We spend a lot of time in the popular #press talking about #organizational styles, and management styles, and #relationship styles, and so on. In #philosophy, there's classifications on everything, including #love (amore, agape, fraternal), and a whole host of other things. In #radio, we can trick the circuits into working with either frequency based or time based models (or both).
When it comes to #domestic science, we've really fallen down here. We had the last gasp of respecting it with "home economics", a high school requirement that eventually only girls took. And then it got dropped.
However, subjects like "what kind of #household are you going to have to set up?" were part of the curriculum.
And, there's some neat stuff here.
Let's set aside the fact that the curriculum was written for teenage girls to educate them on how to properly serve their husband, who would select the type of #household they would have, the location, the economic level, what social circles they would "officially" have, and so on. It was the way it was and still is for many people. Men determined the household's interface to the outside world. Women were in charge of what went on inside.
And, could have some networks, as long as they only included other women, who were also serving households.
The gendered inner/outer sphere (private/public) was entirely dominant in western Europe and the US and is still the fact in Japan, China, and Africa.
In "the household theory", there are two types. This theory assumes that everyone knows what a household is. It was expected to be able to execute particular functions, including economic, judicial, social, educational, and entertainment.