To James Ahiakpor's post --  Is it not the case that if you use   
'neoclassical economics' to model a vision of the family that   
includes 'till divorce do us part' that the conclusions will differ,   
most likely, from Becker's (among other things, the wife's interest   
is for her to be working or to capable of working - see J S Mill, The   
Subjection of Women [1869])?  
        If so, as I think you think is the case, then I am inclined   
to see Becker's article as ideological and non-feminist, because in   
building in a counterfactual assumption ('till death do us part') he   
allows himself an assumption that ... is not only wrong in 50% of the   
cases (or whatever) but also (neatly) is an assumption that biases   
his model towards keeping the little lady barefoot and pregnant (and   
doing housework).  
  
        I think that one response to my post is what James Ahiakpor   
said -- well, yes, we can model that, too.  But here is where an   
earlier post comes into play:  'all other things being equal', it   
turns out, contains a lot of baggage.  
  
Peter G. Stillman