I mean that’s literally the only thing that came of the whole situation. It’s reasonable to believe that the goal was achieved.

Well, then, I suppose op is probably right.

Except he resigned from this last term, so, correct me if im wrong, but, I’m pretty sure he’s back in, in January, for the next term he was just re elected for.

This was more my take. I mean, like women just sat there and said, “Whelp, there’s nothing to do. Let’s just take care of the kids.” It’s not some natural evolution. And, for all the people studying the past (in the past) to just be like, “Men hunt, women gather,” is ignoring how women ended up in those roles in the first place. The fact that they needed “evidence” of this is, before comming to that conclusion is…disappointing, but not surprising.

Crap. They just took it from somewhere else and passed it off as their own. Jerk.

Edit: But then why is this even being debated?

My SO has a theory that if the group of people lived in a harsh environment, ie. having to work for what you had with no guarantee of food or safety, etc, it was common for women to work just as much as men. Such a society needed all hands on deck, so to speak. But, when we start becoming “civilized”, and things started getting made for us, (as opposed to an individual making it themselves.) Women and men start having diverging roles. Essentially, there’s just not enough work, so womens role turns into raising the babies, to fill the time. Eventually, for whatever reason, “civilized” society just forgot about the hard times and assumes women have always been there just to raise babies.

Disclaimer: This is based on absolutely nothing. Maybe some random information that explain that women did “men” jobs too, once. Idk.

Idk I could see the floor with the cabinets being black maybe with an updated design. If the rest of the house was nice, I’d do it.