I think you're right about what most women want. Our minds and bodies seem to be adapted to certain roles that you allude to. I agree with that assessment.

I wonder what is the goal with pushing women out of the kitchen and into the offices. I would argue that equality is not the reason, because women in my opinion had it far better before than they do now. Is it to control the overpopulated world? Is it to lessen the pressure on men to be the sole provider for their family? What is the benefit of women having fewer children and at a much older age than a century ago? What good does it do to push women to work outside of the family home and if they have babies, putting them into daycare, to be raised up by a stranger from young age. Let me know what you think about this.

The fact that this is really not about freedom of choice and equality is betrayed by how prime minister Esko Aho grilled by a journalist on television for his wife being a stay-at-home mom during a election debate about 15 years ago. There is actual social pressure to send women to work.

In my opinion, it comes down to the economy and the money system. Money is created by commercial banks when they issue loans. That money is created from thin air. The principal is destroyed when the loan is paid back. But what is also payable is interest. That interest can only come from other loans, that is, money created out of thin air. It's a kind of pyramid scheme where the total amount of outstanding debt always exceeds the total amount of money with which to repay the debts. Economic growth means more loans issued (with which to pay back old loans).

Domestic work of the kind stay-at-home mothers do is unmonetized. From the point of view of the money system, that work goes to waste. It's much more useful to send mothers from homes to offices and their children to nurseries to be looked after by women other than their mothers who get paid for it.

Perpetual growth of monetized value creation is key. If growth fails to materialize, there will be credit losses which is very bad for for banks. Enter central banks to create more money through quantitative easing. Central banks may not only lend money to governments but directly buy corporate shares, too, too keep the system afloat. We are currently in a strange economic situation dubbed zombie economy where the system is kept from collapsing only through accelerating quantitative easing programs by central banks. They're contemplating things like negative interest rates and helicopter money (giving people money for nothing to stimulate consumer spending), some consider to be unnatural.

This all ties in with the professionalization of care in general, not only childcare provided for working mothers. Care for the elderly has been outsourced to care facilities from families a long time ago. By the way, has anyone noticed how child protection expenses seem to be ballooning from one year to the next with little respite - despite the average child or youth being healthier and better adjusted than ever? I suspect this, too, is part of the same broader tendency as pushing mothers to workforce participation. Child protection is a fast-growing industry in first world countries. In order to keep the wheels of the system turning, an ever growing share of our lives must be incorporated in the monetary system.