People are being "liberated from gender roles" merely by technological progress: washing machines and the likes making household chores not a fulltime job, office jobs being doable even while pregnant, that sort of thing. The claim that people choose jobs just because of societal expectations is unproven.
The result will be that those who do live in a way more aligned with human nature and the specializations each sex entails will out breed those who don't.
On the man's side of things, a man who is a part time teacher's aid for the sake of work-life flexibility is judged as lazier than a woman doing the same thing would be, which is society actively pushing men toward taking up more work responsibilities.
And in these examples, what would be the repercussions for being perceived as lazy? If he wants a family, the problem for the part time working man would presumably still to be able to provide for a family, which would not be an issue of perception, but of actual shortage of money. If he doesn't want a family, it doesn't matter. The difference is that a woman would never need to earn enough to provide for a family, so the judgement "too lazy to provide for a family" would not apply.
And a messy woman's household will be seen and judged by whom, exactly?
Of course, the above is just my anecdotal experience and doesn't apply to everyone.
I don't think the transactional and combative assumption of gender relations is really applicable, or a constructive framework for this kind of analysis.
Specifically, I dont agree with the premise that the man is "convincing" the woman to have "their" child, and shouldn't "get it for free" . It also seems to imply the father is freeloading if they are the primary caretaker and the mother works.
In my reality, women usually want to have children, even more so than men. In a healthy relationship, it is a jointly owned undertaking, not coercion by one partner. Additionally, the role of childrearing is not seen as a cushy reward and payback for going through the hard work of pregnancy.
The underlying biological reality is that making children is more costly for women than for men. The rest follows from that.
I think therefore that you have the skewed view.
"I don't think the transactional and combative assumption of gender relations is really applicable"
It is the low level consideration of evolution - other things are layered on top, like the construct of "love" enabling people to stick together.
"the man is "convincing" the woman to have "their" child, and shouldn't "get it for free""
So you don't think a man fathering a child should take care of the mother and child? You wouldn't think it bad style to father a child and then leave mother and child to their own devices?
In any case, as I explained, the mother invests more into bringing the child to life than the father, so doesn't it seem fair if the father tries to even the scales by providing other things?
"In my reality, women usually want to have children, even more so than men."
Sure, but they need food and shelter to succeed in raising those children.
>Sure, but they need food and shelter to succeed in raising those children.
So it is work when a woman raises the children, but when the man raises the children, they are providing nothing? This premise seems to be the cornerstone of your argument that men who take care of children are freeloaders. You think that women deserve payback, and these men are not providing it.
One thing women usually get in exchange is the privilege to choose to stay home with their children.
Now how hard it is to stay home and provide for the children every couple has to decide for themselves. But yeah, I personally will claim that it is not as hard as most jobs, putting a roof above the families head and so on.
You can also check the cost of household services (cleaning, cooking, washing) to estimate the value a male housekeeper brings to the table. I think a husband as housekeeper is usually more expensive.
If it were, you can also check the cost of hiring a surrogate. It looks like pregnancy and birth are worth $20-45k, at least in Canada, and far cheaper if you are willing to travel.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/surrogacy-agencies-expenses-c...