Nearly all work, if we mean the work that most people in the West do day after day in exchange for money, is a life sentence in prison. It is dull, repetitive, and soul-destroying. It does not liberate.The weakness in this passage is the notion that native male unemployment would plummet if all women stopped working outside the home, or that salaries would skyrocket. In a world with the free flow of capital and labor, and bipartisan refusal to secure the borders, that is simply an unreasonable expectation.
The fact that women work means that fewer children are born. It also means that those children are raised by women other than their mothers. It also cranks up the stress still more on the already very fragile equilibrium in the male-female dialectic.
Women, unlike men, once had a way to avoid work. They still do, if they chose to compel governments to organize things differently. The choice is theirs and theirs alone.
If women stopped work tomorrow it would solve the West’s chronic unemployment crisis overnight. Due to the dire shortage of workers left, salaries would rocket.
The state could even chip in, if women made enough noise. The state could even pay married women to stay at home and have children. It already does in the case of single, non-working mothers. So what’s the big deal?
But more important than the cash side of it, surely women would be so much happier.
Otherwise, not much to argue with here. How anyone could think that something God forced upon Adam and his seed as just desserts for sharing that apple with Eve is fun or liberating is just daft. Quasi-independent, sure. But free? Nope. And certainly not any happier. I suppose this is what one gets for letting their apex fallacy envy get the best of them.