Talk:Homemaking

message: 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)
thread_title: "Page not available!"

message: 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)
thread_title: Formal Education

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The term "housewife" 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Housewife Salary

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal

message: 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)
thread_title: Homemaker vs. Housewife

message: 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)
thread_title: Sauces and sources

message: 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)
thread_title: History and Tradition

message: 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)
thread_title: Verification and sources

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Stay-at-home dad]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge is Clearly Biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unnecessary example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  French maid image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  househusband? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Homemaker" not to be confused as "Home Construction"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Homemaking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Male homemakers (e.g. househusbands) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Homemaking and Marriage: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of section "Household Tools" 

message: The seems to be a very rare nonceword which nobody is going to understand.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Soliton

message: 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)
thread_title:  Homemaking? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HomeMaker Group 

message: In its current form, it is not clear how the subject of Housekeeping is exclusive or different than the subject at Homemaking. The latter almost seems as though a few sections were taken from the former and reworded in a way to make the sections look like a distinct topic. In addition, both of these articles have various redirects that target then which could reasonably target either article. It just seems like unnecessary confusion to have two article for subject with such a blurry, almost nonexistent distinction between them. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Housekeeping]] into [[Homemaking]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religious / Christian fundamentalist aspect