I'm very disappointed by the article and its lack of such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.112.8 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the section on the United States, a "2000 Census (table QT-P26)" is mentioned. I googled the table and found a reference to data drawn from one county in Pennsylvania. Also, even if I am wrong about the source, the numbers in the article just seem not to add up. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) it. The data seem to be valid, so I am making a small edit, and removing the tag. 17:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of these articles cover the same material. Neither provides enough sources to stand by themselves. They should be merged. Neelix (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. There's a lot of overlap and the two should be merged. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denastroje (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)I strongly disagree. The stay-at-home dad is a role that is becoming a more prominent part of our society and needs to be addressed separately.Reply[reply]

Disagree; the stay-at-home-dad is a notable subject and should not be merged into another article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that it's popular these days to merge "housewife" with "stay-at-home dad" as part of a new ideological movement. However, in the history of ideas, these are separate concepts. Merging these articles would discourage their future diversification as the distinct historic or ideological ideas they represent. I recommend, for ideological neutrality, that there be a "housewife", a "stay-at-home dad", and a "homemaker" article.

We do not all share eachother's ideology and world view. If you wish to limit the number of viewpoints presented, in all cases you and your audience will grow farther from understanding and tolerance.

Musttask (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there be a section on how housewives get fat? There seems to already be a heart disease sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.94.232 (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have redirected this page to the housewife article. Homemaker is not an international term, in most English speaking nations Housewife is used. Homemaker is purely American.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But most native speakers of English ARE American. :P They comprise the majority of the entire linguistic group. Saying that a term in English is "purely American" is like saying that a baguette is "purely French".

What point do you imagine yourself to be making? Because whatever it is, rest assured that you are not.

Obviously, someone else within the past 10 years had already figured this out, and that's why someone reverted your redirect a long time ago. 2601:195:C100:F220:4C66:EECC:15EA:C673 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, you're factually incorrect because the term has just as much currency within Canada, so in point of fact, it is not purely American in the first place. PhilHudson82 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this really need a boxout with "Examples of food"? Particularly when the pics are a burger and chips... In any case, isn't there a fair chance that if someone's got old enough to read Wikipedia, they may have encountered food at some point? Torak (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the image of the French maid really appropriate here? I can't imagine that she's actually a maid--not in five inch heels. She looks like she's dressed up for roleplaying, not housework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.90.53 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article makes repeated references to "househusband". This strikes me as odd for two reasons:

Firstly, I would not consider this a commonly used phrase (unlike e.g. "stay-at-home dad"). In fact, I would go as far as consider it an unencyclopedic neologism. (Not all neologisms are unencyclopedic.)

Secondly, "house" and "hus" are the same thing, with the older "hus" being preserved in "husband" but altered to "house" as a stand-alone noun. (In addition the expression is otherwise awkward and clumsy.)

I strongly suggest that this artificial construct be removed from the article.94.220.243.230 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should mention argument that "the husband being the only financial supporter makes the wife economically dependent on him" ignores, which is that the wife who has a job is financially dependent (usually) on her boss (unless she is the boss, which is highly unusual). --Daniel C. Boyer 19:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the sentence is meant to because of this dependency, the wife usually has less liberty about matters like divorce or husband's affiar outside marriage. -- Taku 19:40, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

This should be fleshed out then. Because the meaning it gives or appears to give is very different. The dependence on the boss should be acknowleged, or at least the POV that that exists should be acknowledged. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please do not update until the VfD deletion and move is complete - to preserve history from Housewife - Texture 19:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Move complete. I have readded Daniel and Taku's edits (I hope I did) from before the move. Daniel and Taku, please check to be sure I didn't miss anything. Jwrosenzweig 20:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This word is not used in British English. Could we make some mention of where it is used? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can we move some of the pieces on dependence / finance to another page or another section, and try to make this page a little more gender neutral? It sounds like a 1950s manual for young women! Mark Richards 08:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done my best to clean this up, encorporating the bits that you put back in. Mark Richards 08:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should discuss movement to have women paid for housework. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not women, its people, who the movement wants to have paid for housework. Mark Richards 22:56, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, my wife is a smart lady, if I asked her to pay me for my work as stay-at-home dad, I think she'd start asking me for rent. Hmmm, I wonder if we are avoiding tax by not declaring our home industry. ;) Alastair Haines 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to see a reference or link to some statistics that show that the number of homemakers has indeed been increasing recently. Ephemeral life 23:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, to the thoughtful editor who took the time to include this important point of clarification, thank you. As a homemaker myself, despite my advanced degree and my LLC, I need editors like yourself to remind me not to confuse my current chosen vocation as a "homemaker" with those in "home construction." Of course, you would have been of much more assistance to me when I was re-wiring all of the electrical outlets in my home, laying my tile floors, installing drywall and texturing my new walls, painting the exterior of my home, and redesigning my outdoor landscape. I am sure I had my moments when I, the homemaker, felt every bit the "home constructor", especially after having to complete jobs left undone by professionals.

But you are due more thanks from any of the likewise confused general contractors, who build houses from the foundation on up to the roof, and go around introducing themselves as "homemakers."

Thanks for setting us all straight. Where would I be without Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypoint99 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of the term homemaker, history of the stereotypical role of homemaker, history of evolution, history of popular culture, for example. What I was looking for in the article is along the lines of what is in the Smithsonian: http://www.sil.si.edu/ondisplay/making-homemaker/intro.htm Mulp (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article states that a home maker could be a social worker taking the role due to incapacity of the usual home maker. This does not make sense to me. Social work is a recognised profession requiring a university degree. A social worker may assist in arranging for domestic assistance but is unlikely to perform that work except perhaps, in their own home. Does the author mean a domestic worker? by 60.225.160.159; 15 Jan. 2014

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Homemaking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204011627/http://www.essex.ac.uk:80/Sociology/people/staff/pahl.shtm to http://www.essex.ac.uk/Sociology/people/staff/pahl.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since childless stay-at-home husbands do exists in todays world, we should at least mention them in this article is some way. Not every stay-at-home husband take care of kids. We came point out how (mostly) only wives took the role as homemakers in the past with househusbands being views as "unemployed" or "lay-a-bouts" even they did so by a mutually agreed upon choice by husband and wife and how such homemaking husbands are viewed in the modern era. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, working on a new topic for Homemaking from a Divison of Labor/Marriage Roles Perspective. As of now, I have divided my work and research into 3 sections: 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries.

Wellcaffeinated109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The contents of this section are effectively a 3-paragraph essay promoting the position that homemakers in industrialized nations must utilise "mechanical inventions " that "inventors" have "invented" to reduce labour in the "highly complex industrial world " due to the lack of availability of"manual labour" in those countries, and that homemakers "should purchase" as many of such tools as possible. The quality of the English used for this section is very poor.

Bottom line: the material in this section consists entirely of opinion, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Firejuggler86 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The seems to be a very rare nonceword which nobody is going to understand.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear writer,

Homemaking seems in your article a rare business. I think that it is the managing of any organization to keep the internal structure "sound and alive". Strange remark???

Regards,

J.P. Clifford 85.149.24.135 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HomeMakerär ett svenskt proptech-bolag (property technology) och grundades 2015, med syftet att digitalisera fastighets- och byggbranschen. Med fler än 60 kunder i Skandinavien, fler än 1000 utförda projekt och 45 000 bostäder i systemen är den en av branschledarna inom tillvals- och eftermarknadshantering. Företaget erbjuder en digitaliserad kundresa, från kundens köpintresse till ärendehantering, med lösningar som nyttjas av bostadsköpare, bostadsutvecklare/projektutvecklare, totalentreprenörer och fastighetsägare/förvaltare.

Idag ingår HomeMaker i Hydda Group, en koncern som samlar proptechbolag med tjänster riktade mot fastighetsbranschen. Tillsammans med Parkando, digitala parkeringslösningar, och Elbilio, mobiliteslösningar, erbjuds fastighetsägare och fastighetsutvecklare en bredare portfölj av digitala lösningar.

https://homemaker.io/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.255.245.26 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many (most?) fundamentalist Christians consider that there are biblically different roles for men and women and that the woman's role is to be a housewife / homemaker whilst the man's role is to work to 'provide for his family". This is not mentioned at all. 31.51.14.209 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source for this statement you can add something about it yourself.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]