Families aren’t in decline because some bars have opened “unisex” bathrooms, or because there are gay characters on tv now.
Families don’t work unless the household has some sort of anchor. I won’t say it’s the woman, I won’t say which chores this anchor is or isn’t responsible for. However, two full-time working, 40-60 hours per week, adults can’t effectively raise a family unless they have a ton of money for day care or nannies. Even then, you still have emotionally neglected children growing into the next generation of adults (while I have no issue with women entering the workforce, I can point to the decade when a minority of families had a stay at home parent for the first time as the 20-year precursor to the “millennial” generation and speculate as to the cause of all its obnoxious habits).
If at least one parent is going to stay home, that requires a single income that can support an entire household. America, and much of the modern world, is a two-income per household economy.
Briefly touching on sex and gender, I’ll say that it seems to be the case – though I could be wrong – that women are both more interested than men in finding partners on the basis of that partner being able to be a provider, and also there seems to be some evidence that many women just don’t prefer committed relationships with men who possess a lower social status – which oftentimes relates to relative earnings. So, there is some case to be made that it would be women staying home with kids if it’s anyone. However, I myself think there’s a case to be made that men, particularly for slightly older children, would be very suitable as stay-at-home parents (as the need for instruction over nurture is marked by a change in style consistent with widely observed general behavioral differences between the sexes). Also, there is some evidence that women are more effective in the modern services industry, in general. Now that I’ve made it through this minefield, let me make it clear that my point is that you can bring whatever stereotypes you want to the table, or not.
Family life is decline for economic reasons. Single-income households are not available to enough people to counter demographic decline. At best, the choice to be a stay-at-home parent is a risk which stakes the well being of self and children on the uncertain ability of the working parent to retain a stable income. Even where stay-at-home parenting is possible, the economic risk is such that I can understand why many women – the traditional stay-at-home partner – are simply not settling into traditional relationships with men. Instead, perhaps they see it as less risky to pursue their own careers, and maybe even try their luck at partnering with one of the minority of highly attractive men.
Again, it’s not liberal politics causing the family problem. It’s economics. Not that I don’t sympathize with conservatives’ lament about the decline of “family values”. I would only highlight that they should focus on the causal root of the problem, and not waste resources fighting cultural battles that sometimes actually cause a fair amount of pain to certain individuals.
I would also claim that it was WWII and the Cold War which created the economic conditions that required the surplus labor generated by women. The “distortion” of this medium-term productivity boost is that family life fundamentally changed. Now American society faces a coming social collapse. Europe, Japan too, chasing America’s economic model due to the US reserve currency system that American hegemony enforces – these countries face a demographic decline with potentially far worse economic effects than whatever is gained by pulling stay-at-home parents into the market labor force.
Yes, female liberation is something I support. However, what if female liberation took the form of more and more women going to work while more and more men stayed at home. This kind of transition would have been favorable even from the point of view of equal pay. The crusade for equal pay will require women to work the same hours as men, which will require a transfer of labor expectations in the household.
By “liberating” women into the marketplace, the government-military complex merely greased its own wheels. Where female liberation really “counts” – the household – times are slow to change.
Yet another government economic distortion that papers over short term problem, effectively preventing the change which would occur naturally to address long term concerns.
