[M]en have been jettisoned from education and employment for forty years, nobody...is allowed to be a dad anymore, because women gobble up the jobs and all the other resources
No female should have a job while a man goes unemployed, period . . . the rest is sheer solipsistic madness, that can only bring disasterWhile Ray is correct to associate the decline in fatherhood with the jobs dearth, I think what he proposes above is folly, for a number of reasons.
First, a people who wish to remain free should be vary wary of government force being used to discriminate for one party against another. Indeed, part of the treatment that Ray complains about is directly due to market-distorting government discrimination on behalf of women in the public and private sectors, distortions that mask the costs of employing women and result in equal pay for less work. Were the market free to compensate male and female labor according to the strengths and preferences of each individual, regardless of their sex, the employment picture would be very different and likely less lopsided in favor of women. Moreover, a government that can discriminate for Party A over Party B can easily be made to discriminate against Party A once B comes to power. Payback is a dish that is best served cold, and it is best to avoid that path entirely.
Second, as a matter of principle, women should work to support themselves and their families. It was a historical anomaly that our culture once proscribed women from working, born partly because industrialization pulled men from the home and accentuated what was already a distinct division of labor within the home. During other less luxurious times, women labored alongside their men, something that no less source than the Bible encourages and approves.
Third, as a matter of wisdom, women should work to support themselves and their families. What was second wave feminism, if not a culture-wide temper tantrum borne of bored housewife ennui? With middle class women limited by social convention to consumption, and little productive labor, small wonder then that all those idle hands did the devil's bidding.
Fourth, the monied interests would never permit the "working woman" genie being put back in the bottle. There is far too much profit to be made on twice the laborers and double the consumption. Moreover, with fewer women working to support themselves, economic necessity would drive more women to marry. With more marriages comes fewer choice mother family units. Think of what would happen to a housing market suffering from terminal overhang should all that female-headed-household demand suddenly disappear? Ditto with durable goods...no need for double the washer/dryers, refrigerators, cars, et cetera. For that matter, the child care business would collapse. And with there being more concrete reasons to get and stay married (sacred vows and morality having been demonstrated to be poor motivators in a post-Christian culture), divorce would plummet. Think of all the judges and lawyers put out of work by that simple step, and all those children suddenly un-fatherless. Wait, on second thought....oh, never mind.
Going back to Ray's point, he is correct that men are in trouble (although I do think he is speeding with the "nobody is allowed to be a dad" bit). Somewhere along the line, we as a culture decided that we need no longer to invest in and / or protect the socially more vulnerable sex. From in utero to cradle to schooling to work to family to welfare to health and to old age and death, the priority has shifted to investing in, propping up, supporting the female. As a result, greater and greater numbers of men are on the outside of society in proportions approaching that which characterize matriarchal societies; something that does not bode well for the prognosis for our culture. A difficult and multi-faceted problem to be sure, yet I don't think putting women back into the back of the queue is the answer.