And men were sent to learn trades, and the responsibility for elevating a family was down to the man, regardless of the talent or capacity of the women.
And, in a given family, if the woman is smarter or better equipped to earn, currently the systemic, cultural biases work against her achieving as a breadwinner what a similarly capable man would.
In families that choose not to have children, what's a woman supposed to be doing then?
It is for individual families to decide what is best for them, not for a social template to be forced upon them.
And yet the societies that are the most free and most equal are amongst the most stable, wealthiest and happiest. Where is the discord inherent in people choosing their own path?
O.
I am talking about common goals and common responsibilities. As I said, women working outside isn't as new or path breaking as is normally made out. It has been a common feature of all societies from the dawn of society. Family welfare has been the main objective for centuries and whatever needs to be done has been done.
Its only in certain communities who have been at the forefront of feudal warfare and troubled localities that women have been protected and restricted. The first target of wars and battles are women and children. Much like the way lions behave with rival prides.
This is a very basic instinct necessary for specific gene propagation and protection. Why this instinct is giving way to a ultra liberal way of life in these times, is not clear. Maybe the genes are giving up!
So...what you see as a liberal attitude could also be seen as a breakdown of basic genetic programming....which could even be seen as ominous.
