The benefit is that the other half of the population also deserved life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise, we didn't abolish slavery because it would be good for cotton prices.
Do you have reason to believe that most women throughout history were not happy being homemakers and mothers? Do you believe women are happier now that they are having few or no children and are instead working to support a corporation that will kick them to the curb when they are no longer of use to it, rather than giving love and care to the most cherished people in their lives?
Some women will prefer that sort of corporate lifestyle, for sure, and I don't think anyone is advocating for making it illegal for women to work. But you don't get a successful and happy society by catering to small minorities at the expense of the success and happiness of the overwhelming majority.
>Some women are happy being homemakers today, and some are happy in the workforce.
Far more were happy being homemakers in the past.
>I'm not sure how we are currently catering to women in the workforce.
Affirmative action, equal opportunity laws, corporate funded programs to instruct men how to behave around women in the workplace, pervasive media praising women with jobs, praising the child-free husband-free life, on and on and on. You have to not be looking in order to not know about it.
Oh, I didn't think reducing discrimination counted as catering. You're not really saying increasing discrimination to previous levels would make women happier, are you?
I think encouraging them to be homemakers rather than encouraging them to be in the workforce would make them happier, generally, and that we should strongly prioritize catering to the majority. Do you think women are happier now than women in previous generations? Because all of the polling I've seen says no.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl... for instance. You can always blame it on there not being enough equality yet, or once they've passed men in whatever metric you have your eye on, you can always blame it on more abstract things.
But I don't think any amount of equality is going to make them as happy as they would be making their homes into warm and loving places for their families, and experiencing their children growing up and eventually having children of their own, in a society that appreciates them for doing just that.
If the small minority of women that that doesn't work for have a worse time in the work force because society prioritized things other than making it nice for them, too bad. I don't care. You make society strong with rules that work for the majority.
You keep coming back to whether women were happier in the aggregate before. That's a great link, but I don't draw the same conclusions you do from it.
We're in a transition period. Women who work still have to do the majority of housework and childrearing at home, due to their male partners' lack of participation. You exalt domestic virtues in women, so surely you must agree that these men should do more to make their homes warm and loving places, experience their children growing up, etc? Or is that not the same thing?
You say you don't prioritize making workforce participation "nice" for women, but we're really just talking about making it "fair". You make society strong with rules that are fair for everyone.
Ultimately, I believe women, as all human beings, are capable of making their own choices and deserve a fair playing field. I think your preferences unfairly limit the viability of one choice and tilt the scales toward the choice you like better, and your assertion that it's for their own good just serves to infantilize them.
You can say that, I guess. There's no particularly compelling reason to believe that getting through the transition period to the promised land is possible or that the grass in actually greener on the other side.
>You exalt domestic virtues in women, so surely you must agree that these men should do more to make their homes warm and loving places
If that's what will make quality of life better for them and their families. I don't know of any compelling reason to believe it should.
>Or is that not the same thing?
I don't know, for sure.
>You make society strong with rules that are fair for everyone.
I think there's a lot to be said for that, in general, but is it really fair to women or to their families if the pursuit of achieving this ideological vision of total fairness and equality between the sexes ends up reducing their quality of life?
>I think your preferences unfairly limit the viability of one choice and tilt the scales toward the choice you like better, and your assertion that it's for their own good just serves to infantilize them.
We know from data that they did like it when the scales were tilted toward that choice better than what they have now. There's no compelling reason to believe that they'll like the "fair playing field", if it's possible to get there, better than they'll like what they had before.
I don't know for a fact that most of them won't like it, but I think there are good reasons to guess that they won't, and, if your goal is to increase their life satisfaction and that of their families, it seems insane to me to push an entirely ideologically motivated set of changes onto our entire culture all at once without having pretty damn good reason to believe your end goal is achievable and actually desirable.
The science is still out on whether men and women are genetically predisposed toward different average behaviors and preferences. The idea that they are seems completely reasonable to me, given the simple fact that men produce thousands of gametes per second for their entire post-pubescent lives, while women produce one per month for 20-30 years. Reproductive and child-rearing behaviors are obviously vitally important to how we turned out because we only descend from the people whose succeeded in reproducing and keeping their children alive. I don't know for a fact that our brains are hardwired to help us out differently as a consequence of our different relevant anatomy but I think it's totally reasonable to guess that they do, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.
If they are predisposed toward different behaviors and preferences, then trying to socially engineer men and women to all be exactly the same is doomed to failure, and a whole lot of people are going to suffer for it, and indeed they already are, as we can see. And sure, some women would benefit from it while the majority suffered, but like I said, if you want a strong society, you make rules that work for the many, not the few.
