[random-human]

> It's just more communism and less freedom.

How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Since you equate more communism with less freedom, I will assume you agree that money provides freedom, if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. It has nothing to do with their husband, cruel, unfair, or otherwise. This may be surprising, but not all women want kids or marriage, or may want them but also find great joy in working accomplishments - many just did not have those options in any safe stable way until recently. (historicity speaking)

That's not less freedom, it's more, for both women and men (not as much stigma or pressure for not being the 'provider' when they may not want to be) - it does lessen some power and control males have historicity had over society and others. And that can be threatening for those who enjoy limiting others freedoms and controlling them.

[jseban]

> How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women.

Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now.

Less freedom because an almost doubled amount of total working hours for a family. Free time = freedom.

Less freedom for childless people because they have much lower salaries now because of the larger supply of workforce (which is somewhat compensated by subsidies to people with children). Now they compete against couples with double income on everything on the market.

A single childless person would previously have the same buying power as a single breadwinner, now they have half.

Less freedom because this creates a much higher pressure and financial incentives for people to have children and to have modern gender roles, and anything else is discouraged.

> if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom.

Well, are you more free if you trade free time for working hours? You are literally only more free to slave more.

This freedom only manifests in the case when you want/need to leave your husband.

[brigandish]

> Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now

That's an equivocation. There is the freedom that comes from choice (what is not disallowed) and there is the freedom that comes from available choices. For example, homosexuals being able to marry is not the same kind of freedom as if I had a million dollars I'd be able to do what I want.

Those who prefer traditional gender roles can still have them, they just need to compete to afford it, as they did before, or to cut their cloth.