Score

Polymath here's another for your list

King of Argent

Agent of Vega

And, while not having the whole housewife thing, this is another good one: Babel-17

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress


I think I can probably find you and 2 or 3 dozen. :o)

"...instead of a 'useless housewife'"? My, my... Quite a conclusion.

P wrote: ""...instead of a 'useless housewife'"? My, my... Quite a conclusion."

I'm not going to defend myself, but I want to explain why I wrote that remark so you understand. I don't know how much older, social-oriented sci-fi you've ever read, but prior to the late 1970's, most projections of what the future would be like included an idea of women as they were in the mid-twentieth century. Women appear in these novels as either housewives or pink-collar workers, secretaries, teachers, etc. Any professional women are immediately demonized as being unfeminine.

I literally read a novel by Robert Silverberg called "The Time Hoppers" where there was an overpopulation problem in the 25th century, this particular family was living in a ONE-ROOM APARTMENT - not just one-bedroom, but one-room - and the wife had no job or position and contributed essentially nothing, yet she stayed home and whatever tasks she performed were those of a housewife. And there were a lot novels like that; every Philip K Dick novel, for example (and I'm a huge PKD fan). They simply couldn't imagine a future where women would be serious contributors to society in an way. Hence, my remark.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, and the reason for your use of the pejorative phrase.
And as I'm not familiar with all your sources, I trust you've given an accurate depiction of how women have been portrayed in them.
In general however, I think a case can be made that whatever the 'tasks' are that a housewife performs, they too, contribute to society, and in a serious way. Especially if the housewife is a mother.
Work outside the home should never be considered the only way a person can 'seriously' contribute. In fact, such work is often -- to put it simply -- drudgery.
But again, I appreciate your response.

P wrote: "Thank you for taking the time to explain, and the reason for your use of the pejorative phrase.
And as I'm not familiar with all your sources, I trust you've given an accurate depiction of how wom..."

I never said that in reality housewives don't contribute, I'm talking about mid-twentieth century dystopian sci-fi. Maybe you should read a few before judging me so harshly. In these novels, women have literally NOTHING TO DO. In "The Time Hoppers" there is a woman who lives in a one room apartment and just sits there all day. There's no need to cook or clean; the most this woman did in the novel was to plug her kids in after they got home from school. That's it. That's not useless? I don't know how you define uselessness, but to me that is the utter definition of it. Like you yourself has said, YOU HAVEN'T READ THESE BOOKS. You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

Why don't you read a few of these novels, or look up a few on Wikipedia, and then come back and talk to me about the portrayal of women in them? I really do not care for your patronizing tone.

END OF DISCUSSION.

My, my! You go from claiming that you’re not going to defend what you said, to leaping for the throat (ineffectively). I can’t fathom your aggressive response to P. He didn’t argue with you. He was totally polite.
And housewives are the opposite of useless. That said, the one in “The Time Hoppers” doesn’t sound like she’s making the most of her abilities. But you didn’t explain that in your header.