Trying to pretend itnis not about that is just bad faith. Of course topic is women dependent and without income rather then males being dependent on women.

It’s not 1950. I know plenty of women who want to be breadwinners of the household and men who’d be happy to stay at home and manage the family not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together.

Also plenty of people in lower income brackets are finding that a second partner having a job is more expensive than staying home because of the high costs of child care.

A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.

In 1950, no one would make the comment I responded to, true. In 2022, it is super rare for a man to stay as stay at home father. Trying to pretend that dads are primary caregivers as often as women is just dishonest. And that goes for lower income brackets especially. Especially after pandemic when female dominated jobs got killed in higher numbers and especially since it was overwhelmingly women who started to spend way more time on childcare.

> not to mention folks who are rejecting the gendered identity all together.

And those folks are literally accused of being groomers by large parts of population just for existing and being visible. There is literal campaign of fearmongering going on against them. Threats of violence against these people are a thing now too. There are attempts to make gender non-comforming clothing in the presence of children into illegal acts.

>A few people want that kind of subjugation but broadly it just wouldn’t happen again, the vast majority of men and women wouldn’t stand for it.

Quite a lot of them would happily stand for "subjugation" I see nostalgia for it regularly. Seriously, abortion rights are being reversed and those were supposed to be untouchable too. Just teaching about ugly parts of history is in the process of being outlawed as boogeyman CRT.

And Wisconsin did not even managed to make underage marriages illegal, because it is constitutional right of adult men to marry girls under 16.

At the time, society did. Meaning most people (most men) did.

This is not actually new information for you, right? I think there's a subtext of your question I am missing?

It’s not 1950. I’m talking about now.

I too would love it if the economy were still such that a family could be supported on one income for the majority of occupations and jobs, but without people having their social and professional roles limited due to gender. I can't imagine any worker would not love this. I don't understand what we're disagreeing about, but if we are and you'd like to discuss it, less sarcasm and implied accusations and rhetorical questions and more just plain saying what you mean would help.

Personally, I think that the only way we get this is with popular anti-capitalist movements, to change the nature of the economy to be structured around people's needs instead of maximal exploitation of labor for capitalist profit. But I'm open to hearing about other visions.