> and the erosion of wages as a consequence of womens' entry into the workplace has actually taken away the choice of being a full-time mum for many, by forcing them to work.

I don't buy this narrative, sorry.

Also, of course women who want to stay at home taking care of the babies while the father is less involved in child-rearing are perfectly welcome to do it. It's just that I think it's unfair that society expects this to be the norm.

edit: I also think you're conflating "women who want to have a career and be entrepreneurs" with "mothers and fathers who want to share the load (and joy) of being parents". It's not necessary for the mother to want to be an entrepreneur for this; it's just necessary for the father to take his share of the load.

> I don't buy this narrative, sorry.

I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.

> as there's not much to "buy"

Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given) and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative". And of course, that women in the workforce are a major factor in lowering wages, and that there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.

The comment of the person I was replying to also completely ignored the question of whether fathers actually want to take a more active part in the raising of their children, and whether society supports this decision.

> so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument.

It seems straightforward but it actually isn't. It's not self-evident that women entering the workforce must automatically drive down wages. Maybe other interconnected factors enter into play and cancel it out. Maybe they drive wages slightly lower, but other major factors dwarf this (as someone mentioned in another comment). Maybe... there is no data to support it; like you said, you'd "love" to see the data.

> I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.

I can be mistaken, and the original poster can clarify what they meant, but unfortunately I do see it.

Right. It’s a ratchet; a process that only proceeds in a single direction.

But hang on - you painted a picture of the burnt out tired mother that can't wait to get back to work, away from the drudgery of motherhood. I'm saying that's not a fair representation of many womens' priorities. I could even take it a step further and say that for many women, emancipation in terms of employment has destroyed their chances of having what would really make them happy (a family life) due to the need to put education, building a career etc. ahead of finding a partner and having children. To be provocative I could say women have swapped (or had swapped for them) marriage to a husband for marriage to their employer. Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?

There are still stay at home moms, either cause they like it, for children or because it makes economical sense. And there were always women who had to work. At every single point in history.

And to be flippant, it is easier to swap employer when things go wrong, abusive or violent. And practically, ability to earn money do improve this aspect significantly.

It makes things better if husband dies or get sick too.

Also, if the husband is working 12 hours a day in two jobs, you don't get much familly with him either. He kind of becomes wallet.

I didn't bring feminism into this, mind you. I'm also talking about my priorities and rights as a father. I didn't mention and wasn't thinking about feminism or women's rights, though of course those are related topics. Did you notice this?

Emancipation is emancipation. If being "shackled" to a job/employer is destroying someone's chances at a happy life, that's a problem with capitalism at large. I don't see why it has to be about motherhood or parenthood, and not about a blood-sucking system.

The implication that (some? most? many?) women had stay-at-home motherhood "swapped for them" for a career/education is the underlying tone that I dislike in your narrative (and which user seneca "doesn't see" in your post). "Had it swapped for them" is pretty insulting wording, come to think of it.

> Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?

Yes.

The erosion of wages has many causes, not just women having more equal opportunity in the workforce. I’d argue wages have been much more affected by the accumulation of wealth into the top of the food chain.

And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?

> And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?

I was just pointing out that along with the women who cannot wait to get back to work there are also plenty that are perfectly happy to give up work forever - for some having a child and especially the early years are the most meaningful thing that happens in their entire life. I think it's worth making this point because we have this pro-career consensus that perhaps mainly caters to and benefits a small group of highly exceptional people at the top, and which is not necessarily good for society. This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.

> This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.

This is begging the question. Nothing you've said has shown this is the reality.

That would suggest that men are working like dogs all the time, should not we try to improve their lives too?

Again, plenty of men want to work like dogs. Some of these provisions now have an element of coercing men not to work as hard. Punishing ambition is now ok?

Men who are ambitious and want to work a lot don't refer to work as "work like a dog". That is expression used by people who are resentful. Even you used that expression to make women working sound undesirable.

And of course, "plenty of men" is massively different then "all men". There are still many men who have jobs they don't like, bosses that hate or who mistreat them and more hours and stress in work that they would like. Other men having jobs they like changes nothing on that.

And take it to the next level -- influx of unmarried men into workforce lowers wages for heads of families, so ban those too.

I'm not so sure a lot of women had the choice of being full-time mothers and have good living standards. My mother worked, and so did her mother, and both households required both parents working to make ends meet.

I'm also not sure there has been wage erosion. Since I've been alive, wages have only been going up. However, cost of living has also been going up, and at a faster rate than wages. So while I don't have any source to support my hunch, I'd guess the problem is that living is more expensive than it ever was, not that women entered the workforce.

That's an interesting thesis which I have heard before. Any studies or books which elaborate it?

There are plenty of men that have zero interest in having a career! Most people get jobs because they have to. Or at the very least, they would choose a shorter work week if they could.

If wages erode, that's a failing of capitalism, not of the idea that more people should have more options. You could restrict supply by having people not work completely at random and get the same effect on wages. I don't know what the best way to fix things is, but making employment based on gender is a dumb way to do it.