Hi there
I think you argue that the womenâs rights movement didnât truly free women but instead made them economically dependent on the state and workforce. In my opinion your argument rests on several key assumptions:
1. Traditional roles as the natural order: Framing motherhood and homemaking as womenâs primary purpose ignores the fact that these roles were historically enforced rather than freely chosen. For example, in my country, Switzerland, women couldnât vote on a federal level until 1971. And on the state level (we call them Cantons), the last of the 26 Cantons didnât grant women the right to vote until 1990! True freedom means having the choice to be a mother, a worker, or bothâwhile enjoying full and equal rights. Would you choose going back to 1960?
2. The state as a mastermind: The idea that women were pushed into the workforce as a tax strategy leans heavy into conspiracy thinking. But economic shifts (Inflation / Fiat-money, industrialization, globalization, higher living standards) made dual incomes (in parts) a necessity, not a secret agenda.
3. Family breakdown as a direct consequence of women working: Rising divorce rates reflect changing social dynamics, including the ability to leave unhappy or abusive marriages. Strong families depend on support, not rigid gender roles.
4. Bitcoin as solution: I donât see how Bitcoin address structural issues like wages, childcare, or job security. As a Bitcoiner you / me maybe could gain substantial wealth - but i donât see how it would solve general problems for everyone.
Ultimately, I think your argument idealizes a past where women were âfreeâ within a narrow role. True independence means the power to choose oneâs own path. If the state is to be criticized, it should be for failing to support families of all models, not for granting women more autonomy.
