Apparently, there was a movement by the name of "Wages for Housework" in the mid 70's. The feminists' complaint? That women do a lot of work inside the home and this should be added to the GNP, used to pay off debt to the IMF/World Bank and all sorts of other hare-brained entitlement schemes.
Today, for men, marrying is a very dicy proposition. There can be any number of things demanded of you, Mr. Wage Slave. This wages for housework thing is very interesting - you are supposed to pay your wife maid wages, so does she pay you for the rent? Do you get to cut all the food she stuffs in her maw out of her fees? Can you fire her if she doesn't do the job to satisfaction? Oh wait, no you can't do any of that, you just pay up and shut up. And if you don't, the jackbooted thugs will just take your house and give it to her and force you into indentured servitude to pay for her lifestyle.
Wages for Housework
Pop-feminists are demanding laws requiring men to pay their wives housewife wages: "In the United Kingdom and other countries, there is a movement, 'Wages for Housework,' which advocates the idea that the husband should pay the wife for her services within the house -- especially if she works fulltime at home, doing the child rearing and cooking, cleaning, etc." (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 383)
Thus, pop-feminist complaints against male housekeeping habits have nothing to do with the work itself, but with manufacturing excuses to force men to subsidize women even more than they already do. Rather than granting credibility to their unwarranted complaints, we should suggest they find out why men marry.
Do men marry for housekeeping services? Unlikely. A once a week maid service could be cheaper and more convenient. Do men marry for sex? No. As Warren Farrell points out, marriage means infrequent and poorer quality sex for men. (Why Men Are The Way They Are, Berkley edition/September 1988, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., pp 171 - 172) A twice a week whore would probably be more satisfying and cheaper.
Essentially, pop-feminists are trying to reduce women to the role of subsidized whores and housekeepers. If they succeed, men might be better off boycotting marriage.
But men already pay their housewives something more valuable than money -- time. Women who don't have a job outside the home have time to do things. Time to read, study, think, create, compose music, invent, and build and reshape the world. Instead, many spend six hours a day doing a job that "can be capably handled by an eight-year-old child." (The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, pp 245)
Women have never had it so good. That doesn't mean their lives cannot be better. But turning them into subsidized housekeepers and whores with "wages for wives" is not the way to do it.
And making their lives better certainly doesn't mean taking from the men's pockets and subsidizing women in everything they do.