Replies

In post #18, you said '~' OK, I'll say something in response. The argument in the article is based on the premise that:

Some seek a return of that past, wanting women completely out of the workforce. This is based upon the premise that these roles, women as caregivers and nothing else, and men as providers and nothing else, were best for society in the first place.

It's a false premise. There was never a time in history when women didn't work. Some women had the luxury of staying "out of the workplace" and some still do, preferring it. Some could stay out of the workplace but prefer to have a career. That'a always been true as well. There never was a time, anywhere, that has the characteristics that the author describes.

As far as what is "best for society," that's a multi-dimensional question. But one dimension that has had sufficient repeatable research is this. Children do better growing up in households where one of the parents is available. This has usually been the mother, so empirical research has shown better results for children whose mothers work part time outside the home once the children are old enough to attend school. The authors of such research have interpreted the "part time" employment factor as also relating to higher education of both parents.

That's what the research says regardless of anyone's "being fibre."