1. No overt monetary value is placed on a homemaker's work.
But living in a home rent free, eating food, and getting utility from from living there is value.
Our culture so often defines a person's value solely through a paycheck. There is no paycheck associated with traditional women's work.
Not true for women. A woman can have value based on her looks and youth. There's no paycheck for a man doing "women's work" either so what's your point?
A man builds a deck on the house. There is a consciousness of the $ saved for the family due to his labor.
A woman works out seasonal menus & cooks and shops smart, grooms the family pets, does the laundry, runs the cars in for their state inspections, cleans the house, etc. and there is usually no consciousness of the $ saved for the family.
Additionally, If you do not also bring in money as a wage earner (your Man is the sole wage earner) you are viewed as a dependant rather than as a partner who has negotiated a working understanding and agreement of contributions within the relationship with your Man.
Viewed that way by who the IRS? That benefits the whole family. Do you think a man who's woman is the sole wage earner would be viewed as less of a dependant or higher value than?
2. "A man works from rise to set of Sun, a woman's work is never done".
Do you really think keep up a household for a day is a higher workload than an average day at work? That's ridiculous.
Our culture values work that can be completed, pointed at as a finished product.
Traditionally, men's work has a stopping point. They can say after building a deck, "look at my completed job" and their wives/society says "Damn you're good". (Which of course he IS LOL) And a year later, that deck is still there and he can still point to it as an accomplishment/valid contribution. It maintains it's perceived value due to it's longevity/usefullness.
Here your arguing basically that services are given less value than manufacturing. This isn't true by numerous other examples. Besides I still don't see your point. If a woman built a deck it would be considered a greater accomplishment.
Traditonal woman's work/homemaking - laundry for example: She spends hours and hours of her life doing her family's laundry. While putting it all away in the drawers, feeling content that everyone will be okay for the next week because everything is ready for them, another dirty towel is going down the laundry chute.
Again you're trying to argue that homemaking tasks are more labor intensive than the average job. This is ridiculous.
There is no finished moment, there is most often not even a "thank you" in her entire lifetime from any family member who has been on the receiving end of her work. There is no finished moment to create opportunity for acknowlegdement for the job well-done - because it never is done.
And when you work outside the home your boss just thanks and praises you doesn't he or she? 
. again what's your point, because if a man does the same tasks he wouldn't get a better outcome.
3. Our culture does not truly value children.
A homemaker's role that involves being the primary caretaker of the children is undervalued because society as a whole does not truly value children themselves. So, it carries over to not valuing the primary caretaker of the children.
Society doesn't value children? I'm starting to see what your view is, everyone in society should send mothers money
4. Yielding our time and attention.
Homemakers who choose to interact tradionally are viewed as weak; perceived weakness = lower value.
Because we yield our schedules and our primary attention to our Man and the needs of our children, we are often seen as weak (and boring see #5). Our choice to compromise and be flexible in this way is often perceived as a weakness instead of as a strength.
I think you're assuming everyone as opposed to some believe a certain way. This is true for all your arguments. But again it's not a woman thing. If a man assumed this role he would be seen much weaker by braoder group of peoplke. Particularly women. Can you say hypocrisy?
5. A homemaker is seen as one-dimensional.
If you cherish the traditional role of being the homemaker, people often assume that you are not also intellectually alive, politically aware, spiritually awake, creative, productive, or passionate. Often we women who are "wired" this way don't blab on and on about every thought we have, every insight, every book, every awakening. Generally we are better at listening, so we can better create a peaceful home life for the people we love.
We have quiet "inner" lives that most people do not see - even husbands can become oblivious to the depth of their own wives - simply because he can become so comfortable in receiving that they only see her in relation to himself and not her as a complete person. Society often does the same.
You're making faulty attributions. A woman's value isn't based on her career. It's based on her looks and youthj mostly.
6. Peacemakers are not valued in our culture, on the whole.
What I define as a good "homemaker" is a woman who creates the environment where the family has a "soft place to land". It is a safe, noncombative environment.
You interact with your Man and your children in such a way that there is no loser - there is just learning and respecting and forgiving. You don't want the people you love to feel they have just been made less than the best person you know they are striving to be.
Culturally, there is an emphasis on the "Winner" of a conflict as having the higher value, the "Loser" as the lower value. Whereas, in my belief system anyway, a homemaker works to create a win-win environment.
Not arguing, fighting, "parenting" or regulating our Man's behavior at every turn often leads to criticism by more "liberated women", other men observing dynamics, and is seen as weak. It actually takes great strength - and faith - and loyalty - to keep your mouth shut and wait and trust your Man to find his way on things. That silence is often perceived as weakness instead of patience.
7. Being a Homemaker is not sexy.
The actual nuts-and-bolts of running a home well is not sexy. Changing diapers, scrubbing the bathroom, making the week's shopping list, running the kid's to the doctors when they are sick - it just isn't sexy. This in and of itself is not a deal breaker for being a homemaker, though. As it has it's rewards in and of itself. However...
In our culture, sexual vivacity is valued - but not promoted as compatable with homemaking, so there is a lose-lose dynamic for the Homemaker. Sexual or not, she becomes devalued.
Many people cannot reconcile sexual lust/stimulation for a woman and also see her legitimately within a role that is "motherly" or quality homemaker material as well. (I was 8 months pregant at my baby shower and a friend said to me: "Don't you think it's time you stop wearing those dresses and heels?" A Feminist, liberated friend wanted me to tone down my sexuality because I was pregnant. It made her uncomfortable.) It is not only men who are effected by this phenomena - it is a cultural issue of devaluing us as complete people.
Hence the Madonna-Hor complex. You are no longer valued as a desirable sexual being if you are a homemaker. We as Homemakers are often encouraged to become neutered/removed from our sexual essence to placate society's (or even sometimes our husband's - and children's) inability to accept us as whole, vibrant, sexually valued women.
Many women/homemakers buy into this belief system as well - that their usefullness/sexual "value" becomes only reproductive, but their passion and feminine sexuality is not experienced as compatable with their roles as good mothers/homemakers. Of course this damages their own self-value/self-esteem/sense of value.
The mystique of the MILF is a movement towards a healing in this regard... but I suspect that is a topic for another day...
What you're saying is men should lust after a married women with kids just as much as a young, single childless woman. You're just flat wrong. If a woman is goodlooking, young and childless. Her occupation is irrelevant to most all men.
