Nature and sexual selection have nothing to do with it. A complete lack of societal support for women who want to have children and maintain a career in STEM academia (or similar) is all there is to it.
>> Many fathers would very much prefer to spend time with their families, but can't because they're expected to first and foremost provide for them.
Why do the fathers "have to provide"? Why is it so difficult for a man to stay at home and take care of the kids, after they're born (which he can obviously not really do)? Is that nature, again?
Society is supporting women who raise children and men who provide. This worked quite fine for the history of human civilization, but it's painful for women that want to build careers and men who want to be with their families.
First of all, there are very many people that are content with that situation. There is no easy solution for those that aren't, because nature does play a huge part and those 9 months and at least the first year are very important for the baby and mother. There is no way the father can provide the same emotional and physical support, so he might as well ensure that his family is otherwise taken care of.
The father can't provide emotional and physical support in the first year of life of a child? Why? What is it that a father can't do during the first year of a child's life, other than breastfeed it, that the mother can?
I thought the pre-industrial role of women included crafts and gathering. I would put those under the "providing" umbrella.
If we imagine that fathers taught their children to hunt and fight we would expect children to be raised those abilities too.
I wonder if role specialization is more prevalent now than it used to be. Perhaps some pre-industrial societies were more egalitarian than we pretend to be today.
