Far more divorced now too, so more demand on housing, and more people want to live in cities than in the 1960s, leading to even more demand.
It all comes down to the cost of housing, at least in the UK where housing has been ridiculous for over 20 years. That housing is driven up to soak all available income by artificially constrained supply.
All available income has increased on a household basis because of egalitarian reasons -- more women work now, which means that more women have to work now. The excess income is lost to housing costs.
We’ve replaced a world in which women are forced to stay at home with a world where women are forced to work until 70 (or whatever the retirement age is in your country). Great if you’re an exec or have some mentally stimulating job, but for the typical woman it means stacking shelves until your back gives out. What an achievement for society.
There is more at play than simply equal rights. Housing supply hasn't risen to keep up with demand. Education and healthcare costs too have grown significantly compared to pregnant-and-barefoot-in-the-kitchen eras.
Not my rant. Regardless, my point is that one cannot say that the cost of equality must always or only be housing requiring dual income or shitty working life/hours.
I personally think the "forced" part is mostly bullshit. It was the default arrangement but far from the only one.
In fact, when you read some historical without the feminist propaganda bias it becomes very obvious that it was mostly a desirable position for women.
It seems to me that the whole equality propaganda mostly comes from less desirable women who would have a much harder time finding a highly valuable man that would be able to bring a lot to the home (either in the way of money or skills, craftmanship, etc). They wrongly determined it would be better for them if they could be like a man.
But reality doesn't care much about feelings and what happens is that those women still get the less desirable man and if they go at it solo, they find out the hard way that there are many things a man provide that are very costly if you have to pay for it in the market.
One thing too often overlooked is the importance of a man in children upbringing and there are some nasty statistics about single women raising kids that pretty much depict that very painfully.
In the end it doesn't matter, everybody's got much poorer for it, the only winners are the bourgeois women who started it all, who already had a lot of power in the first place. But I guess it was the intended result even if it came at the expense of all the lower social class...
It all comes down to the cost of housing, at least in the UK where housing has been ridiculous for over 20 years. That housing is driven up to soak all available income by artificially constrained supply.
All available income has increased on a household basis because of egalitarian reasons -- more women work now, which means that more women have to work now. The excess income is lost to housing costs.