> There is a reason a division of labor started among humans to begin with.

Historical division of labor was entirely different. And no, those things in modern setting do not amount to full time job. Moreover, the idea that whole gender is composed of personality type that likes isolated routine work with pretty much zero external motivation is ridiculous. 1960 America middle class housewife is not historical norm by any meaning. The majority of population were peasants, both genders overworked.

Or otherwise said, I don't like cleaning either and prefer someone else to do it too, but it is not because I would perceived it as difficult. Nor is it something that in 2018 requires someone full time at home.

> Yes, which is why having children and helping support her husband while also ...

That is his hope for her feelings which is not the same as her feelings. While some women might totally feel that way, a lot simply don't. There are schools and they are not harming kids at all. Kids really don't need stay at home parent beyond very small age.

> Caring for children is quite possibly the most important and useful job humans have. It is the reason why we create civilizations and why men go and try to provide for his family.

That is not how and why we created civilization, historically speaking. But, be teacher if it is the most important and useful job human can have. Why are you not? Why are you here instead of arguing over what is best way to teach reading?

> I suppose if you don't have children there's no real reason to not try to have a career of your own.

There is no reason not to try career of her own if she has children too. Just like men have careers on their own with children.

> When in reality men were simply doing things to make people's lives better, and women benefitted the most.

That is nonsense even outside of gender relations. Men (and women) did things for many various reasons, occasionally "making people's lives better" one of them. Many times, simply not. If women benefited the most, then be happy for that revolution, cause women fought and argued to benefit less and you should, logically, benefit from it. Consider it a gift.

There is side effect of this setup - that her idea about whether she is happy mattered much less then your theories about what she should be happy about. And your theories just happen to coincide with that makes you feel good about yourself (which is normal and human). You cant do things for someone benefit if you refuse to consider that someones opinion over she likes and wants.

> Charitable organizations need volunteers, houses need people to make them feel like a home.

Volunteer then. I am fine with it. I am even fine with paying higher taxes and social structures that help poor. But, the houses don't need people to feel like home. The houses need nothing except occasional reparation.

Or at least, your feeling of "like home" is not worth of what it cost in her feelings.

> These women convinced other women ...

The discontent and unhappiness was very real. Even now, being long term stay at home moms is considered risk factor for depression and alcoholism in women. There is reason why many women that came back to work talk about being happier after they came to work. There are some that simply love that period of their lives, but they are not nearly majority.

Very few people are built for reality of it - reality of things is always very different that naive romantic fantasy.