For many women, becoming a housewife is no longer a simple yes-no choice.

Housewife: a married woman who manages her own household, especially as her primary activity.

It sounds so simple. So why is this seemingly straightforward concept so fraught with controversy? Perhaps because it is linked to some of the foundations of contemporary society, not least gender equality, sexism, the changing nature of the modern family, education and the welfare state.

Even the word ‘housewife’ is reviled by most feminists, since it defines the role and occupation of a woman principally in terms of her relation to a man – hence the spread of the more PC and gender-neutral “homemaker”. Whilst the semantics of looking after the home and children may change, one thing won’t: wherever there is a homemaker, there is a breadwinner.

Thankfully, nowadays, becoming a housewife is not an inherent part of being a woman. It is no longer the natural progression of a woman’s life which would follow on from marriage and motherhood. In contemporary society there is a choice, and it should be a much the woman’s choice as it is her masculine counterpart’s.

An important shift in culture means that there is now less of a taboo around men prepared to become “househusbands” and women who are household “breadwinners”. However, attitudes do not necessarily translate into social structure. In 2009 only 6.3% of economically inactive men were so because they looked after the home or family, whilst this was true of 43.5% of economically inactive females. Needless to say, society and the current welfare system favour women abandoning their day job in favour of family life.

Running a household with children is no mean feat.; it’s hard work that can be boring, monotonous and tiring. Yet the rewards – watching your children grow up, and providing them with all the care and attention they need, can be priceless. Sacrificing one pay packet for the chance to care for children first-hand is a choice that many parents are willing to make. Besides, caring for children at home saves on nursery bills, nannies and other childcare expenses. Some families even consider it to be better value for one of the parents to give up their jobs and look after children from home. But the amount of fulfilment a person gets from being a homemaker depends on the individual. So rather than engaging in the essentially fruitless debate over whether being a homemaker is a job in itself, we should strive at all costs to protect the right to choose, and to change one’s mind.

The issue of remuneration for a parent deciding to stay at home becomes more complicated when it is not the other half that is paying. As I said, wherever there is a homemaker there is a breadwinner, whether this is the traditional husband figure, the employer or the state.

To achieve true gender equality, we must give childcare benefits to men as well as women.

The current system of maternity leave and benefits in the UK means that women can choose to be homemakers for the first year after their child’s birth and receive money for this. Significantly, there are plans to extend these benefits to men. I say significantly because it is becoming increasingly clear that benefits aimed only at women, especially if they are at the employer’s expense, simply make young women unattractive potential employees.

Not only do employers often have to fund their leave, but this money actually encourages them to stay out of work for longer. The current system means that young women are workers with strings attached. In a truly egalitarian system, men would have the same rights to leave work to look after children, and as such would also “benefit” from these strings. Clearly, no welfare provision that is gender-biased can be truly “beneficial” to the whole of society and the economy.

Most countries do offer some form of welfare provision for parents, in the form of tax credits, payments and other bonuses, particularly if the parent(s) in questions don’t work. But how generous should these be? If looking after a child really is “priceless”, then should the government be providing a house for mothers and paying them a salary to stay at home? Are benefits which actively discourage women from working by providing them with welfare that far outweighs the advantages of work too generous? Whilst the many a contemporary stay-at-home mum might choose this role, is it always for the right reasons?

It does seem absurd that the decision to have a child can be based upon the fact that with it comes an entitlement to a council house or flat and benefits. In modern Britain, motherhood (rather than, say, education, a career, intellectual and financial independence and personal development) has, ironically, become a quick and easy form of emancipation for many young women.

There is no simple answer to the homemaker question. Those who chose the lifestyle believe they are carrying out an invaluable task, rearing children, making a house into home. On the other hand, many households manage even though both parents work.

Above all it is the freedom of choice that should be protected. Either parent should be able to decide to stay at home and look after their children if they so wish. And state welfare should continue to help those who do. However, it seems important that the decision to have children, as well as the decision to stay at home, should also be an unselfish choice, rather than a means to an end. The state should help people in the decisions they make with regards to homemaking, not push people into one decision or other with preferential welfare. Every role in a society has its rewards and sacrifices, and accepting these, warts and all, is just part of life.