Two-earner households obviously have a large independence over single breadwinner households in being able to 1) afford housing 2) afford to pay for education.
'Liberation' has meant that for the majority of women, if they want to raise a family without financial disadvantage, either must work or be very choosy over their husband's earning potential / wealth.
Is that really an increase in choice? Most people do not have the financial cushion to stay at home, even if that's what they really want.
The OP means that if you earn your own money, then you do not depend on your spouse for income. This provides you with more freedom than you would otherwise have. Both because you can divorce and still have income, and because your spouse can no long argue "This money is earned entirely by me, so I have complete discretion over how it will be spent".
What I want to discuss is the underlying premise of these articles, that by woman being liberated from the burden of the family, they achieve a sort of independence that leads them to increased happiness. And furthermore, that this trend is nothing but the next step in societal evolution and previous models of organization are not only outdated, but a form of subjugation.
It is a bit odd. I suppose by this light, men's increased participation in home life and parenting represents a forgoing of their independence and an reduction in their happiness. This does not seem to be the case e.g. in Scandinavia.
One where I don't witness the majority of my peers doing pointless socially unnecessary work because profit is the dominant justification for most economic activity.
'Liberation' has meant that for the majority of women, if they want to raise a family without financial disadvantage, either must work or be very choosy over their husband's earning potential / wealth.
Is that really an increase in choice? Most people do not have the financial cushion to stay at home, even if that's what they really want.