Yes, a Woman’s Place Is in the Home—But so Is Her Husband’s

This is absolutely true! "The ideal should be for both husband and wife, father and mother, to be fully integrated in the domestic sphere."   

From Crisis

By Fiona Melton

If we can all acknowledge that mothers leaving their small children at daycare and working full-time outside the home is harmful for families, why do we hesitate to draw the same conclusion in regard to fathers?

In her most recent Crisis article, Breaking Up With Toxic Femininity, Ann Burns points out the hypocrisy of many “conservative” strains of anti-feminism: they fall prey to the same lie that many liberal feminists do, viewing women through a hypersexualized, pornographic lens. I agree with her main critique; conservatives cannot attempt to revive traditional values by glorifying displays of immodesty, indecency, and instantiating male lust as a virtue. 

Her article also brought up something that I have read and seen many Catholic thinkers and influencers espouse: “Motherhood is a full-time position—it’s higher than a career; it’s a vocation. Yes, some women must work, but we should not be telling women they can do it all. It’s a lie—a lie that wounds families.”

In full agreement, I can say telling women they can have it all, at least all at once, is a lie from Hell. Yet many Catholics and conservatives seem reticent to tell men the same thing. For many, it is taken as a fact of life that a man ought to have a career; after all, he is supposed to provide for his family.

If we can all acknowledge that mothers leaving their small children at daycare and working full-time outside the home is harmful for families, why do we hesitate to draw the same conclusion in regard to fathers? A husband is the head of his wife and, by extension, the head of his family. Why would it not be just as harmful for a husband to be away from his wife, for a father to be away from his children, for 40-plus hours a week? 

The hierarchical nature of marriage is written on our hearts through the natural law, it is instantiated by God in the creation accounts of Genesis, and it is beautifully described by St. Paul in Ephesians. Is it possible for a man to be the best husband and father, to lead his family well, if he is hardly ever at home? 

Some may argue that it is different for men because men and women are different. Therefore, it is more important for women to stay home with the children; their domain is the domestic sphere. A man’s role is to provide; his domain is the political and economic one. Certainly, it is more important for a mother to be at home with her children, especially when they are young, than for a father. This is biologically evident. But the ideal should be for both husband and wife, father and mother, to be fully integrated in the domestic sphere.      

Here I would like to reintroduce an old word, an old virtue, which has now been relegated to farmers: husbandry. For those who are familiar with the term, it immediately brings to mind animal husbandry, the science (or rather art, depending on who you ask) of breeding and caring for livestock. In its archaic use, however, husbandry was the male equivalent of housewifery. 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines this use of husbandry as “the administration and management of a household; domestic organization.” That sounds an awful lot like what many today believe is the singular role of women. But husbandry and housewifery were always meant to work together, hand in hand.

The very fact that men and women are different goes to show why it is so important for men to be at home with their families. A mother who is alone with her children for the majority of the week will inevitably have to attempt to play both mother and father for the extended period of time in which the father is absent. If a man is the head of his wife and family, how is he meant to lead them if he is never at home? 

If a manager at a company only showed up for a few hours a week, he would be an inadequate leader of his team. How can he instruct and guide when he is never there to see what is happening? Many anti-feminists blame feminism for taking women out of the home; but, due to the Industrial Revolution, men left the home far before women did. It is in women’s nature to follow the guidance and example of men; this is no different. 

A beautiful example of good husbandry comes from St. Louis Martin. St. Louis quit his work as a watchmaker to manage his wife’s lacemaking business. He recognized her talent and skill and supported her through good husbandry. He was the administrator and manager of his household. Through the home economy that they developed, Sts. Louis and Zélie were able to provide for and be present for each other and their children. 

They also provide married couples today with an example of what holy marriage and family life should ideally look like. St. Zélie is proof that the issue was never about whether women should be allowed to work; the issue is women being able to do work that serves the needs of their motherhood.

Burns correctly points out that in agrarian- and artisanal-based economies, women often worked in fibercrafts and similar industries to support their families while simultaneously being able to rear their children. It is a false dichotomy to say that a woman can either work or be a good mother. Mothers have always worked, but the way women work has changed. 

We need more work that serves the vocations of motherhood and fatherhood, not bad faith arguments that mothers should never work at all. This attitude is frequently displayed by prominent Catholic anti-feminist women who denounce women who hope to build a career. Yet these very women often have incredibly successful careers writing and speaking on their ideas. We can’t all be podcasters however, so we are going to have to work to build economies which primarily serve the needs of families, not the other way around. 

After the Industrial Revolution—and now during the ongoing Technological Revolution—men seem to be permanently displaced from the home. As husbands and fathers, they have a God-given duty to provide for their families; and our current model is designed so that men are often forced to work outside the home. I recognize that redeveloping the model of home economies that was possible in the time of Sts. Louis and Zélie is extraordinarily difficult. 

As Catholics, though, it is our duty to strive for the ideal, not merely what is currently in fashion or economically the easiest option. Perhaps it might look like a return to the land and traditional agrarian models; or perhaps a man could take advantage of technological advances and find a remote job. 

Catholic women are often told that if they work outside the home, even for financial reasons, they need to try harder to figure out how to stay home. Women are told that it is their duty to make it work because in order to be good mothers they should be at home with their children. If women are expected to find a way to “make it work,” then perhaps we should hold that same expectation for men. 

Men and women are not the same and mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. We need a revival of both husbandry and housewifery, not just the latter. We need good men at home—leading and loving their families. We need husbands and wives working together to provide for and raise their children. 

Pointing out the harm of women working full time at the expense of their children is only one part of the problem. We need men to return to the home too. Promoting housewifery without simultaneously promoting husbandry undermines the complementarity of the relationship between men and women. The home is where both men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers can best fulfill their vocations. All of us, men and women, need to work harder to achieve this ideal.