I’m not sure I follow this question. It is clear that education and technology have changed the gender power balance. Supposedly, strength was the advantage men had over women. But right now, jobs that require strength are low paid. Same for “risky jobs”. Compared with tech jobs or management jobs, pay is not that good.

And then, there are the “caring jobs”. Most of them used to be unpaid and done out of obligation by women. Now that is changing and are done mostly by poor immigrant women.

I guess that “traditional” people would try to force women back in the house so they do that work for free again. But since now women have resources, it is unlikely it happens. We are going to see plenty of single people and lonely old people. That would become a business where they would speculate just like they do with houses.

I mean, even in an scenery where women are striped of all rights by force, passive resistance would mean that the women forced into caring would do a crap job. I mean, would you be nice to someone that treat you like shit? No.

Caring is undervalued, yet is going to be in demand. That is creating friction between genders. After all, one thing conservatives keep forgetting is that progressives came from conservative families or have conservative family members. Progressives usually have older conservative members on the family. They know conservative arguments and way of thinking, they just have reached different conclusions based on their live experience. I’ve lost track of how many times I heard the same arguments about how “women would be happier in their natural roles”. But if that were true, feminist would never have appeared in the first place. Feminist works for many women because it improves their lives. Same with LGBTI rights.

Progressive values improve the lives of people who were on the lower part of the pyramid hierarchy. The ones that are doing free work and have less rights. conservative values appeal to those who benefit from that free work or limited right for others.

So, “tout ça change”. On the medium-long term, the world won’t be able to sustain so much population, so changes that reduce birth rate would prove an advantage. It would be that or another war. After all, having lots of children that you can’t fed, never amounts for anything good.