The right to do something is different from the want to do something. How many people have fought for their right to vote? And yet how abysmal is voter turnout every year?

The desire for education is very different from the desire for work.

I am not saying there are no women (or even the majority of women) who want to work because it is their choice. But I think we are making it a gender issue when really it isn't. Do most men want to work or do they have to? Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia.

I think it depends on the individual more than the gender.

> Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia.

That is kind of not true.

1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom.

2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.)

3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold.

4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners.

5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.

Those are all valid points, but aren't those all (edit: mostly) examples of women being forced to work instead of choosing to work? Also I'd say those are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. If anything I'd say you bolstered the top comment's argument (I do not know your stance and am not trying to be combative).

Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition? These are examples women people living real lives. Wast populations. There was such a thing as idle lifestyle of aristocracy in places where the situation allowed that to male aristocrats. Spending most of their time socializing with each other.

Also, overall they easily make majority of population. Combination of family farms, non-aristocracy, poor people, war situations, dangerous or far away occupations for males, pre-industrial are largely majority of "centuries if not millenia". Can I add former slaves who would be significant part of population here?

The "we expect the half of population to be mostly idle and mostly unused" is unnatural exceptional situation. And in case of muslim countries considerable physical violence is used to keep it that way.

When you talk about what was happening and was feasible for centuries, you cant skip over such was populations. They did not had power, had less control over own lives, but they did existed and count.

Also, most of those feminists marches were middle class or rich women. Poor women worked already, they however had sucky jobs and had completely different needs. Turns out that when women are actually in that supposedly great optimal situation, they want to get out, significant percentage is discontent and unhappy.

> Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition?

Yes, I never said or implied otherwise. I don't know why you think I'm fighting with you.

My entire point is people work because they have to more than they want to, and gender is irrelevant. What I originally said:

> I think it depends on the individual more than the gender.

I'm totally ignorant in all of that, but for me it just looks like out of sudden (historically) we have way too many males. They used to be killed during hunting, wars, competition with other males. Since 1945 we haven't had that. Men became not as hot commodity. This is the motor of the current social changes, isn't it?

For example: only 40% of all Homo Sapiens Sapiens males that have ever lived were able to have offspring. Compared to 80% females.

Your statistics would have 2 women to 1 male making the "norm is one male one female in marriage with children" completely impossible absurd standard.

Doesn't have to be at the same time, think of the case of a first wife dying during childbirth and father remarrying and having more children.

Yes, we have known it since human genome was decoded. The DNA tests always indicate that a person who took the test had twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. There is no other way than twice as many females procreating than males for it to be true. I hope you are not one of the "DNA deniers"... leftists/marxists are capable of dismissing all types of knowledge to still believe in their rel... err... ideology.

Of course they did. So that they can work. But don't have too. Great deal if you ask me.