| In the context of the US and "the way things used to be", if would have to be the wife. Btw, it doesn't really matter which one it is -- the point was that it's asymmetrical. > The role is eroding because the expectation is, that regardless of gender both partners in a relationship need to be working. Why would both partners working be a problem in the first place? What about socialized (gasp!) child care? Obviously, you'll want both parents to be spending as much time as possible with their children, but the underlying problem here seems to be... money. If there were less pressure to earn then maybe both parents could change to a 3-4 days work-week, etc. etc. (EDIT: I'll actually add a counter-point to my own assertion here. It may not actually be the case that spending more time with one's children is always better. There may be a Goldilocks zone.) > This is to facilitate the rising cost of a raising family in large city environments. I think I understand the symptom. Cost means money. Obviously, things will have to change on a massive scale for "my" conception of the future to be feasible everywhere, but I still understand what this has to do with meaning (as your original blog post was about). |
Sorry. I cannot claim credit for the author.
I’m not sure why you’re mentioning women historically being keepers of the house It’s not relevant to the topic, people in general don’t value that role anymore.
Should they value the role? I’m not sure, it has historically been a thankless task, probably soul crushing too. Having cleaning services and cooks would be better but I’m not sure if it would scale.