Author Topic: The Patriarchy Paradox  (Read 257 times)

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
The Patriarchy Paradox
« on: November 30, 2020, 12:49:58 PM »
Interesting ideas on the patriarchy - that patriarchy is not necessarily a social construct but is somewhat rooted in biology and therefore many women choose traditional gender roles. This challenges some feminist theories about sex differences in society or a lack of equal representation of the sexes being a sign of oppression.

Quote
In a survey of about 130,000 people from a total of 22 countries, scientists from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden have shown that countries with more women in the workforce, parliament and education are also those in which men and women diverge more on psychological traits.

“It seems that as gender equality increases, as countries become more progressive, men and women gravitate towards traditional gender norms,” Dr Mac Giolla said. “Why is this happening? I really don’t know.”

Steve Stewart-Williams, from the University of Nottingham, said that there was now too much evidence of this effect to consider it a fluke. “It’s not just personality,” he said. “The same counterintuitive pattern has been found in many other areas, including attachment styles, choice of academic speciality, choice of occupation, crying frequency, depression, happiness and interest in casual sex.

Separately, a research paper published by the online journal PLOS One found that in countries ranked as less gender equal by the World Economic Forum, women were more likely to choose traditionally male courses such as the sciences or online study.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patriarchy-paradox-how-equality-reinforces-stereotypes-96cx2bsrp

As a few people may already have heard there is a row brewing over the sacking of Will Knowland, a teacher at Eton, for having a video on his personal YouTube page referencing the idea of the patriarchy paradox.

He considered this relevant for debate from the perspective that boys at his school might like to explore the ideas of where concepts of masculinity fit positively and negatively into current culture and society. However, he was advised that this was not a suitable topic for debate at the school and so was not allowed to post the video on the school intranet as part of starting a debate.

The Headmaster of Eton seems to have taken a dim view of Eton being associated with such ideas in any way so he asked the teacher to take the video down from his private YouTube page  - apparently as part of signing up for the job of teacher, the head was of the view that you are required to not voice private opinions in the public arena that your headmaster disagrees with.

A petition at the school opposing the sacking says: 'Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas... which necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion.'

Mr Knowland, they add, 'is loved by all who have encountered him' and the students 'feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying'.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

DePfeffelred the Ovenready

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27781
  • CHOOSE DETERMINISM !
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2020, 02:44:27 PM »
Interesting ideas on the patriarchy - that patriarchy is not necessarily a social construct but is somewhat rooted in biology and therefore many women choose traditional gender roles. This challenges some feminist theories about sex differences in society or a lack of equal representation of the sexes being a sign of oppression.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patriarchy-paradox-how-equality-reinforces-stereotypes-96cx2bsrp

As a few people may already have heard there is a row brewing over the sacking of Will Knowland, a teacher at Eton, for having a video on his personal YouTube page referencing the idea of the patriarchy paradox.

He considered this relevant for debate from the perspective that boys at his school might like to explore the ideas of where concepts of masculinity fit positively and negatively into current culture and society. However, he was advised that this was not a suitable topic for debate at the school and so was not allowed to post the video on the school intranet as part of starting a debate.

The Headmaster of Eton seems to have taken a dim view of Eton being associated with such ideas in any way so he asked the teacher to take the video down from his private YouTube page  - apparently as part of signing up for the job of teacher, the head was of the view that you are required to not voice private opinions in the public arena that your headmaster disagrees with.

A petition at the school opposing the sacking says: 'Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas... which necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion.'

Mr Knowland, they add, 'is loved by all who have encountered him' and the students 'feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying'.
Good for them. There should be an enquiry into how far Eton is responsible for the thoughts and acts of Cameron, Johnson, Rees Mogg and Company.
Note to atheists.

However many facts you have I have them too.

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2020, 05:58:02 AM »
Interesting ideas on the patriarchy - that patriarchy is not necessarily a social construct but is somewhat rooted in biology and therefore many women choose traditional gender roles. This challenges some feminist theories about sex differences in society or a lack of equal representation of the sexes being a sign of oppression.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patriarchy-paradox-how-equality-reinforces-stereotypes-96cx2bsrp

As a few people may already have heard there is a row brewing over the sacking of Will Knowland, a teacher at Eton, for having a video on his personal YouTube page referencing the idea of the patriarchy paradox.

He considered this relevant for debate from the perspective that boys at his school might like to explore the ideas of where concepts of masculinity fit positively and negatively into current culture and society. However, he was advised that this was not a suitable topic for debate at the school and so was not allowed to post the video on the school intranet as part of starting a debate.

The Headmaster of Eton seems to have taken a dim view of Eton being associated with such ideas in any way so he asked the teacher to take the video down from his private YouTube page  - apparently as part of signing up for the job of teacher, the head was of the view that you are required to not voice private opinions in the public arena that your headmaster disagrees with.

A petition at the school opposing the sacking says: 'Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas... which necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion.'

Mr Knowland, they add, 'is loved by all who have encountered him' and the students 'feel morally bound not to be bystanders in what appears to be an instance of institutional bullying'.


It should be obvious I would think....that patriarchy is an evolutionary development rooted in biology and survival strategy.    What is all the fuss about?!

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2020, 11:56:15 AM »

It should be obvious I would think....that patriarchy is an evolutionary development rooted in biology and survival strategy.    What is all the fuss about?!
The fuss is because many women want to dismantle the patriarchy because many women are routinely subjected to violence from men as biologically they lack physical equality with men, and because the unpaid work women tend to end up spending a lot of their time doing - especially the domestic, elderly and childcare work - is not valued by society so they may be treated as 2nd class citizens and their issues ignored. Therefore, if the patriarchy exists due to biological differences it becomes harder to dismantle.

Also, if a lot of women's time is spent on unpaid work, their specialist skill-set and economic power and financial independence is compromised, which could then put them at a disadvantage to men if specialists and leaders are more valued and you need money to access safety, security, goods and services and political and social power. This would leave women in a very vulnerable position and often exploited. Women were hoping to compensate for their lack of physical strength by having access to financial power to protect themselves. Hence, the more gender inequality that exists in society, the more women try to access financial power by choosing work that is lucrative, which would be traditionally male specialist or leadership roles. 

Therefore, saying that the patriarchy is rooted in biological preferences causes some feminists to worry that this justifies the view that traditional female roles have intrinsically less value than traditional male roles, which could then justify women being treated as lesser than men.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2020, 01:47:11 PM »
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2020, 02:40:53 PM »
The fuss is because many women want to dismantle the patriarchy because many women are routinely subjected to violence from men as biologically they lack physical equality with men, and because the unpaid work women tend to end up spending a lot of their time doing - especially the domestic, elderly and childcare work - is not valued by society so they may be treated as 2nd class citizens and their issues ignored. Therefore, if the patriarchy exists due to biological differences it becomes harder to dismantle.

Also, if a lot of women's time is spent on unpaid work, their specialist skill-set and economic power and financial independence is compromised, which could then put them at a disadvantage to men if specialists and leaders are more valued and you need money to access safety, security, goods and services and political and social power. This would leave women in a very vulnerable position and often exploited. Women were hoping to compensate for their lack of physical strength by having access to financial power to protect themselves. Hence, the more gender inequality that exists in society, the more women try to access financial power by choosing work that is lucrative, which would be traditionally male specialist or leadership roles. 

Therefore, saying that the patriarchy is rooted in biological preferences causes some feminists to worry that this justifies the view that traditional female roles have intrinsically less value than traditional male roles, which could then justify women being treated as lesser than men.


Women have been working for millennia...in the fields, as flower girls, selling vegetables, managing eateries, doing laundry etc. What's the big deal about women working?  Nothing new about women working IMO.  But this was largely for economic reasons. They faced dangers and sexual exploitation just to make both ends meet. Women who could afford it always stayed at home...partly to manage the home, elderly and children and partly because it was safer.  Staying at home was a luxury in earlier times.

Women can today afford to work outside mainly because technology is helping them. Electricity, transport, cell phones, eateries, toilets, modern police  and security.....and so many other facilities today make it safe and convenient for women to work. Also, no wild animals, bandits or regular fighting between rival groups and communities. No soldiers and local chieftains carrying away women they fancied. Infections and illnesses which were common in earlier times are now largely curable.

Patriarchy had a purpose and it was not meant 'to exploit women'.  It was meant to protect them and the children.  If conditions changed back to what they were about 100 or 200 years ago....most women would choose to stay at home even today.

It is wrong of feminists to keep bashing men as though their main purpose in life was to exploit women and keep them controlled. Most men loved their women and did everything to protect and care for their families.

Some scoundrels did exploit women, no doubt. But they exploited all weak people.....and still do. 

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2020, 04:34:03 PM »

Women have been working for millennia...in the fields, as flower girls, selling vegetables, managing eateries, doing laundry etc. What's the big deal about women working?  Nothing new about women working IMO.  But this was largely for economic reasons. They faced dangers and sexual exploitation just to make both ends meet. Women who could afford it always stayed at home...partly to manage the home, elderly and children and partly because it was safer.  Staying at home was a luxury in earlier times.
The issue that many feminists wanted to change was that women only had the skills/ opportunities to take low paying jobs that do not give them any real economic power and therefore compromises their autonomy. The lack of skills/ time to develop skills may be due to their additional care and house responsibilities or there may be biological reasons why on average women choose not to take opportunities that would allow them to develop the skills that would give her more autonomy.

The biological reasons for not taking those opportunities are disputed - it could be because women are physically weaker than men which limits the roles they can apply for and also limits their opportunities to travel for work or training without putting themselves at risk in certain countries. Some parts of India for example are perceived as having a problem with women being subjected to male violence while travelling or away from the protection of other men.  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/new-dehli-sao-paolo-women-sexual-violence-worst-place-world-india-capital-brazil-a8002541.html

Or it could be that under the patriarchy, their male protectors made it difficult for women to accept opportunities offered to them. Or it could be that the potential for women to become pregnant would pose a risk to women's future financial autonomy and social worth as working outside the home or business travel would be difficult / impossible to combine with child-care duties and being a single mother could make it harder to meet and find a future husband both practically and for social stigma reasons. It may therefore be that opportunities to develop their skillset were accompanied by risks that had more damaging outcomes for women and children than men because of men's tendency to aggression or because unsupervised children could come to harm or because of social stigma. Or it could be that women had other biological reasons for not having an interest in the type of roles that gave them more financial or physical autonomy - such as wanting to be protected and provided for by men.

Many feminists wanted to reduce a woman's dependency on a man for protection and provision so the State assumed a greater role as provider and protector and also attempted to make it easier for single mothers to work and gain autonomy. Many feminists also wanted to remove the social stigma of being a single parent, which seemed an intrinsic part of the patriarchy. Perhaps it was in trying to do that, that a man-bashing narrative grew. However, anecdotes from trans people suggest that men treat them in a more condescending and patronising way as women then they were treated as men, so it is possible that in order to feel protective and chivalrous towards women's physical and possibly emotional weakness, men became accustomed to treating women as intellectually deficient. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/transgender-people-treat-man-woman-differently-lgbt-gender-images-perception-a7681866.html

Quote
Women can today afford to work outside mainly because technology is helping them. Electricity, transport, cell phones, eateries, toilets, modern police  and security.....and so many other facilities today make it safe and convenient for women to work. Also, no wild animals, bandits or regular fighting between rival groups and communities. No soldiers and local chieftains carrying away women they fancied. Infections and illnesses which were common in earlier times are now largely curable.

Patriarchy had a purpose and it was not meant 'to exploit women'.  It was meant to protect them and the children.  If conditions changed back to what they were about 100 or 200 years ago....most women would choose to stay at home even today.

It is wrong of feminists to keep bashing men as though their main purpose in life was to exploit women and keep them controlled. Most men loved their women and did everything to protect and care for their families.

Some scoundrels did exploit women, no doubt. But they exploited all weak people.....and still do.
That presumably is the perspective that Mr Knowland was trying to raise to the boys at Eton.

Not sure how anyone can quantify the pros and cons of being a man or a woman today, especially in the UK, in order to decide if there is a male privilege or a female privilege. In certain parts of the world where there are more physical threats and restrictions against women, it seems fairly obvious that women operate under extra disadvantages. But it certainly seems to be a topic worth discussing, dissecting, and looking to statistics to reach a more nuanced view rather than taking simplistic feminist narratives as sacrosanct. And I say that as a feminist.
 
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2020, 05:30:44 AM »
What opportunities? For what? 

In the past, people were not in the least worried about showing off or wanting fancy goods or ambitious or just wanting to be seen as successful or anything of that sort. These are mindsets of the late 20th and 21st centuries born of increased facilities, better technology, more social contact and therefore more competition and vanity. 

Except for a few aristocratic people...no one else in the past had the time or leisure or resources to worry about such things. People in general, pretty much tried to be satisfied with their lives.

People in the past centuries were worried about living and bringing up their progeny. Nothing more. Very basic requirements. Men followed the traditional jobs that they learnt from their fathers and women followed their traditional work that they learnt from their mothers. That is it.

In many places in the world, this is the situation even today. Wherever women are required, because of poverty, to go out of the safety of their homes and work...they do. If not , they don't. 

Patriarchy is not some kind of a political system like communism or socialism or capitalism that people choose to follow deliberately. It is the default system that works in the absence of abundant facilities and resources.   





« Last Edit: December 05, 2020, 05:55:00 AM by Sriram »

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2020, 08:42:51 AM »
What opportunities? For what? 

In the past, people were not in the least worried about showing off or wanting fancy goods or ambitious or just wanting to be seen as successful or anything of that sort. These are mindsets of the late 20th and 21st centuries born of increased facilities, better technology, more social contact and therefore more competition and vanity. 

Except for a few aristocratic people...no one else in the past had the time or leisure or resources to worry about such things. People in general, pretty much tried to be satisfied with their lives.

People in the past centuries were worried about living and bringing up their progeny. Nothing more. Very basic requirements. Men followed the traditional jobs that they learnt from their fathers and women followed their traditional work that they learnt from their mothers. That is it.

In many places in the world, this is the situation even today. Wherever women are required, because of poverty, to go out of the safety of their homes and work...they do. If not , they don't. 

Patriarchy is not some kind of a political system like communism or socialism or capitalism that people choose to follow deliberately. It is the default system that works in the absence of abundant facilities and resources.   
In this part of the world people clearly worried about a lot more than just surviving and caring for their family from about the 16th century onwards. People's beliefs are shaped by nature and nurture i.e. their environment and culture. And given culture and beliefs are not homogenous and change according to geography and personal circumstances, naturally many people's aspirations in this part of the world were more ambitious than just surviving, as their personal circumstances and horizons changed /improved due to technological advances. I don't know what was happening in India but the literature in the West - from Shakespeare to Austen to modern day writers show that people were very much interested in social inequalities and sought to change them from much earlier than the 20th century. There were opportunities for education, travel, business, health care improvements, social reform, political participation and greater equality allowed for greater participation, rather than these opportunities being restricted to a privileged class.

So while there may be some / many parts of patriarchy that cannot be chosen, there are also many parts that are a social construct born of circumstance, ideas and beliefs.

As the idea of a nation state developed, so too did ideas of common humanity that applied to everyone, not just your family/ tribe/ clan. In some countries people started adopting the belief of individual moral agency in a society of individuals rather than a society of tribes/ clans and with that came the idea of the equality of individuals and individual rights, the Reformation, the Renaissance etc.

There are a lot of ideas there that would be useful topics of discussion for young minds.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2020, 09:17:05 AM »




I don't think that the common people were very different in any part of the world.  Earning a living, maintaining health, family concerns.... were the priority. Still are....I am sure even in many parts of the West. 

It is only modern technology and communication that have made a difference. 

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2020, 09:37:47 AM »



I don't think that the common people were very different in any part of the world.  Earning a living, maintaining health, family concerns.... were the priority. Still are....I am sure even in many parts of the West. 

It is only modern technology and communication that have made a difference.
History and literature in this part of the world is evidence that your opinion is incorrect. As I said, the Renaissance, Reformation, French Revolution, thousands of English risking their lives to leave Britain for America in the 1600s, the American war of Independence, the many different civil wars etc all show that ordinary people had concerns about wider societal issues, especially in relation to equality.     The movement for women's equality and the challenge to the patriarchy was a natural progression from this focus on individualism.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2020, 10:17:28 AM »
History and literature in this part of the world is evidence that your opinion is incorrect. As I said, the Renaissance, Reformation, French Revolution, thousands of English risking their lives to leave Britain for America in the 1600s, the American war of Independence, the many different civil wars etc all show that ordinary people had concerns about wider societal issues, especially in relation to equality.     The movement for women's equality and the challenge to the patriarchy was a natural progression from this focus on individualism.


Wars and battles have been a part of life everywhere.  Injustice and hardship could lead to revolutions. Independence struggle in India is well known. Many women participated. That doesn't change the basic concerns however. Family concerns are still primary for the common man. That is the foundation.

Revolutions are meant to benefit the family ultimately. They are not an end in themselves. In the ultimate analysis everyone wants their family members safe  and well cared for.

But what has all this got to do with patriarchy as a system?  That has been the default norm for obvious reasons. Still is, in many parts of the world....even in your part of the world (that you seem to think, is very different).

Patriarchy was not a deliberate system created with an evil desire to exploit women....or anything of that sort. That is what i am saying.

If things are changing somewhat now, it is due to technology and better facilities and more conducive social conditions. In earlier times it was not possible.

 

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2020, 02:23:21 PM »
I thought the main cause of patriarchy was about the control of the power women have, being able to bring the next generation into the world and the variations thereof.

When I look at other than the non physical advantages women have over men's abilities, it's a bit worrying, but there we men'll let you get away with it.

IMO there's no place for misogamy, other than in banter we both genders enjoy.

My brother in law had an operation to remove the fruit juicer press, he bought my sister in law for christmas, from the back of his head just after christmas a couple of years back.

He is overall a good man he's been a really good uncle to both of my lads, but some of the things he says about women, I have to keep quite, pax-famlicius, (just made that one up).

I'm sure Most of us men contribute to misog in one way or another it's even inbuilt into most languages.   

Just thought I'd share that lot with you lot.

ippy.

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2020, 05:51:22 PM »

Wars and battles have been a part of life everywhere.  Injustice and hardship could lead to revolutions. Independence struggle in India is well known. Many women participated. That doesn't change the basic concerns however. Family concerns are still primary for the common man. That is the foundation.

Revolutions are meant to benefit the family ultimately. They are not an end in themselves. In the ultimate analysis everyone wants their family members safe  and well cared for.

But what has all this got to do with patriarchy as a system?  That has been the default norm for obvious reasons. Still is, in many parts of the world....even in your part of the world (that you seem to think, is very different).

Patriarchy was not a deliberate system created with an evil desire to exploit women....or anything of that sort. That is what i am saying.

If things are changing somewhat now, it is due to technology and better facilities and more conducive social conditions. In earlier times it was not possible.
Was "Patriarchy was a deliberate system created with an evil desire to exploit women" an actual message from any part of the feminist movement? It could be what some feminists believe - I have not read too much about it.

My understanding of some of the feminist thought over the years is that the the message was that the patriarchy resulted in inequalities, even if that was not why the system developed and that men and women and society would be better served by tinkering with the patriarchy to try to find ways of compensating for the natural inequalities and differences in order to create fairer opportunities for women despite their biological differences/ disparities in strength, speed, aggression and physical bravery. Some people may have wanted to dismantle the patriarchy completely - obviously there is a wide spectrum of thought on how to address unfairness in society and to protect people from exploitation. We have communist vs socialist vs conservative capitalist solutions to address wealth inequality, and similarly there are many ideas on how to address gender inequalities.

For example, there is one view that when the State took over in the role of provider to give women more personal autonomy and women no longer needed husbands to provide, it led to an increase in a lack of fathers living in the home - possibly due to the reduced need for men to fulfil their biologically determined responsibilities to the family as provider  - which led to children being deprived of biologically-related male role models in the home. Interestingly, research seems to show that houses without a biologically related male father leads to biological and behavioural changes in children eg. puberty happens earlier for daughters https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/ and the educational achievements of boys are lower often due to higher number of  behavioural problems. So proposed solutions to gender inequality may lead to other problems for society. Clearly it is impossible to find a comprehensive solution and the conflict is between different interested parties promoting their own individual views on what the hierarchy of priorities should be for a fair and just outcome.

I think the debate that Knowland was seeking to start at Eton would have looked at the pros and cons of some of those different ideas.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2020, 09:35:33 PM by Violent Gabriella »
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Sriram

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6827
    • Spirituality & Science
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2020, 05:40:39 AM »
What is not appreciated by many people is that the system has been unfair to men! They see only the dominance and not the responsibility. Men have borne the responsibility of their families and of society and its development for millennia.

I can't see what all the fuss is about women working. Being compelled to work for making ends meet is one thing....but doing it as some sort of a prestige issue  is silly. After the initial thrill of earning and so called 'independence', it is actually a big responsibility where finally the women could end up managing the finance and the children and the home. 

Also, because of such role reversals, young people become reluctant to marry and have children. We are already seeing this happening....which may be welcome in the context of over population....but will result in these traits getting weeded out of the gene pool in the long term.

Patriarchy is not going to go away. It has evolved over millions of years and probably plays a role even in sexuality and fertility. A refined form of patriarchy will probably develop in the future. 

Cheers.




« Last Edit: December 06, 2020, 05:45:12 AM by Sriram »

Violent Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7644
Re: The Patriarchy Paradox
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2020, 11:26:45 AM »
What is not appreciated by many people is that the system has been unfair to men! They see only the dominance and not the responsibility. Men have borne the responsibility of their families and of society and its development for millennia.
Yes we could see unfairness all round. Hence some feminists think they are doing men a favour by proposing a system where men do not feel pressured to have that responsibility and instead share the load with women.

Quote
I can't see what all the fuss is about women working. Being compelled to work for making ends meet is one thing....but doing it as some sort of a prestige issue  is silly. After the initial thrill of earning and so called 'independence', it is actually a big responsibility where finally the women could end up managing the finance and the children and the home.
I believe the issue was that women were being exploited because of lack of financial means to leave a toxic situation because they did not have the opportunities to be hired for well-paid jobs that would give them the resources to have decision-making autonomy in their lives.

Not sure how much of it is prestige-related. Many women felt bored by the lack of mental stimulation involved in child care and running a house. Working in a paid job is more interesting - you gain technical knowledge either through experience or you might sit professional exams or gain technical qualifications of some kind, you learn soft skills, the career progression is rewarding. Being a home-maker offers none of those rewards or stimulation. You can't exactly discuss the latest tax legislation with a 10 year old or figure out a tax-planning strategy for their business or have an opportunity to learn technical competencies in engineering or economics or public policy or medicine. As a result of having competency in something people are willing to pay you for, there is a sense of satisfaction. But for a lot of people I think it is about opportunities for self-development and while parenting is a huge opportunity for self-development, it is unpaid and therefore restricts freedom and opportunities, which usually require money. If your husband is the only one doing paid work and you have to ask your husband for money, you have a bit of a problem if he says no.

Quote
Also, because of such role reversals, young people become reluctant to marry and have children. We are already seeing this happening....which may be welcome in the context of over population....but will result in these traits getting weeded out of the gene pool in the long term.

Patriarchy is not going to go away. It has evolved over millions of years and probably plays a role even in sexuality and fertility. A refined form of patriarchy will probably develop in the future. 

Cheers.
Yes caring for children is seen as expensive and restricting future life choices and yes human population increases are bad for the environment.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi