The first part sounds like "bread and circuses" which fulfills human needs but doesn't necessitate increased freedom (think Rome). And scaling for community-based magic could also lead to social coercion as individualists are discriminated against for not being in harmony with the will of the group (think big brother/Borg).

@DWKraus no. The only two reasons that women have become liberated in the past 140ish years (really accelerating in the past 60 years are: #1 technological progress which has turned homemaking from more than a full-time job into something done in an hour or two per day, and #2 The Pill.

@DWKraus homemaking was really hard work in 1880. Your husband had to be at work early in the morning, so you had to wake up much earlier to get the wood- or coal-burning stove lit and hot to cook him breakfast. It didn't stop all day. (You should not be surprised that Suffragettes were all either rich enough to hire servants, or spinsters.)

@RonJohn Then I think you're arguing that housekeeping magic and fertility control magic should be an answer (not bad notions), and I don't disagree with the freedom from need part of this answer. You might have the core of a good answer there. Entertainment is problematic (Brave New World) and communal harmony makes me think of the movie The Giver.

@DWKraus that's what csiz says: "Anything that would make the world more like the technological magic of today." (Although it should be more specific as to what that magic is.)

@RonJohn The technological magic of today may lead us to the ultimate in human oppression very soon. The key is to put the keys to the kingdom somehow in every person's hands, and also allow ready escape from oppression. Maybe teleportation? You can always escape an oppressor or abuser, make it semi-random so you can't be followed, or even automatic so no one can ever murder someone else because they just teleport to where the god deems them the safest...

@RonJohn Beware of conflating correlation with causation. We've fought long and hard to liberate women, it didn't happen magically because the vacuum and the pill were invented. Moreover, if you look at men you can see their situation has remained the same - I'm sure you will argue that we don't need men's liberation we just need a male contraceptive pill, but I don't think there's any real basis for that argument other than fantasy.

@gbeeduljqa big societal changes never happen in a vacuum; they can only happen when the proper external circumstances are in place. Without #1 the time to do "other things", First Wave feminism never would have succeeded, and #2 control over reproduction, Second Wave feminism never would have made the progress they did.

@gbeeduljqa only when a woman can control fertility+reproduction can she have any hope of liberation; otherwise, she is by nature "tethered" to the home. Only when she has time to not work around the house can she work outside the house (and therefore earn her own money, thereby controlling her own economy). The intersection of control of fertility+reproduction and economy are when women can be liberated.

@RonJohn Realize that spending the day cleaning is part of a social construct, it's a patriarchal expectation not tied to reality. The same is true of reproduction control. This realization was part of the greatest successes of feminism, the idea that there was actually no reason at all (least of all a "natural" reason) for women to be tethered to the home. This can be plainly seen when looking at the effect WW2 had on women working - suddenly society was ok with women working and away they went, the supposed "tether" never existed in the first place.

@RonJohn "Most of the inventions which freed up so much time for women had already been invented" - exactly, so social change was needed ... "Upwards of 12 million men weren't there to get them pregnant" - which was already an option with different social pressures. Ultimately social change is the only way progress is made, if not for social change women would still be doing busywork at home regardless of how much of it is "useful".

@gbeeduljqa "which was already an option with different social pressures". Not until The Pill was invented. (We like sex too much.) "Ultimately social change is the only way progress is made" but it does not happen in a technological vacuum.

@RonJohn obviously, but to say that technology is what caused liberation when it just happened to be there around the same time is not at all correct. The social changes happened independently and happened to leverage technology, but could just as easily have done without because it was purely a result of social construct in the first place. You may as well argue that global warming was the cause, there's no connection but as you say it didn't happen in a vacuum... Not sure about that level of objectifying women though, take care...

@gbeeduljqa "The social changes happened independently and happened to leverage technology," You keep saying that, but without evidence (for example how a married woman with children would have the time to work outside the home and do all the necessary housework (cooking and cleaning -- lots of cleaning -- took a long time).

@gbeeduljqa "but to say that technology is what caused liberation". technology allowed liberation to happen.

@RonJohn The answer is very simple, just cook and clean less. This is exactly what happened in the end, regardless of technology. As it turns out, the requirement for women to spend 8 hours a day cooking and cleaning was purely a social construct.

@RonJohn I could say the same to you, your dismissal of feminism's progress is worrying. There was never a reason beyond social construct for women to spend excessive amounts of time cleaning. I am sure this is not a difficult concept to grasp, yet you disagree offhand saying "oh but it was necessary". Necessary to who? Society's gender constructs? There was no imperative, it was just what a certain subset of people in the west believed women should be doing. I don't see why you disagree and you don't seem willing to explain it. What else can I conclude from your comments?

@gbeeduljqa point to where I dismissed feminism's progress. You can't, because I didn't.

@RonJohn Is there a particular reason you choose to be evasive towards my comment and focus on this claim? I will give you the leeway on the assumption you intend to address it after I reply to you. You said: "The only two reasons that women have become liberated in the past 140ish years (really accelerating in the past 60 years are: #1 technological progress which has turned homemaking from more than a full-time job into something done in an hour or two per day, and #2 The Pill" - direct quote. Um, how about feminism? Social progress? 🙄🙄🙄 Re-read your comments, see if you need to clarify.

@gbeeduljqa you need to watch the miniseries "Connection" by James Burke. You'll learn how change does not -- cannot -- happen in a vacuum.

@RonJohn You need to re-read the thread, I have already said that change does not happen in a vacuum. That is not the basis of my disagreement. Please re-read my previous comments and let me know if there's anything that is confusing for you.

@gbeeduljqa "The only two reasons that women have become liberated". Point taken; they were a sine qua non, not the only two reasons.

I've already explained about why that's a flawed assumption, feel free to reply if you want to. I would encourage you to do some research on the topic to try nd find out if your assumptions are rooted in reality or part of a narrative fallacy.