Why is it common to talk about "violence against women" and policies that "affect women" and "hurt women" when men experience equal harm, or in many cases greater harm, from the same policies? For example, women getting killed in Mexico generate headlines despite far more male homicides happening in Mexico, and the same goes for Native American stats.
Briefly the reason is that it makes sense to protect women and children above adult men. Morally women are much less capable of defending themselves and (for most of history) providing for themselves. Practically it's important to protect women from hostile forces because it's harder for one woman to birth many children than one man to father many children. Needless to say, a woman is also at a much higher risk of rape (unless they live in the Congo), and rape will severely damage anyone physically and mentally, let alone pregnancy, which directly changes the makeup of the next generation. A society that lets their women get roughhoused and killed at the same rate as men will not last very long.
The reason these concepts seem outdated in the 21st century is because women have largely brought their security up to parity with men through economic, cultural, and technological means. Modern women are capable of meeting and exceeding male earnings due to the white collar economy and affirmative action policies. Advancements in public safety allow unaccompanied women to move about freely. Cars, gated housing, professional services, and guns obviate the need for physical capability. However, the human psyche has not changed, and women's inherent desire for protection is sublimated into calls for economic protection as well as physical. Since women have more economic opportunities than men already, this creates and entrenches a female supremacy.
The next question is, where to go from here? Corporately, we can either attempt to hold women to the new standard (treat them as interchangeable with men culturally and legally, remove all protections) or go the other direction and restore traditional gender roles. The second option is a complex issue that has no real solutions at this time, but the first option is impossible to implement totally because of the indelible nature of the human mind. Male soldiers have been shown to instinctively move to protect female soldiers, regardless of their training. Women will always clamor for protection and assurance. Moreover, even if women were truly forced to exist on an interchangeable level with men, they would be cut down economically and even physically, since they literally have to play by different rules just to survive. Social decay and death will follow.
The final point is that conservatives have to decide which end goal they're driving for. "Equal rights for equal lefts" is a fun way of thinking, but ultimately unworkable and an acceptance of the utopian doctrine that men and women are equal. Taking away economic protectionist measures for women (such as women in STEM programs) is a great idea and necessary, but moves to push women into men's hardships, such as making women eligible for the draft, must only be conceived as accelerationist measures intended to ultimately restore traditional roles.
Whatever people mean when they talk about "traditional gender roles" in these topics. Which is rarely defined and means completely different things from person to person because its a meaningless idea used to just associate the "good old days like grandpa had."
That's why I don't push for it. Because I have the same question. Do we bring back dowries with only the father able to decide who a girl marries? Do we remove divorce as an option, and if he beats you that's just your lot in life you dumb girl? Actively ostracizing to outright punishing premarital sex? I'd imagine no one who is pro-"traditional gender roles" wants any of that, they just want the good parts they think exist.
In their most basic forms, traditional gender roles mean that the man is the primary provider and the woman is the primary caretaker. The quaint stuff like 3 cow dowries and hats in church matter, but not as much.
And that's a fine definition, but its the same as "communism is when everyone shares everything, and no one is left needing." Its completely true in idea, but the moment it leaves the paper and you try to bring it into the real world it has a lot more needs.
One difference from communism is that traditional gender roles have always worked, while communism has never worked. I think that's fairly significant.
I guess my point is that worrying about the details of transitional or final states isn't that relevant. Instead, it's all about the direction of the trend. That's the mindset communists use to take over a society, and it kind of works.
I believe the contrary. The details are the most important because each one is a supporting strut to keeping the status quo as it is and the direction they are aiming to take it. Ignoring them will leave you chopping at vines growing back faster than you can hack.
"Nobody knows what it means, but it gets the people going." (well, probably not)
That's just it, the idea isn't some return to some vague hyperreal notion of tradition. It's getting women to put child rearing ahead of jobs and careers. Key here is the realization that these things aren't liberating or empowering let alone protective.
Okay, and how do we accomplish that? Well you need full stay at home moms, which means we need to restructure the entire economy to make that a viable norm for the majority of people. We also need massive social changes to prevent premarital sex, because its poor child rearing to be a single mother, with or without the father "being involved." I can go on but you get the picture.
That's why its a meaningless idea, because its not just as simple as "do this and we fix the gender struggle!" These things are all connected and feeding into each other, reinforcing to keep the status quo. You can't fix one without fixing them all, because in the time it takes you to run through each one, they've already undone your work on the previous.
I get the desire people have, and its a good one. It just doesn't have any legs because its always talking about the problem and then handwaving the solution without a thought to logistics.
You don't need women to never work. Women had a ~33% labor participation rate in 1950. That's why I said priorities, not absolutely zero work. Of course you need radical changes to do this. You need radical changes to do basically anything that's popular here (except among the shills and even sometimes among the shills).
As far as the economy, a good starting point is immigration. Cut that, and you increase wages so that one wage goes further toward supporting a family. Attacking the college pyramid scheme and indoctrination center is another good part.
I think the reason you see so many "tradcon" types not having any answers is that they are only there to subvert radicalizing men and reify their grievances into supporting the system. Look at who owns, for example, The Daily Wire. A lot of these people are just stooges for big business and Israel so they lead people down a path of hapless moralizing without accounting for the economic realities that lead to dual incomes and cratered birth rates.
Good news on that front, younger generations are having less sex than before. The boomer moms of most of the people posting here (I recall you are older) took more dicks than the average zoomer chick. A lot of this is because of young people wasting their lives away on social media. The answer here seems to be distraction rather than moralizing.
Which women were those? Where they the ones with semi-higher incomes who could afford nannies? The ones with extended in home families to cover their children for them? Unmarried, no kids? Because I'd imagine those categories alone made up the majority of those numbers. The first two aren't exactly things most people have the option of (until they are too older to be having kids really), while the last isn't really part of the equation to begin with.
Also, that's ignoring the entire other conversation of "women in the workplace" and the laundry list of issues it causes, but I am of the belief that that is absolutely a necessity to reach many of these goals people want. Especially given that most of those 33% were likely nearly women-only workplaces which is how such problems were avoided then.
Its an improvement, but all it takes is once. Both in terms of "the discipline necessary to keep virginity strengthens your resolve in many facets" being a forgotten concept (for both genders, I won't hold only women to that one) and just one unlucky night and a single mother is created.
Less, especially less than the previous absurd number, isn't anywhere near the "rare" necessary for these ideals and morals to take hold.