The choice isn't between Saudi Arabia and the system today. The marriage laws in 1950's were extremely good. Many women became doctors and lawyers pre 1950, they were the exceptional women you are talking about, and the fields of education and nursing were filled with extremely competent women because women were doing jobs in line with their nature and proclivity.
All that is needed for traditionalism to dominate is the absence of the feminist transfer payments and family court system that shakes down males to achieve a gender utopia in present day America. Without the tyranny of the state complicit in ushering in the Family Law system of marriage, nature would take over, and the power of men's ability to provide would be reestablished in the mating sphere and would be extremely positive in causing more harmony among families, couples, and the sexes in general.
By using Saudi Arabia as the standard traditionalists wish to uphold, you are essentially lying and buying into the feminist talking point that women were treated unfairly in America's past. It's simply not the case.
Edit: In the 1930's that talent would not have gone to waste. There weren't as many women doctors then, but there were some, and lots of women nurses. Additionally, these bright, competent women you work with today have extremely low fertility compared to the intelligent and competent women of the 1930's. So, yea, today, these women are reaching there full potential professionally perhaps, but at what expense to future generations, who will be deprived of these women's genes? What if the effect of these women becoming physicians, as competent as they may be, is actually in effect, more negative in the long run than if they were forced by cultural norms to be mothers first and whose competent genetics were passed on to future generations?
All that is needed for traditionalism to dominate is the absence of the feminist transfer payments and family court system that shakes down males to achieve a gender utopia in present day America. Without the tyranny of the state complicit in ushering in the Family Law system of marriage, nature would take over, and the power of men's ability to provide would be reestablished in the mating sphere and would be extremely positive in causing more harmony among families, couples, and the sexes in general.
By using Saudi Arabia as the standard traditionalists wish to uphold, you are essentially lying and buying into the feminist talking point that women were treated unfairly in America's past. It's simply not the case.
Edit: In the 1930's that talent would not have gone to waste. There weren't as many women doctors then, but there were some, and lots of women nurses. Additionally, these bright, competent women you work with today have extremely low fertility compared to the intelligent and competent women of the 1930's. So, yea, today, these women are reaching there full potential professionally perhaps, but at what expense to future generations, who will be deprived of these women's genes? What if the effect of these women becoming physicians, as competent as they may be, is actually in effect, more negative in the long run than if they were forced by cultural norms to be mothers first and whose competent genetics were passed on to future generations?