Traditional gender roles and division of labor have existed since the beginning of human civilization. The development of technology, war, and colonialism conquest expeditions stressed these roles and expectations, where women supported or needed to manage the household (Kay, 2012). Housewifization is the term used when such support and labor done by women is minimized by categorizing it as ‘housework’ and their efforts are not taken into account in statistical data collection and censuses (Mies, 1982).
Framing & Perspectives
In her essay about lacemakers in Narsapur, India, German Marxist Maria Mies coined the term ‘housewifization’ as the process by which women are socially defined as housewives, depending on the income of their husbands for their sustenance, irrespective of whether they are de facto housewives or not (Mies, 1982). She noticed that the Indian housewives picked up the craft of lace-making after several families lost their primary source of livelihood – farming (Prügl, 1996). To help their ‘breadwinner’ husbands with resources, these women took up lace-making to earn extra money. However, as these women were considered ‘just housewives’ and not skilled laborers working in a cottage industry, their wages were less than those of the average cottage industry worker. Many of these women were unmarried young women expected to know skills such as sewing and crocheting before marriage. Thus, when they took up lace-making, it was not considered a job but something inevitable that they could do to pass the time (Mies, 1996).
However, women’s subordination extended beyond lace. The work involved with running a household is likewise being undermined by Housewifization. Capitalism would not count the labor of a housewife similar to a standard factory or blue-collar worker, thus ignoring what goes into managing a household, and ignoring the costs a housewife saves by being a live-in maid, cook, and nanny (Vertommen, 2025). To some, the labors of women, and thus their housewifization, are a ‘free good’ (Mies, 1996). Indeed, while the men went on wars and conquests, the ‘free goods’ of many women back home were what kept their families alive (Kay, 2012). In a way, the housewifization of women was essential for the proletarian man, as calling the money women earned an income would minimize the earnings of the family breadwinner, i.e., the man. Still today, the housewifization of women workers exists in many countries. For example, in Brazil, many housewives are essential workers for manufacturing but are paid subminimum wages (Prügl, 1996). In Pakistan, many housewives are homemakers who, while always expected to put their duties as wives and mothers first, do not receive any help from their husbands or other relatives (Prügl, 1996).
Relevance
The TV show franchise ‘Real Housewives of …’ gives an example of capitalization of women and unpaid housework. The popular American TV show has spanned multiple spin-offs and seasons since its beginnings in the early 2000s. While the producers of such shows make millions of dollars, the stars of the reality show, portraying the Housewives, earn between $10.000 and $100.000. These women who become popular household names are also bound by non-disclosure agreements with the network, discouraging them from creating their own brands for multiple streams of income (Hearn, 2016).
It is more common to see the minimization of housework and housewives in daily life, where many of these women all over the world go unheard and underappreciated. However, we have to remember that without the continuous support of these women, we may not have reached where we are today.
Keywords: Traditional Gender Roles, Domestic And Reproductive Labor, Misogyny, Sexism, Feminism, Labor Rights, Labor Invisibilization, Unpaid Care Work
Connected terms: “Toxic” Masculinity, Gender-Based Violence, Bodily Autonomy, Waves of Classical Feminisms, Reproductive Rights, Classical Feminisms, Sexism, Benevolent Sexism
References
Hearn, A. (2016). Witches and bitches: Reality television, housewifization and the new hidden abode of production. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549416640553
Kay, J. (2012, December 11). Colonization and housewifization – Maria Mies. libcom.org. https://libcom.org/article/colonization-and-housewifization-maria-mies
Matta, S. H. S. (2023, November 10). Dalit Lacemakers of Narsapuram: How they found Dignity and livelihood in 19th century. BehanBox. https://behanbox.com/2023/04/21/dalit-lacemakers-of-narsapuram-how-they-found-dignity-and-livelihood-in-19th-century/
Mies, M. (1996). Women and work in a sustainable society. The Ecumenical Review, 48(3), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6623.1996.tb03485
Mies, M. (2012). The Lace Makers of Narsapur: Indian Housewives Produce for the World Market. Spinifex. (Original work published 1982)
Prügl, E. (1996). Home-Based Workers: A Comparative Exploration of Mies’s Theory of Housewifization. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 17(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346904
Vertommen, S. Housewifization. Kohl. From https://kohljournal.press/housewifization
