The article seems to be only partially tongue in cheek.
I both agree and disagree. To the extent that women aren’t (yet, and maybe we never will be) as economically powerful as men, it doesn’t make sense for the sexual revolution to have suggested this asset should be traded as freely as it is. In theory, there should be no difference between how sex is employed by men or women. But we don’t live in theory.
I strongly disagree with the suggestion, whether tongue in cheek or serious, that women’s strides in the job market are somehow not a positive development for us. When women cannot get the assistantce on the household front that men do, of course, things will be stressful. Where the husband/dad pulls his weight, as mine does, it’s great. If anything, he is a better caretaker than I am. But it all evens out, as I am doing more of the breadwinning.
Just because the second shift hasn’t evened out, doesn’t mean equality on the first shift isn’t a good thing. Just google Terry Hekker.
