> Not it wasn't living hellThe nice thing about this is that it's largely a statement of fact, not an ideological question. It's an issue we can actually evaluate using evidence.
So. Where's your evidence for this claim?
I have plenty of evidence for mine. We can go read memoirs, first-hand, and second-hand accounts from women in the 19th and early 20th century. The downsides are well-documented.
> Having professional goals was a luxury
Those well-documented downsides extend far beyond the absence of professional goals.
Financial dependence is coercive, especially when paired with lax legal protections. Lack of personal economic autonomy, enforced by culture and in many cases law, gives rise to a whole range of depressing conditions. Lack of professional ambition was only one contributor to a huge constellation of factors that made many women's lives a living hell.
> Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.
Of course, men also enjoyed professional positions in academics, in industry, and in government that women were cut off from.
> Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy
What is the relevance of this observation to the current discussion?
Does doing a crappy job entitle a man to the affection or devotion of a woman? If not, then what bearing does the existence of crappy jobs have on the status of women in society?
Also, there's plenty of pain and misery to go around. No reason to turn it into a contest. And we certainly have no good reason to condition women's status in society on the total abolition of men working undesirable jobs.