Apropos of yesterday's post about David Brooks' "back to the hearth" column in the Times.
The decreasing inequality in the income earned by men and women within families has been critical, absolutely critical, to making families less dominated by husbands. The more equal the income brought into the household by men and women, the more equal decision-making processes are. Money begets power within families.
That's why any proposal that suggests that women should give up on the career while men forge ahead with theirs, is in part, a proposal that women give up some of their power within families and homes. You could use the word subservience here, it wouldn't be that out of place.
However "subservience" isn't quite as politically catchy as "family friendly."
As for Brooks' idea that women should "stay home, [to] raise children from age 25 to 35." Ummm, wouldn't another way of doing this be that both parents work 3-5 days a week? Then both keep developing their careers, while the kids get quality time with both parents during the week?
Indeed, the whole column is devoid of any suggestion that businesses might have to change their employment practices. Brooks does suggest government policies, but only to alter the incentives for families.
Posted by robe0419 at January 17, 2005 2:15 PM