[philipallstar]

> It all comes back to women being treated as full people.

What does this actually mean? Do you mean "get a job instead of having kids?" Working to afford life instead of having kids seem much less humanising, if anything. Being a wife and mum is being a full person, and the main thing that's bad about it is if you are a full-time mum your spouse has to work incredibly hard to compete on the housing ladder against all the two-income families bidding against them.

[acdha]

I meant that they get to choose whether and when they have children, and can have full careers. Think about it in terms of opportunity cost: much over a century ago, women were expected to marry and be wives with a handful of exceptions like religious service. They did not have many opportunities for education and there were limited opportunities for independent employment with entire professions off-limits. When those were your choices, even women who didn’t really want kids that much went down that path because only a few people had the drive and social clout not to, and without modern birth control that almost inevitably lead to more kids (necessary, because mortality was shockingly high in pre-vaccine times).

Now, however, there are tons of other opportunities available. Instead of kids just happening, couples can plan them and are making decisions about their finances and other life impacts such as the case you mentioned where people might realize that they can’t afford a larger home. Prospective mothers, even if they really want kids, are also being told advanced education is key or that mothers tend to have lower lifetime earnings even adjusted for field, so the questions aren’t just “can we feed them?” but “would I avoid future layoffs if I finish a masters degree before becoming a parent?”

I think that’s great, everyone should control their life trajectory, but it means that to the extent we want to reverse the trend we need to be lowering the costs so people aren’t looking at trade offs like permanently lowering their career trajectory or locking themselves into a limited, highly-competitive corner of the housing market.

[philipallstar]

> much over a century ago, women were expected to marry and be wives with a handful of exceptions like religious service. They did not have many opportunities for education and there were limited opportunities for independent employment with entire professions off-limits

This was the case for most men as well, except they sometimes had to go and die weeping and in pain in a foreign field rather than stay at home and do what for most people is the most rewarding thing in life.

[text0404]

... and we should improve those conditions for both men and women so that they can live fulfilling lives. Your whole argument is predicated on the "redpilled" idea that gender rights are zero-sum, and that's just not the case.

[philipallstar]

It's not at all. My point was that it wasn't women specifically not being allowed to be "whole people" - that is a false premise, as it implies that men were.

[jakelazaroff]

Consider that many women… want to work? And some even want to work and have kids?