Capitalists define production as the process that leads to the creation of goods or services that have a value, contributing to the benefit of individuals. According to them, production is the creation of benefit (utility) or increasing it. However, the capitalist economy does not take into account all the benefits. Instead the matter is restricted only to the benefit to the materialistic economy that are merchandisable (tradable).

So the work of a woman who performs household chores, taking care of the affairs of the home and the children, is considered productive only if she sells it as service to others. As for her action for herself in her home for the sake of her family and children, it is considered from a microeconomic point of view, specifically from the angle of so-called ‘opportunity cost,' as a loss to the labor market. Thus economists do not take into consideration the social utility (benefit) and the role of raising (children) performed by a woman, by being a mother and a housewife. Instead, they evaluate with the criterion of materialistic utility.

The view of materialistic utility that dominates Western society causes man to be evaluated on the scale of economic utility alone. Man’s value is evaluated only in the economic sense within society. His goals are determined by the production and consumption performed by man, in the machinery of work. He revolves around production and consumption like the hinge of a cupboard. Materialistic modernization resulted in the so-called Western philosophy of alienation, as described in Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money, whereupon relationships become more and more mediated by money. Thus there is no surprise for us to see a woman, for instance, feeling ashamed of undertaking a natural, instinctive, social role, as a mother and a housewife, because this is not productive economically. Therefore, she entered into the labor market with all her energy, neglecting her home and family, which in turn resulted in the fragmentation of the family and losses to children.