As long as the United States is a patriarchal society, women will not be truly equal

Even if gender equality is a "luxury," I don't see why that makes fighting for it any less important. You could argue that running water is a "luxury," but it is doubtless important as well. Also, I do not think true equality has ever been achieved in the real world. It is more of an ideal.. but then again, aren't most of the things for which we fight? Think about freedom, justice, peace-- those are ALL ideals. The pure versions of them are in fact near-impossible to encounter in real life. I see it as akin to Plato's theory of forms. Actually, it is much more suitable for ideas than for objects. Litchfield sounds lovely, but only educated 2000 women over the course of 30 years. Please see the following link for the barriers I was referencing: http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu... As for SAT data, you will find a more thorough and statistically sound resource here: http://professionals.collegeboard.com... You will notice that a) while more women took the SAT, both sample sizes are sufficiently large; b) in Reading, men outscore women by 4 points, but also have a standard deviation (SD) that is 4 points higher, in Math, men outscore women by 33 points, but again have a higher SD by 7 points, and in Writing, women outscore men by 13 points and have a lower SD by 2 points; c) for each of the sections (excluding the stats for the small group of students who did not identify their gender.. I am essentially ignoring them), the SD is at least 3 digits. You also might be interested to know the following gender breakdowns: Virginia Tech: 57% male, Georgia Tech: 62% male, Cal Tech: 64% male, MIT: 55% male, Rochester Tech: 68% male, and so on. Tech schools are STILL male-dominated. Now, let's look at liberal arts schools (specifically the TOP liberal arts schools): Williams:51% women, Amherst: 53% men, Swarthmore: 52% women, Pomona: 52% women, Middlebury: 52% women, Bowdoin: 51% women. And finally, just for fun, the Ivies: Harvard: 51% men, Yale: 51% men, Princeton: 51% men, Penn: 50% each, Brown: 51% women, Cornell: 50% each, Dartmouth: 50% each, and Columbia: 53% men. All verifiable through collegeboard.org. As you can see, men still dominate tech schools and stand just about equal odds at the top colleges and in the Ivies. I see no clear advantage given to women, especially if/when qualified women are cut just to maintain equal gender ratios. About unemployment, I direct you here: http://www.economywatch.com.... There are plentiful and varied reasons for unemployment. It is not as simple a supply not matching demand. Creating more valuable workers may be self-serving but it is not automatically indoctrination. You may not agree with public education, but you cannot deny that the whole concept is to make at least basic education available to all. Not sure why the maternal death rate thing is so convoluted. In it's simplest form: up to 40% of women used to die from giving birth. It is still a long and painful experience THUS it is reasonable that, in the past as well as present, women would not want to give birth for these and other reasons THUS those women would not wish to become pregnant THUS most would be ineligible for marriage THUS were more useful in the workforce YET for those women who were barred from educational or professional opportunities and/or forced into marriage for social/economic reasons, pregnancy was no longer a choice they got to make ERGO that is not fair. That is my point. Forms of feminine hygiene products have existed for thousands of years. It was the men, not the women who isolated the menstruating ladies. Also, please note the "P" in PMS is for Pre. As in Pre-Menstrual. Sooo are you suggesting that for 2 weeks out of 4 women are unfit to take part in normal society?? If so I beg to differ. Menstruation is not a disease.. its completely natural. Perhaps we have a difference of upbringing but my grandmother (b. 1930) was not only college educated, but also worked before, during and after having 3 healthy and successful children. She cooked dinner every night (except Fridays they went out for hamburgers.. cute, I know), cleaned with some help from her kids, went to church every week and saw to it that her family did too, threw dinner/social parties, was an active Union member AND is STILL in a homemakers club founded a good 40+ years ago. I do not believe she would have had it any other way. Perhaps you do not see it this way, but there is something inherently subordinate about having no earning power and/or being responsible for 0% of the income. By extension, there often arise issues of who gets to spend how much on what item, given this lopsided circumstance. Also, there is little or no intellectual reward in raising children. There are emotional and personal rewards. There are societal and familial rewards, but some desire stimulation for the mind as well. Together, these qualities can make the position of homemaker seem subordinate indeed. I concede to your argument about forcing double-income to become the norm. I agree that it has been pushed and pushed to the point that companies adjust and charge more accordingly. I agree this pattern emerged as more mothers became "working mothers" and eliminated the "safety net." I agree it makes being "middle class" near impossible for single-income families, and most of the so-called middled class now survive on more than 1 income (even if it's 1.5, etc.). Two issues though (not that you can answer either.. just a realistic endpoint to a real-world problem): 1. What practical tools do we have to change this? and 2. What (if any) evidence is there to suggest that women should be the ones who retreat to the domestic sphere? However, I disagree with regard to your dichotomy about responsibility and opportunity. I think they are in fact closely tied, and opportunity has responsibility embedded in it. Our immigrant ancestors came to the US for opportunity so they could fulfill their responsibilities to their families. Opportunity alleviates the stress of living with a gap between what you have and what you need. It would of course help millions of Americans if some responsibilities were taken care of-- for example: health care, retirement, cost of education. Many of these things ARE taken care of (by governments that is) in other developed countries. And it seems to work. My Proposal for the Future: I agree we should go back to a single-income system, but I am honestly not sure how. I think men and women should have equal opportunities when it comes to education, job training, etc. Though personal skills and intelligences vary, men and women should be hired based on ability, skills and intellect. I agree that children should be raised by their parents and not by nannies or daycares. However, I am not sold on this having to be a single, non-employed parent's job. Before children go to school, yes more time is required to raise and care for them. I will even concede that for biologic and other reasons, this ought to be the mother during these early years. However, once kids begin school, I see no reason why the second parent cannot contribute to the household with duties as well as income AS/IF needed. Just think-- all the time spent nursing/feeding, changing, and/or comforting babies eventually is freed up. If this extra income means not necessarily more material things but rather more TIME the other parent gets with his/her children, I see this as even more valuable. I recognize that children have on-going needs, but these adhere more and more to regular hours as they get older. So yes, perhaps one parent handles "kid stuff," but I am looking at benefit to the family unit as a whole. Further, technology enables more and more jobs that can be done from home and/or on one's own schedule. My plan is neither radical nor selfish- its focus is family in a modern world.