What it shows is that signifiers of status can and do change with culture. In some places, the only status that matter for women is children. Most people do not view women like that any more, and culturally we have moved on while remaining part of the human race.
If culture can change so female status is not solely based on their ability to raise chilren, culture can change so male status is not solely based on their ability to support children.
True, but now I realize we're getting far afield of the original point of contention.
The issue is that US rural men are unemployed. But the US rural economy will continue to decline until it reaches a balance with global commerce; protectionism, at best, is only a temporary measure. The US rural economy has even more to fall over the next decade.
Can we really think a solution is to teach rural men to find value in contributing nothing? A sinking economy gives nothing to do; even family-raising is a dismal prospect with poor schools and declining healthcare. The best and only plausible scenario is that rural men pack up their familes and move to the cities where jobs are plentiful. Indeed, this is the worldwide trend.
If culture can change so female status is not solely based on their ability to raise chilren, culture can change so male status is not solely based on their ability to support children.