I think even my generation, and I’m not that young, has the expectation that at least an approximate balance would be expected as an outcome, absent any enforcement.
I have no particular desire to return to old fashion gender roles, and lots of people who want single income households might, so I want to be very explicit about the fact that I don’t care to defend that position. Which I think is a losing position.
Your failure to draw meaning from the simplified problem disappoints. If you can’t grapple with this toy model I’m afraid you won’t make inroads in any real scenario.
If you’d started the conversation with a good-faith attempt to be understandable I think we could have had a more interesting conversation, or maybe not, but at least it would have been shorter.
Your premise is flawed, anyway. That which "dominates" the other is strictly through force, historically speaking, and thus you are unfortunately succumbing to argumentum ad antiquitatem. Even if it were not fallacious, it also seems that you exhibit this as natural, unfortunately additionally succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy.
I have no particular desire to return to old fashion gender roles, and lots of people who want single income households might, so I want to be very explicit about the fact that I don’t care to defend that position. Which I think is a losing position.