If you earn your own money then you have more independence. If that's ideological then I don't know what's not ideological.

Two-earner households obviously have a large independence over single breadwinner households in being able to 1) afford housing 2) afford to pay for education.

'Liberation' has meant that for the majority of women, if they want to raise a family without financial disadvantage, either must work or be very choosy over their husband's earning potential / wealth.

Is that really an increase in choice? Most people do not have the financial cushion to stay at home, even if that's what they really want.

I am employed and I earn my own money, but I am not truly "independent".

What constitutes "true independence"?

The OP means that if you earn your own money, then you do not depend on your spouse for income. This provides you with more freedom than you would otherwise have. Both because you can divorce and still have income, and because your spouse can no long argue "This money is earned entirely by me, so I have complete discretion over how it will be spent".

Well yes, we are all as such under capitalism. But it's a matter of degree.

What I want to discuss is the underlying premise of these articles, that by woman being liberated from the burden of the family, they achieve a sort of independence that leads them to increased happiness. And furthermore, that this trend is nothing but the next step in societal evolution and previous models of organization are not only outdated, but a form of subjugation.

It is a bit odd. I suppose by this light, men's increased participation in home life and parenting represents a forgoing of their independence and an reduction in their happiness. This does not seem to be the case e.g. in Scandinavia.

>under capitalism

What economic system do you propose that has the most individual independence?

One where I don't witness the majority of my peers doing pointless socially unnecessary work because profit is the dominant justification for most economic activity.

Does this system have a name? Where can I read more about this system that doesn't pressure anyone to work?

Why do you think it yet exists? Do you think we've reached the end of history? I don't think we even know where to start.

All of the greatest problems looming on our horizon are tied to how we organize production and consumption.

>Why do you think it yet exists?

Because I asked about it, and you answered by confidently describing it, instead of saying "it doesn't exist."

I described something by saying what it isn't. I think you understand the concept of looking for something having some idea of what it is and isn't, but not knowing exactly what it would be.

To an outside reader, it sounds like you know exactly what it is but are trying to not call it by its name for some reason.

To me, another outside reader, daenz sounded like the one who knew exactly what answer he wanted to hear, right from the start. This is actually a very strange question to ask that early in a conversation what name such a basic and legitimate but abstract desire could have.

No, it sounds like he knows what result he wants but doesn't know how to get there.

You're only independent if you have significant savings. If you're spending everything you earn you're entirely dependent on your employer.

I’m not sure that the titles you offered seem to support your argument that the nyt is pushing the ideology you describe.

Liberation, however, is strongly tied to economic opportunities. Historically, as is cited in TFA, women got married often for financial security and stability.

Why did man married then? Wouldn't it be easier for them to remain single and enjoy their freedom and wealth?

Yes. That is where age gap between partners comes to play. Among other things, it ensures exactly that. The stereotype at the time was that women want marry soon and men avoid commitment and want to stay single longer.

The other reasons are sex, social pressure and actually feeling in love and marriage being expected expression of that.

So, let's see if I understand correctly: women did not want to marry but did so out of economic necessity.

Men did not want to marry either, but did so out of societal pressure.

Both Man and Woman did not want to marry but did so nevertheless, due to the structure of the society.

> Wouldn't it be easier for them to remain single and enjoy their freedom and wealth?

Men married later then women. That way men got more years of freedom. That was normal.

Women wanted to marry, because economy, because married women had higher social status, to leave parents house, because that was expected of them anyway etc.

Single men were somewhat discriminated against too in employment situations and married men had higher social status.

Nevertheless, stereotype at time was girl trying to force marriage from male afraid of commitment. Perfectly reasonable answer to question about that exactly.

Sounds like work, religion, school, hygiene, or any other social behavior, doesn't it?

What's the alternatives?

Shall we view marriage as some kind of instinctive behavior?

Or some kind of rational decision supported by some game theory?

The New York Times is filled with JCE’s looking to attach themselves to the click-bait that is “wacky Japan!”. The articles are generally drivel.

JCE's?