I don't buy this narrative, sorry.
Also, of course women who want to stay at home taking care of the babies while the father is less involved in child-rearing are perfectly welcome to do it. It's just that I think it's unfair that society expects this to be the norm.
edit: I also think you're conflating "women who want to have a career and be entrepreneurs" with "mothers and fathers who want to share the load (and joy) of being parents". It's not necessary for the mother to want to be an entrepreneur for this; it's just necessary for the father to take his share of the load.
I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.
Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given) and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative". And of course, that women in the workforce are a major factor in lowering wages, and that there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
The comment of the person I was replying to also completely ignored the question of whether fathers actually want to take a more active part in the raising of their children, and whether society supports this decision.
Got it, so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument. Would love to hear your thoughts that contradict it.
> ... and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative".
That would be the outcome if this were true, wouldn't it? I don't think they're suggesting any kind of intent, but if their premise is correct, it would in fact have made life harder for single income households.
> ... there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
And to be flippant, it is easier to swap employer when things go wrong, abusive or violent. And practically, ability to earn money do improve this aspect significantly.
It makes things better if husband dies or get sick too.
Also, if the husband is working 12 hours a day in two jobs, you don't get much familly with him either. He kind of becomes wallet.
Emancipation is emancipation. If being "shackled" to a job/employer is destroying someone's chances at a happy life, that's a problem with capitalism at large. I don't see why it has to be about motherhood or parenthood, and not about a blood-sucking system.
The implication that (some? most? many?) women had stay-at-home motherhood "swapped for them" for a career/education is the underlying tone that I dislike in your narrative (and which user seneca "doesn't see" in your post). "Had it swapped for them" is pretty insulting wording, come to think of it.
> Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?
Yes.
And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?
I was just pointing out that along with the women who cannot wait to get back to work there are also plenty that are perfectly happy to give up work forever - for some having a child and especially the early years are the most meaningful thing that happens in their entire life. I think it's worth making this point because we have this pro-career consensus that perhaps mainly caters to and benefits a small group of highly exceptional people at the top, and which is not necessarily good for society. This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.
This is begging the question. Nothing you've said has shown this is the reality.
I'm also not sure there has been wage erosion. Since I've been alive, wages have only been going up. However, cost of living has also been going up, and at a faster rate than wages. So while I don't have any source to support my hunch, I'd guess the problem is that living is more expensive than it ever was, not that women entered the workforce.
If wages erode, that's a failing of capitalism, not of the idea that more people should have more options. You could restrict supply by having people not work completely at random and get the same effect on wages. I don't know what the best way to fix things is, but making employment based on gender is a dumb way to do it.
