Homeward Bound, the new domesticity – book cover imageI want Homeward Bound, Emily Matchar’s book about what she calls the new domesticity, to become the feminist rallying point of the under-40 generations. I want it to light a fire under the asses of women. I want it to spark a mass consciousness-raising about the importance of feminism and I want it to force us to look at our decisions not only in the context of our own, personal experience but in the context of our collective role in our greater society. Or, at the very least, I want it to start a conversation.

Matchar raised her feminist concerns about the trend of white, middle-class, educated women retreating from the workforce in the name of domestic contentment (and, in the fairly extreme cases she focuses on, retreating from roles in more general societal institutions like schools, mainstream medicine and commerce). The book certainly isn’t entirely about the most extreme practitioners of new domesticity – the hardcore homesteaders and attachment parents – but the group’s presence in the book is so salient that my reaction to the book as a crafter and crafts professional has been almost entirely overshadowed by my reaction to the book as a parent, specifically as a mother.

So that’s where I’ve been coming from when I write about the book. In a general way, I’ve written and talked and ranted and thought about the harsh reality underlying a lot of the shiny-happy-sell-on-Etsy crafty life – topics related to the difference between a job and a hobby, the challenges of earning a living wage from DIY pursuits, pricing concerns, time management, etc. So the book was not brain candy to me because of its coverage of those topics. It was brain candy to me because of the very clear larger societal issues in play that had been hovering at the periphery of my mind for a long time but didn’t come into focus until I read the book. So my final post in response to it is about the feminist implications I see in the trend Matchar outlined concerning the most extreme practitioners of new domesticity.

First, I want to say that I don’t think any individual family’s decision to have a parent stay home with kids is inherently antifeminist, even when that parent is almost always a woman (Matchar cited that though more men are stay-at-home parents these days, they still only comprise about 3% of stay-at-home parents). There are a lot of very practical things families consider when making decisions about lifestyle, income and childcare, some of which are not explicitly related to the gender of the parents. Matchar makes the very valid point that America is not a very good place to be a working parent. Appalling parental-leave and childcare systems force many people to choose between their kids and their career in a way that people in most other developed nations aren’t. That’s a very big deal, and it’s best not to forget it. (It’s also best not to forget that the state of American support systems for families is a feminist issue. And let’s also remember that the fact that men by and large still make more money than women for equivalent work is a societal problem related to sexism that trickles down into individual family decisions – the lower salary is the sensible choice when deciding which income to jettison.)

That said, I keep coming back to one major way an individual family’s decision for a mother to stay home can be very much an antifeminist choice in a manner that is utterly unrelated to institutional and societal sexism: the way many of the women interviewed by Matchar describe their decision as being based on a woman’s “natural” role as nurturer. They say that women are naturally nurturing – because of hormones! it’s science! – and so they’re following their truest nature by focusing all of their energy on parenting and homemaking. This way of thinking is part of why their habit of calling their brand of parenting “natural” is so offensive.

(I’ll again play the adoptive-parent card by saying SERIOUSLY? I’m not actually personally offended by the assertion that breastfeeding hormones make women natural nurturers in ways that differentiate their nurturing ability from, say, fathers – the assertion is simply too absurd to get caught in my feel-offended-by-this filter. But I know a hell of a lot of women who suffered mightily because they had trouble breastfeeding, and whose suffering was dramatically augmented by this kind of thinking. I never even tried to breastfeed, and I challenge any “natural” mother to come spend a week at my house and tell me my kid isn’t nurtured by me and by my husband, or that he’s not “attached” to us. The offense I take at the word “natural” being used in any way related to one particular set of beliefs is on the part of all human beings. Which makes it a fairly intense offense, actually. Not a personal one, but a humanitarian one. And a feminist one.)

These same “natural mothers” in the book say that their mothers, as feminists, fought for their freedom to choose to do whatever they wanted – be it to pursue a powerful career or stay home with their kids. And that’s true, to an extent. But it’s not true to the full extent, because I’ll be damned if feminism is in any way about celebrating gender essentialism and the “nature” of women to stay home.

When I read a draft of this post to my husband, he pointed out that I’m making a fairly subtle claim here, and that people might miss it. So I’ll state it very bluntly: It’s cool that people manage their domestic affairs according to what makes the most sense for their family. I’m all over that. However, when those decisions are based on beliefs or judgments about people outside that family – say, about all women everywhere – that’s not okay. When a woman asserts that her decision to stay home is informed in part or in full by her belief that she, as a woman, is a “natural” nurturer and thus “naturally” suited to devoting her time, energy and education solely to her domestic life, she’s being antifeminist. When she says she’s making a feminist decision, she’s wrong. In fact, she’s being sexist.

Let’s play this out to its logical conclusion: If an individual woman justifies her decision to stay home by invoking her belief that she, as a woman, is a natural nurturer, then she will surely raise her daughters to squelch their outside interests so they can focus on domestic, nurturing skills. And so obviously her daughters should receive a different sort of education than her sons. I mean, her sons, being of the gender that’s not naturally inclined to nurture, must be the ones to make the world go ’round outside of their eventual family home. So they must be educated to pursue those kinds of interests. But girls will only need to know how to grow into women who will mind the home life, and at the most extreme will need to be able to home-educate their own children. So they should be raised believing they can be mothers. And maybe, in the context of homeschooling, teachers. And in the context of retreating from mainstream medicine, nurses.

Wait. Isn’t that what women were told in the ’50s (aside from the anti-science part)? That they could be mothers or nurses or teachers or secretaries? Weren’t they told their delicate female nature made them suited best for domestic life and also unsuited to career life outside the home?

Wasn’t a whole women’s rights movement sparked by that intense sexism?

Yes, it was.

And so I have a question for “natural” mothers.

Dear “natural” mothers,

I have no doubt you want the absolute very best for your children, and so my question is specifically about your sons and your daughters: What do you want for your sons and your daughters? And is it the same for your sons and your daughters?

Because here’s the thing, “natural” mother. If you’ve chosen to focus all of your time and energy and education on your home and family because – in small or large part – you feel that as a woman this is what you’re naturally suited to do, then your answer to my question about your sons and daughters must no doubt involve a desire for your daughters to eventually fulfill their truest natural potential as grown women by staying home and dedicating all their time and energy and education to their own homes and families. So I’m sure you’re not raising your daughters to believe they can be and do anything they want; that they can pursue any interest they have. To do that would make them feel so conflicted about their nature, amiright?

Please confirm or deny.


The contemporary resurgence in the perceived pressure on women to stay home, as highlighted in Homeward Bound, has been plaguing me. The pressure isn’t coming from a sexist society like it was in the ’50s and ’60s. This time around it’s coming from sexist women who, by saying their decisions are “natural” and “feminist”, are undoing all the progress our mothers achieved in the ’70s.

This is the thing about Homeward Bound that chafed me the most. Yes, DIY can be profoundly empowering. But when taken to an extreme, like all extremism, it can also be stifling, toxic, short-sighted and unfair.

My hope is that all women with even a slight inclination toward DIY will read the book, and take to heart the concerns Matchar outlines very explicitly in the last several pages. They are important, valid concerns related to the current and future status of feminism – which means that they affect each and every one of us.

(I’m absolutely desperate to know if Matchar spoke with any of the partners of the “natural” mothers she interviewed. Whether men or women, I’m dying to know if they are as passionate about the nurturing divide as their wives, or if they’re just going along with it but have their doubts.)

So thus ends my series of posts about this book. It really made me think about a lot of things both personally and in the grander scope of life. Thanks for joining me on this adventure, and for sharing your own responses. Keep ’em coming!

[box type=”shadow”]

More Posts in Response to Homeward Bound


Huge high-five to Haley Pierson-Cox for reading a draft of this post and suggesting some very solid ways for me to improve it.

PS Tonight’s the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. It’s a happy time. To my Jewish readers, L’Shana Tova.

17 responses to “The Feminist Factor: Yet More on Homeward Bound, by Emily Matchar”

  1. Tara Swiger Avatar

    You are on fire!
    Surrounded as I am by stay-at-home moms (here, it’s not “nature”, it’s social + economic expectations that seem to drive the decision. Definitely a feminist issue!), I have to say…I think you’re making a pretty big jump to your conclusion. None of the nurturing, attachment mamas I know think that it’s in the nature of ALL women to be the nurturing type, only that it’s in theirs. Thus, their daughters might *not* be mothers, or stay at home moms, and they are encouraged to do their own thing (that’s the excuse for so many homeschoolers – school is stifling their individualism!). So yes, there might be a subset of this population raising mini-homemakers, but I wouldn’t presume it’s the majority.

    What I find much more troubling is the model that it’s providing to the sons. (I have 4 little brothers, so I’m always looking at feminism from the next-generation-of-men angle). What expectations will they have of their partners?

    I’ve loved reading all of this! Thanks so much sharing it and opening it up for discussion!

    1. Kim Werker Avatar

      Yes, I think for the most part (by which I mean the vast, vast majority), women who are choosing to go hardcore domestic are indeed doing it because it’s what they want to do and feel suited to do on a personal level. It’s the few who declare that *women* are suited to do this because we are *women* that I have trouble with. Because that’s not just a personal feeling informing a personal decision, that’s an assertion about half the population. And though I’m sure it’s not intended to be so, it’s also a judgment about women who make choices that are not in line with that declared “nature”.

      As I said, this is an extreme way of thinking, and by the nature of “extreme” (see what I did there?) that means it’s not the way *most* people are thinking and acting.

      If I weren’t a white, educated, middle-class woman, I might not get so riled up about this very small group of people. But I am a white, educated, middle-class woman, and so I actually encounter this way of thinking occasionally, amongst peers. It’s not abstract to me, it’s real life. And this particular aspect of real-life makes me intensely uncomfortable.

      I’d really love it, actually, if this conversation broadened to include class and necessity. It’s a very, very different thing to adopt a DIY sensibility out of necessity than it is out of choice. And it’s a very different thing to live frugally empowered by DIY skills than it is to live frugally because you think other people are doing it wrong.

      1. Tara Swiger Avatar

        Yes! The fact this book focuses on the DIY movement among white, upper-middle-class urban women (at least, from what I can tell) initially disappointed me.
        I was hoping to read (I guess I still am hoping!) something that looks at how the DIY aesthetic has moved FROM necessity to a status symbol.
        And I’d like to know if my place in the DIY movement (raised by parents who STILL garden + can + make, after starting as necessity and moving towards fulfilling) is just an outlier, or a real part of it. In other words, is there a contingency of women and men who DIY because it’s a part of their culture (instead of co-opting it as a cultural currency)?

        And furthermore, how does the rise of blogging and Pinterest affect the new cultural norm that a “good” mom is expected to throw lavish parties, set a beautiful table and have the most photographic meals?

        I want to read a book(s) about all of this!

        1. Kim Werker Avatar

          The book definitely covers blogging. A lot. And its major role in the new domesticity.
          Written with my thumbs, “aided” by autocorrect. https://www.kimwerker.com

    2. Vanessa Avatar

      Tara, I also think about things from a “what does this mean to men?” point of view. I feel like this pattern of thinking (“all women are …”) also short changes men. It means that any man who is is defective/unnatural/wrong. Or women who aren’t are defective/unnatural/wrong. It cuts both genders short and doesn’t allow for fluidity.

      My husband Paul is quite the tough former Marine when he wants to be. But he’s also very gentle and nurturing. People often comment about that dichotomy as if it’s something unusual and it drives me up a wall. Why can’t he be tough as nails but also gentle? I don’t think that’s fair to men either.

      1. Vanessa Avatar

        I love that Disqus put in a fake ending HTML tag.

  2. Vanessa Avatar

    YES! Yes yes yes! I think we sort of spoke about this on Twitter but I’ll say it again. By saying that ALL women are naturally whatever, you’re automatically taking that adjective away from men. And that’s not cool either! If you say that all women are naturally nurturers, that’s how as a larger human society, we get men who aren’t in touch with their emotions and become very cut off from a large part of being human. It also means that women aren’t maternally inclined are somehow defective and that’s not productive either.

  3. Meghan MB Avatar
    Meghan MB

    THANK YOU. I am still reading the book, and so haven’t read your other posts in reaction, but this has been my reaction as well! My other main reaction is opting out=SELFISH, and we should work our asses off to improve the social structures and workplaces around us, rather than just bailing and leaving people who can’t afford to bail up a creek.

    I just blogged about some of the mother stuff today, particularly the identification as feminists by the “natural” mothers, and my own defensiveness about not wanting to be perceived as a stay-at-home-mother when I’m out and about with my 6-mo son during the day (I work from home, in publishing, in a field that’s been a telecommute/freelance field for decades, not one that’s sprung up lately as a Tupperware job), because I am damn proud of being a working mother.

    Sorry to write a mini blog post in the comments, but I am just so glad to read yours, and so glad to have someone call shenanigans on what Matchar calls — kindly and generously, I think — “cultural feminists”.

  4. Meghan Avatar

    THANK YOU. I am still reading the book, and so haven’t read your other posts in reaction, but this has been my reaction as well! My other main reaction is opting out=SELFISH, and we should work our asses off to improve the social structures and workplaces around us, rather than just bailing and leaving people who can’t afford to bail up a creek.

    I just blogged about some of the mother stuff today, particularly the identification as feminists by the “natural” mothers, and my own defensiveness about not wanting to be perceived as a stay-at-home-mother when I’m out and about with my 6-mo son during the day (I work from home, in publishing, in a field that’s been a telecommute/freelance field for decades, not one that’s sprung up lately as a Tupperware job), because I am damn proud of being a working mother.

    Sorry to write a mini blog post in the comments, but I am just so glad to read yours, and so glad to have someone call shenanigans on what Matchar calls — kindly and generously, I think — “cultural feminists”.

    1. Kim Werker Avatar

      As someone who also works from home in publishing (etc.), I totally hear you. (I also may have lied to the mail carrier earlier in the week when I answered the door in my bathrobe at 11am; I told him I was home sick. Naturally, I’m home every day. I was just on such a work spree I hadn’t taken the time to shower yet.) Anyway.

      Yes. I looked through your Tumblr for you post but couldn’t find it. Would you share the link? I’d love to read it!

      1. Meghan Avatar

        Whoops. So, I just now read this reply, and I’d love to say it’s because I’ve been so busy and important WORKING that I didn’t have time to play on the internet, but it’s actually mostly because I didn’t set the comment up to email me any replies and I’m lame, so. There you have it. Anyway, the post is here, and it’s sadly also my most recent post, which *is* partly to do with being busy working, at least, ha.


        1. Meghan Avatar

          Aaaaaand I’m not saying writing blog posts is playing on the internet and not real work. For reals. It’s just not the job *I* get paid for, so it’s not billable for me and *is* what I do to play. Just in case that wasn’t clear.

  5. Jessica Powers Avatar
    Jessica Powers

    Just read this series of yours last week and it’s really been at the back of my mind. We’re looking at starting our family and it’s amazing to me being from the US and living now in NZ the difference in expectations around family and women’s roles. Here it does seem expected that you’ll stay home with baby – which is awesome as I’d love to do that, and hey, we might be able to manage it here – but it comes from a very old-school view of the female’s place in society which has mother’s stating of their daughters, ‘what is she waiting for, she’s already 27!’. Not kidding – I used to hear that from women about their daughters regularly, and also get berated by total strangers that my eggs were rotting and I was not doing my life right, basically.

    Whereas in the US I never wanted to admit that I’d love to have a wee farm and pickle and preserve fruits and vege, because I didn’t want to be viewed as anti-feminist, and there are plenty who’d say I was. (Sure, there are fewer now, thank you internet, but as some of your readers state, now the expectations about the beautiful homestead life would be what I’d have to fight. It’s not all a Norman Rockwell painting, after all.) Here what I want to do is common enough not to stand out. However, acting as if that is all well and good due to the ‘natural’ tendencies of women freaks me out. Not far from that line of thinking is a deeply anti-choice one that would state something along the lines of ‘women’s bodies are meant to make babies, therefore a choice not to do so is unnatural’. That sounds my alarms. Whether the people who might go there are writing legislation reflecting that belief, or spouting off at the mouth about it and making other women feel less than empowered to make the choices that are right for them.

    I think you’ve hit it on the head pointing out that in context, all things can be good and appropriate for the people choosing them, but making blanket statements about those choices being part of the natural order of the world takes away the power of choice that, to me, is key to feminism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x