There was considerable support for Hakim's views, however there is another side of the story that also needs to be told, and it's not necessarily an argument against Hakim's hypothesis.
The basis of the other side of the coin, is that some women want a free choice, and financial circumstances permitting, would love to stay home, and others would love to go enjoy a working life. We all know some women who would prefer to be home with the kids (if they possibly could), and be provided for by family or husband.
In the English aristocracy, both women and men stayed home and were provided for by family money, as is the monarchy. Everyone would like a lazy life with someone else doing the ‘providing’, at least some of the time.
But then a few people would get bored and want to go and contribute to society at large. And this should be their free choice too, if they want, and that applies to women and men.
One person I know keeps quoting something they read – that the Middle Eastern countries will never advance economically while they lock up half their workforce. And it is a problem in Japan, in their economic downturn and ageing population, that they have not allowed educated women to reach their potential, and now they will not have enough ‘workers’ to support the elderly.
And it happened in Australia until the 50s and 60s – we would not be where we are now without intelligent and willing women in our workforce.
Broad ‘generalisations’ according to gender are not viable. They do not exist. But there are differences due to personalities.
It is wonderful that our heritage has provided us with such a bountiful democratic and cross-cultural society, with educational and career opportunities for all who wish to take them, whether they be women or migrants from every place on Earth or descendants of convicts or “even” descendants of the NSW Rum Corps.
Everyone, school-leavers or mature-age workers wanting to change or improve their careers, has these same educational opportunities if they wish to take them.
But if one parent wants to stay home with young children, or maybe because they have an occupation or hobbies that they prefer do to from home (such as writers, artists, musicians or just someone who wants to home-school their kids), then our society allows them that free choice.
We do not compel, by regulation or strict social or class structure, that anyone ‘has’ to live their life the same way as anyone else.
Take for example my own extended family - including in-laws – two professional daughters (law and sciences) and one at university (accountancy). A sister and sister-in law who are academic professionals. My wife Delma, who chose to stay home, but that is not representative either because she worked very hard in our joint missionary ventures. Delma contributes mightily as an equal missionary partner. The nieces are likewise working professionally, in the sciences, the law and in business.
In our case, all the women in our wider family chose not to ‘be provided for’, but to use their intellect to the betterment of society in general. But the one who is now a mother, making us grand-parents, would prefer now to be at home to raise her own family (while they are young) should that be financially viable.