Reminder.

>>2119118
...that Pat Buchanan is unapologetically ignorant of both feminism and womens' rights.

Thanks for that, OP. I'd almost forgotten what a prick that guy is.

>>2119118
Savage

He's right. There's no reason for someone to stay at home all day when gadgets can do all the shit housewives used to do better and faster.

Nowadays women only really need to stay at home when they have small children to look after

This sounds a lot like a Marxist view on history, doesn't it?
It wasn't people that changed society, it was the changing material factors that did.

>>2120462
Yes that is historical materialism.

>>2120462
it's not like they ignore the involvement of people in the development of these materials

>>2119118
>feminism played no role whatsoever
>>2120417
>>2120420
>women's rights were achieved 100% through revolutionary spirit

do you people ever discuss anything properly

>women had more time due to objects and processes that made the normal housekeeping routine a manageable task so that they could do other things like working, learning etc
How is this sexist? Because it implied women used to have -shocker- traditional roles?

>>2120528
The housewife is a relatively recent phenomena, traditional is a misnomer.

>>2120528
It assumes that those are women's tasks. That's the sexist part. Literally sexist. Calling it "traditional" doesn't make it less sexist, it just means that sexism is traditional. But it's still sexist.

>>2120565
it doesn't assume, they are naturally womens tasks. As for whether it's a good or bad thing for women to be confined to them, i don't know for sure. But the declining birthrates sort of tell us that it was probably a good thing when they were.

>>2120565
Householding tasks are basically an logical extension of nurturing the children. You can find find that sexists, but it's as logical as the man going out working like they used to have to go out providing food for the nurturing mother, who couldn't do it herself due to the infant.