I think that Dave is pounding on open doors. The society in which we 
are "allowing people to to find their own roles, following the standard
mammalian role or bucking it as they see personally fit" is already with 
us, and on the whole, it works. In public life, think only of political
leaders ranging from Margaret Thatcher to Jennifer Granholm, to say 
nothing of the new German chancellor in a country that was formerly the 
proverbial stronghold of macho sentiment. It seems to me that quite
recently even moslem Pakistan had a female President. In all these 
cases, we know nothing of what their husbands did or do; it may be 
reasonable to assume that they were/are the equivalent of a stay-home 
spouse. And herein lies the solution to the whole problem: People
should choose mates that are compatible with their own inclinations. Of
course, conflicts will arise if both wish to go out and work, and 
children have to be entrusted to hired help; or if both prefer to stay 
home and nobody produces income. Actually, a sound national economy 
benefits from only one job-seeker per family because that avoids 
over-saturation of the job market. Of course exceptions have to be made
for the super-talented and I do not advocate that in the case of Pierre 
and Marie Curie, or of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, one of them should 
have "stayed home"; but these instances are so rare as to be 
demographically insignificant. More frequent among the lower classes 
may be that neither of the spouses is eager to work outside the house
and it is my feeling that in that case, Nature as well as tradition 
requires the male to do that--[first I wrote "assume the burden" but 
I changed that; staying home, supervise the children, to do a fair job
of cooking and cleaning, may in fact be the heavier burden.] 
   So, then, what is this whole argument about? It is about coercion; 
the very thing Dave and all other commenters were adamantly against. 
All of you felt that for women to prefer to stay home was a bad idea, 
even subversive according to Danny. I happen to think that it is a 
good idea, and--provided that appropriate exceptions are made--one that 
is in perfect conformity with mammalian instincts, social structure, 
and the interest of the next generation. 
   As for "vescere bracis meis" I was highly amused by the information
I got from the Web--it had not even occurred to me to go to that 
source. Most of the examples in that collection were quite contrived, 
not something that we in the first half of the past century would have
seen by reading Latin authors in the original. Some were gramatically 
completely wrong, that I could see even after 65 years. Actually, the 
old Romans did not even wear pants--I suggest that "vescere togam meam" 
would be at least costume-historically less anachronistic. 
   DANNY'S GRANDPA ANDREW