| It’s really an unfortunate catch-22. Women being barred from the workplace (by law or stigma) meant we lost half of society’s talent and those women who wanted to work couldn’t. Once the most eager to work start working, the other families see the incredible benefits of a two income household in a single income household world. It’s almost a no brainer to start working too, as you’re nearly doubling your family income. Enough iterations of that, and now we live in a two income household world, where the “family expenses” of childcare, homes, college education, and so on are priced for two income homes, and everyone else (single people, the young, students), are stuck in unaffordability and also getting married at later ages. Then, women didn’t have to work but couldn’t work anyways. Now, women work and couldn’t quit anyways. I’m a man, I’d love to stay at home and work on projects while my wife works. That’s just not feasible in today’s world for most. Maybe it’s easier to say this as a man, but was the social change for a minority of women who wanted to work really worth the cost to society? I wonder how much would actually be different, and if the women advocating for a place in the workforce would reconsider if they saw our world today. Obviously I don’t hold anything against women, these are bigger topics than that. The societal impact is real in either direction. |