> i think OP of this subthread means "new" in the context of human society "new". Several decades is still pretty "new" if you take into account human history.

The "woman stays at home taking care of the children and the man goes out and earns enough to feed the family" concept is also new if you take into account human history.

It got introduced for the most part during the 19th century. Before that you couldn't afford to not let the women work anyway. Actually, during the industrial revolution and the growing social disorder there, you also couldn't afford to not let women and children work but often you had to.

And if you look at the whole of human history, the most common model of raising children was by a whole community. From groups of 5-10 individuals to even larger communities, all were somewhat responsible for and watching the growing children.

The idea that everybody could raise a child with only two or even worse just one parent is laughable if it weren't so sad that it's a common view.

quite true, but I feel like the "mother at home" cultural artifact still feels older in modern (european/american) human's psyche. It wasn't the best system, but it feels like the system that most of our societal changes have been seeking to rectify.

Your point about the 19th century is also interesting as its (mother at home) origins in that time period may explain why it's so ingrained and also deemed the default. It arose during the time of the biggest jump in human technological advancement (industrial revolution). Most of the propaganda for it references this correlation and uses it as a justification.

I don't agree with this sort of connection, but it is interesting to note.

sorry about the repetition of your point. I recently hit my head.