Don’t forget feminism’s role in this as well. The traditional working father/stay at home mother arrangement has been deemed oppressive and degrading to women.
I'm pretty sure the role of feminism in all this is, "women can do whatever the hell they want, if they wanna be a SAHM, that's fine, and if they don't, that's fine, too."
Modern feminism does not think in terms of freedom but in terms of ideological dogma: women should behave in certain ways to shake of the shackles put on them by the patriarchy. Women who consciously choose to stay at home are seen as deluded victims, not as free agents of their own choice. Take your pick of the wealth of articles written on the subject...
Feminism doesn’t see our child-rearing, much less all that goes with it, as valuable. There is no glory, no glass ceiling in poo-wiping, or mac and cheese cooking, or alphabet-teaching. There isn’t even value in breastfeeding, which you’d think would be vaunted in feminist circles for using the female body for something only women can do. Alas, it’s just a ball-and-chain, as Huffington Post says: “Breastfeeding has become the last legitimate ‘women’s work’ — the only argument remaining for a gendered division of labor that argues that women’s place is at home with the children.”
...
...we should be doing what we want to do, and what we want to do is not take care of someone else. How could we possibly wa ...nt that? The idea of our happiness is absurd to mainstream feminism.*
...
(Simone de Beauvoir) “No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
...
(Sarrah le Marquand) “Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed"
Consider what happens if you are in an abusive relationship, or a relationship that turns abusive, and your sole employable skills are ten years of home-making.
"Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!"
"Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!"
... not quite good enough.
"Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one parachute just your yourself. That way, when the plane's in its terminal dive, you can abandon your family to their deaths and make it out alive."
Something more like that, although that's absurd.
Your view of the situation is inverted and immoral. A relationship is what might actually make life worth living for you. Your skills are how you get a job, and "ten years of home-making" just means that your lonely, pathetic existence, post-relationship, has a few less luxuries in it.
I think you've misread the comment you're replying to.
Someone in an abusive relationship is well-served by getting _out_ of that relationship. If they have no job skills, they're subject to crippling financial pressure to remain in a situation that's harmful to them, in addition to all the other pressure they're already under.
It is not degrading for a parent to choose to prioritize family matters over income.
It is degrading for society to tell a person what their personal priorities will be based on a chromosome.