First step, I suggest, is to reclaim the title “Homemaker.” The retronym “stay-at-home mom” just reeks of aberration, as if a “real” mom goes to work while a stay-at-home mom polishes her backhand. After all, the go-to-work mom has all the “mom” responsibilities and “earns a living.” That makes the SAHM a slackerette.

Occasionally, a man and a woman have the unheard-of brilliance to specialize, with one as breadwinner and the other as the homemaker. They support each other. They work in a complementary way. She is not a “stay-at-home” mom, and he is not a “go-to-work” dad. They are partners, and they should start out as semantic equals if we are to take them equally seriously.

Meanwhile, I wonder about those play-dates. Who is watching the other children? Other SAHMs, or nannies? There is a powerful synergy in the former. Friendships are made, social webs are woven, communities are formed. That’s why social norms matter. Whatever it may take a village to do, it takes a critical mass of homemakers to make a village.

Is it “fair” that this lot falls to women? Not really, but is it fair that men, mostly (it should be exclusively IMO), die in war? Fairness is certainly something to aim for, but specialization is a really powerful plus-sum strategy. It’s ok for men to feel a duty (remember “duty”?) to provide and women a duty to enable. We leave a lot on the table when we don’t put a home cooked meal there.

Anyway, my hat is off to the homemakers. Remember hats?