Economics of Feminism

When my husband and I first met, he had never dated a woman who wouldn't expect him to do half of the cooking, cleaning, laundry, childcare, and be a breadwinner if they were married. He was 25 then, and these expectations were all he'd ever known from women.  Needless to say, he was very surprised when I said I'd rather he focused on making money and I'd take care of the house. He thought women like me were extinct.

This is really common from the modern, feminist woman- normative at the very least. But the economics of it don't make sense- so I wonder how these ideas have lasted this long.

Equal labor ignores the basic economic principle of specialization and division of labor, which is that when a person specializes in a certain task, the overall production of that product will be more efficient. 

This is the principle behind the assembly line, and why the standard of living became higher when each family ceased to have to make or produce everything it needed.  Heck, the human body itself does it. Can you imagine having to personally provide everything your family needs? Making soap, cultivating livestock and produce gardens- tooling your own leather; making your own tools and clothes, even building your own house. It was a sunup to sundown job which left little time for study/upward mobility. This is an enormous amount of work and it's far easier for a parent to get paid all day to do what he/she is good at, and then with the money they make, purchase everything they need from people who are good at producing other specific things.

So then why do Feminists think this economic principle somehow doesn't exist within families? In fact, some would require mothers to have to work out of the home if they had their way. If I spend every Tuesday doing laundry, I'm going to learn tricks and get really efficient at it. Same goes for grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, everything else. I'll become quicker, better; much more efficient, which frees up both myself and my husband. But if he has to spend time doing these things too, isn't it obvious both of us will develop less efficiency, plus he's going to spend less time making money? Or sleeping. And that's a no no.

I know lots of families with dual incomes. The women are sleep-deprived, stressed, busy, they miss their children, their children miss them, their houses aren't as clean as they would like and they spend a lot of their hard-earned money on daycare. And because they're so stressed and pressed for time, they end up going out to eat a lot, and any momma knows that taking a family out to eat costs a minimum of twice as much as cooking at home does, and that's if you go to a fast-food place. A nice restaurant, which is more likely where a momma is going to want to go after a stressful busy day, and in order not to poison her kids with McDonald's, is going to cost more like six times as much as cooking at home. And there are other reasons why moms who are co-breadwinners also spend more money- they buy more gas, buy work clothes, send dry-cleaning or laundry out, hire cleaning crews, and hire nannies, to name a few.

But if you cut out all those costs- essentially source them to the most qualified and affordable person possible, the momma, you save money in avoiding them, and free up your husband to work more. You plan balanced, affordable meals, you do laundry for cheap and easy in your own house, you watch your own kids, clean your own house, have time to use coupons, time to socialize with other mommas and find out where the best deals for things are- how to make your money last longer and in so doing you free your breadwinner up to focus more, to work more, and also to relax more, which then allows him to work and focus more the next day.

So if the ideal finished product is a family and household running smoothly while having the highest standard of living as possible, wouldn't it make sense to specialize and divide labor? My husband can stay at work late while the boss is in town because he knows that things are running fine at home without him. I can keep the house and kids and all that that entails running smoothly because I have the time necessary to get it all done. If he instead had daily household responsibilities and couldn't stay late, maybe he wouldn't keep his job. Maybe it would be given to someone who will. That's not to say that my husband doesn't have household responsibilities- just not daily ones. Besides being financially responsible for everything, he fixes broken things, maintains the cars and does our finances. And has time to play with the children which they so desperately need (while I go lie down for an hour- best of all possible worlds).

There's probably a super woman out there who can do it all, and many who currently do- I'm sure I could too if somebody made me. But something compensates- either she doesn't have enough time to sleep, time to herself or her marriage, or time for the kids, etc., and her husband is probably working just as hard as she is to boot which is definitely not efficient. If she doesn't think she is, I'd invite her to come spend a day with me and see how relaxed life could be despite everything getting done. And her husband might be interested in seeing how my husband can relax when he comes home- the work day is over. He plays with the kids, gives them baths, reads them books and spends those few hours with them each day instead of doing chores. And then when they're in bed, we actually have time to ourselves in a clean, orderly house because the chores are done. Literally the only chore that still needs to be done by the time he gets home is the dinner dishes which I don't ask him to do since he likely didn't have a break all day, while I more than likely watched a movie with the kids, hung out with other families at the park, or even took a two-hour nap.

Lest anyone frets that I'm put upon or working too hard, I'll add that he makes my life as easy as possible when he's with me- he carries the heavy stuff (including children), does the yucky jobs, opens doors, solves problems, and if I ever do leave any chores or cleaning undone in the evening or on the weekend, he'll take the mop from me, or the laundry basket, or the groceries and deals with it.

He also gives hours long massages, plans all of our dates, and is extremely generous, especially on my birthday, Christmas, and Mother's Day. And for those days for himself, says he'd rather not have any money spent. Some of these are done because he's a modern man- but some of them are just plain good husband moves. And I love it. And he loves coming home to cleanliness, peace, good food, and children who have been happy all day and are happy to see him. These different strengths are each beneficial to our household. This is good.

So why insist on trying to make everyone the same instead of dividing labor along natural, gender-sensible lines (this just makes things fun)? Any Feminists reading this: why do you want the genders to be more similar? I honestly ask because I haven't yet heard a reason other than they want others to want what they themselves want. It's like saying, "You're a woman, so you're free to want what you want, as long as it's what we think you should want." That's not really supporting women, and certainly not supporting freedom. It's the same line Feminists detested from men. Anything geared toward uplifting women should advocate for ability to make choices and should stay out of what those choices are. Even though I think it's not sensible to have a dual-income household, I certainly wouldn't want to control that.

But I know a few women in my family and among my friends who love working outside the home. They say it gives them much-needed time to feel creative, communicate and feel like an adult, and like they're contributing to society. But when we discuss it, something very interesting gets revealed that is always one of two things (or both); either they fear being a full-time mom because they're afraid they don't know how, or aren't good at it or won't do it right (or don't enjoy it because it's so difficult due to the way they try to do it), or because they believe they have something greater to contribute to the world in whatever occupational capacity they hold because they've been drinking the cool-aid that says they have to "achieve" something in life.

If the first; what does running from fears do? Do they ever go away when you run from them or do they remain always present behind you? Wouldn't you rather grit your teeth and try to figure it out?  Maybe you would, or maybe you think you'd still fail. If so, then society's goal of telling mothers they don't know how to do their job has been accomplished. But they're wrong. Every rational mother has within her the ability to succeed if she keeps trying.

If the second, and you believe your work will contribute to society in a unique way; I ask what societal contribution could possibly be larger than shaping new humans? Isn't that the most influential thing a person could ever do? It requires delayed gratification, and is at times a thankless job, but it is monumental in its effect on the world. You want to feel like you're contributing to the world? Raise an honest, kind child. BAM. Mission accomplished.

I'm not saying a woman shouldn't have time to herself, to feel like an adult, to be creative and hone her skills, crafts, etc. But that's what mom's night out, date night, school hours, weekends, and nap times are for. ;) Mothers need to do these things- but it's a false dilemma to think that they can only come through the opportunities working outside the home present. It's possible to have both- to find inventive ways to satisfy cravings for adult conversation, time to work on projects, time to hone skills and interests all while being a feminine, stay-at-home mother. In fact, I don't know a SAHM that doesn't have at least one avid interest she regularly invests time in. It's actually a pretty good life when you really think about it. I can have my cake and eat it too, all because I think feminine traits and goals are A-Okay!

Agree? Disagree? Holes in my arguments? Let's discuss! But let's avoid red herrings because there's no reason to digress.