Sarmatian, all I am suggesting is some sort of tax incentive/penalty to favour a disadvantaged group. This is already common practice and can be seen in tax breaks/income support for married couples, those with children, the disabled etc. These have never caused problems along the lines you are suggesting; or at least, if they have, they have been very minor.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the workforce, I'm talking about the distribution of the jobs.

Female employment is only part of the issue. Consider for example stay-at-home students, who work retail jobs purely for pocket money, while working-class families lose out on the potential for a living because of this. I am saying that there is a disconnect between those getting jobs, and those who need them.

Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that woman's right to work isn't in accordance with legal and moral norms? And that true legal and moral norms should reflect more traditional role of women of taking care of a household? Or am I missing the point?
I am saying that the idea that the sum of female empowerment might be found in white-collar wage-labour is a very modern innovation, and as such not in accordance with moral norms. Even in today's drastically altered moral climate, I think there is a realization that if a woman wants to focus on a career, she will have to make sacrifices with her role as a parent. I do not think this is because women are not designed to work. Rather, I blame the nature of employment these days, which mostly forces women to spend all day in an office and often have a hefty commute on top of that - naturally this means they can't be very good mothers.