Wholesale refactoring of filial duty and the taxation model used to achieve it. This is of special interest to men, whose earthly contributions to the human union lean more heavily in the direction of provisioning.
Is this actually true, for a period of time in history long enough to be considered stable? I am increasingly unsure the idea of "men as the sole or noticeably primary breadwinners" being a historical constant as opposed to a brief (but recent enough to be remembered) anomaly.
It is my understanding that during the industrialization era both men and women would work in the factories. Before that, when the vast majority of the population was a peasant, men and women both contributed greatly to the household economy (just in different ways).
So I think the idea of retvrning to the brief housewife era is not the way to go. It was brief and does not seem to have been stable, nor do women seem to have enjoyed it. The core of the issue, I suspect, is that historically it took more than a single adult working together (both in terms of time but also skillset) to have a good life and this is no longer true for a majority. All relevant skills are commoditized on the cheap (food, shelter, security, clothing), or solved by cheap technology (washing machines, stoves, vacuum cleaners). What actual need have men for women and vice versa in modern society, except for sexual thrills which are largely proving to be insufficient for long term bonding.
The solution has to involve mutual need, it can't be one-directional or the other gender will defect.
p
Is this actually true, for a period of time in history long enough to be considered stable? I am increasingly unsure the idea of "men as the sole or noticeably primary breadwinners" being a historical constant as opposed to a brief (but recent enough to be remembered) anomaly.
It is my understanding that during the industrialization era both men and women would work in the factories. Before that, when the vast majority of the population was a peasant, men and women both contributed greatly to the household economy (just in different ways).
We can of course go further back than that, and consider hunter gatherers but even there I am told that women provide the majority of the calories for the family.
So I think the idea of retvrning to the brief housewife era is not the way to go. It was brief and does not seem to have been stable, nor do women seem to have enjoyed it. The core of the issue, I suspect, is that historically it took more than a single adult working together (both in terms of time but also skillset) to have a good life and this is no longer true for a majority. All relevant skills are commoditized on the cheap (food, shelter, security, clothing), or solved by cheap technology (washing machines, stoves, vacuum cleaners). What actual need have men for women and vice versa in modern society, except for sexual thrills which are largely proving to be insufficient for long term bonding.
The solution has to involve mutual need, it can't be one-directional or the other gender will defect.
More options
Context Copy link