>>309362I think feminism should embrace the fact that a large section of women would like to try being homemakers, at least for a period of their lives (like when children are young). Family focused people exist and there is more opportunity to be productive inside the home than ever. The only insurmountable problem faced is the very real career hit and life risk from having to trust another person with everything.
There's also the fact that whether women like it or not, the birth rate issue is practically looming over every single advanced or even industrialized economy in the world at this point. Not only has bribery via money, services like childcare, or even housing shown to barely work in even the Nordic countries, that level of public spending is completely unsustainable in the long run. All while the lack of young people paying in destroys the social safety nets which do exist (which women disproportionately benefit from, who lives longer again?). You can't even use the average migrants because migrants aren't actually net taxpayers as a whole, only 2nd or 3rd gen will be (whose birth rates also crash living a "modern" lifestyle).
I think what should actually be done is to give women workplace and educational protections to allow them to have children earlier if they so wish. Statistically, most women who do want to stay home, only want to do so because their children are young. So as long as there is a viable way to "catch up" once your children are of school age, there isn't nearly as much of an impact on the course of your life. It leaves those wonderful years where they're grown up or teens right at start of peak career time. Having children earlier also increases the potential childbearing age of a woman each time she gets pregnant (9 months of no ovulation, plus 1-6 months of inconsistent/rare), meaning you can easily have more later in life if desired. Mothers should get veterans style benefits, as well as an official "mother" style career track/option. While most DEI type programs are under assault, a few which are are viewed as "meritocratic", such as veterans benefits, have broad public support. If the birth rate is such a problem, it really shouldn't be that big an issue to give increasing levels of support based on how much women have chosen to disrupt their lives.
First: Offer Employers incentives to hire part-time style "mother" employees. Women coming back into the workforce still have many familial obligations. The dreaded second shift continues to be a pernicious problem and I think there's a "trad" based solution for those who want it. A "mother" career track employee gets to leave work 2 hours early for the first child, with 1 hour added per child. These aren't paid hours but they are guaranteed freedom for school pickup and chores/errands. This allows women post early-childhood years to get work experience relevant to their work specialization, still meet the needs of their loved ones and even earn start earning some income. Also give women sick days for their children by law. So much work actually CAN be done as remote work now, even if employers aren't thrilled with it. If a kid needs to be picked up early from school because they're sick, or a child stays home complete with doctors note, it should count as excused for someone on the "mother" career track. Employers would mostly use these women as support personnel for actual workers, but with the government incentives/tax breaks, the goal would be that someone on this career track is always welcome as an extra, if somewhat possibly unreliable, pair of hands.
Second: Veterans style benefits for mothers who are making the choice to return to the "proper" workforce. Hiring a woman who's going from the "mother" career track because her children are now teens or a "now single mom" should carry serious benefits. This should also carry educational benefits with it, such as allowing for re-training/education if field has had dramatic changes since you left the workforce, along with a "refresher" certification for women who didn't have much chance to use their degree before starting a family.
Third: Subsidize cost of entry, registration and certification for "cottage" (home based) industries for women with children. There is a perfectly good kitchen in most homes, a small scale food business should have some roadblocks smoothed. It should be easy to get more expensive equipment like a flash freezer. Income made from craft goods shouldn't be subject to taxes or should have write offs. 3D printing is already somewhat viable and keeps getting better. These women should have the information and some of the resources needed offered to them. Offer some remote work opportunities specifically for mothers.
Fourth: Offer educational opportunities and subsidies for "Mrs. Degrees" (infinitely available) which teach "advanced" homemaking skills. Specific classes for cuisines, jam or cheese making, sewing. Or more technical things like how to automate watering a garden.
Fifth: Allow routine "volunteer" opportunities like children's sports or tree planting to count as tax write offs for the wage of their significant other. There is quite a bit that could be run with "professional volunteers" on an ad-hoc basis, while still allowing the disruptions of daily life.
A modern "housewife" can have something much better than the 50's with some proper structure imo. There is so much more automation now. Women are far more educated. Information is now far easier to get, as is organization thanks to the internet. Shipping, refrigeration, built to order designs and manufactured materials have all undergone revolutions. Work from home exists.
It probably wouldn't even be that hard a sell politically either. At least across the westernized world. Politicians are desperate, with people not wanting migrants but wanting modern welfare systems. Men would probably embrace it. It wouldn't be beyond the understanding of the "traditional" elderly. And since the entire world is cheap, it's probably not very expensive to keep going compared to the other options.
