jamyskis: ...I know plenty of women who were raised to be strong and independent, and still chose to be stay-at-home housewives.
The problem is not in the role or function that women assume. It's whether or not they chose out of free will to adopt that role or function. A woman shouldn't need to stay at home, raise the kids and do the cooking because she is compelled to by social norms or by her husband (or wife, as the case may be), but that shouldn't rob her of the choice if she so desires.
I have two goddaughters, aged 6 and 10. One is the stereotypical little princess - obsessed with pink, plays with dolls and acts at being a housewife (cooking, cleaning and so on) when she plays with other kids. The other is a typical tomboy - trending towards goth style, does karate, plays football, loves gaming (kicks my arse on Mario Kart 8). They might change as they get older, they might not, but the important thing is that they reach these decisions by themselves. I don't doubt that if we exposed them to these activists, one half would be criticising the "little princess" for not standing up to the patriarchy, while the other half would be attacking the "tomboy" for not doing girly things.
She could have burned it. *rimshot*
Yes, from an academic approach you would now make an experiment and give the women different possibilities and then let them choose. For example offer them well paid, highly desirable jobs and then look if maybe they just don't want them. Of course this experiment won't happen, but I also guess we do not really need to make it in order to guess that most probably they would act mostly identical to men if given the same choices. Maybe a bit smarter in some regards and a bit less smart in others.
Basically how do you make sure women that stay at home do not need to stay at home? This is practically impossible.
Also the adaptation to the traditional role models already starts before age 6 or 10. Just go to the clothes job and see clothes for girls on one side including skirts and clothes for boys on the other side without skirts (except in Scotland) of course. Ask a girl or a boy for whom are clothes and they will know exactly what the clothes company thinks is for them and what is not for them although in reality it doesn't matter: a man is perfectly capable of wearing a pink shirt or skirt and vice versa.
The problem is that women cannot chose freely, have less options and are bombarded with the still existing traditional role models which are very stupid and come from a time where men were seen as something much better.
The only good solution I know out of this is actively convincing (and promoting women) that they should try new things like becoming computer scientists or else (or even becoming coal miners but I probably would not do it for the money). To be fair one could also try to convince men to become kindergarten or elementary school teachers. And there is the problem of overshooting but so far this risk is far away. We can continue doing it for at least two or three generations without any problems.
My mantra is: men and women are mostly the same and can do anything they want fully independent of the gender. They should always stand for themselves and never should anyone face discrimination because of their belonging to a certain sex. Everyone has a right to individually create his life.
Now this so simple and so true but is obviously difficult to do depending on how your environment treats you.
But then men just have to imagine having daughters and then thinking about how they will have it much harder. That should give them the kick to change something. If I would have a daughter or two that would make me pretty much a solid supporter of femininism, at least to some degree.
My hope is the scandinavian society model. I feel like they have progressed most far in many of these regards. I hope it spreads further.