'Toxic Femininity'

Vis-à-vis men, I'd say that the Cinderella Complex/Rescue Me/I-Need-A-Man-To-Support-Me-To-Feel-Valuable thing is the most toxic aspect of modern femininity, especially as its elimination was supposed to be the primary liberating vehicle for both sexes. Has that happened? No. Result: Too many women still expect to be paid for and too many men are paying for them. But now, children grow up more often as not without their dads, leading to many problems society has today. Lose-lose.

What's worse, I see so many women live in a state of utter denial about it. They are getting subsidized by their husbands, bfs, fathers, etc., but go around saying they're independent people, etc. The levels of self-delusion people can take themselves to is really amazing, but as I have often said, cognitive dissonance is the most powerful force in the human psyche, next to the closely-related drives to survive and mate (or at least engage in activities associated therewith), and is an equal-opportunity employer, respecting neither age, sex, creed, race, intelligence quotient, or taste in ice cream flavors. :)

Nothing moves people faster to rationalizations in favor of their own benefit than cognitive dissonance. Thus one can go around proclaiming personal independence and empowerment while at the same time nursing a $100/day heroin habit or getting regular "allowances" from mumsie and/or dada, even at the age of 25. As for women generally, the Cinderella/Princess thing makes it so easy for them to rationalize their on-going dependence on fathers, husbands, bfs, the gov't, etc., they actually start to believe they are *entitled* to such support even if they are perfectly capable of financing themselves in all critical ways (especially for the newer entrants to the economy, many of whose female members are out-earning their male peers, sometimes quite substantially). While men's sense of entitlement around being the beneficiaries in some way of women fulfilling "traditional" gender roles has not only been soundly challenged but had the living hell beat out of it, no such process has happened re women. It's due, for everyone's good, as without it, women as a group will not really achieve real independence/self-sufficiency, and thus remain dependent on men as a class indefinitely. Thus the primary goal of feminism as stated so many years ago will never be achieved. But aside from that, the sexes will remain unhealthfully intertwined co-dependently rather than more maturely interactive, free of a social paradigm that fosters mass co-dependency and contributes to men's sense of being taken advantage of/used and women's sense of being cheapened/dependent/commodified.

After all these years of feminism, I am still hard-pressed to find a general population of women, short of women who aren't interested in relationships with men for whatever reasons (sexual orientation, etc.) who are not in some way looking for men to subsidize them financially, in addition to being their "Prince". Just as men who are always trying to please/subsidize women will, as a consequence of their own decision *not* to cease and desist, be stuck in the Prince Charming/Patsy role, likewise women who keep wanting to "feel appreciated" by men via gifts, paid-for dates, chivalrous treatment, other financial subsidization, or patronage in other ways, will remain dependent, feel vulnerable, act relationally passive, and function in "reaction mode". In short, life pass such women by and they blame other people (i.e., men) for why they are not happy rather than figure out how to create their own happier lifestyle. Sad, really. But the phenomenon has to be identified and described before it can be addressed. I think the linked article does a really good job of it.

In a modern economy, money is the means by which nearly anything gets done or acquired short of appeals to or leveraging one's personal relationships.  Those relationships act as a medium of exchange, but eventually the translation leads to money.  In your example of a homemaker getting supported in exchange for minding the home and kids, the distance from money is very short.  In fact, Mrs. probably manages much of what her husband makes, at least in this traditional model you're discussing.  But even if not, she's going to be spending quite a bit via credit cards or money Mr. gives her, and he pays the CC bill every month.  Either way, all that's happening is a one-off barter role she is in.  Only way to get away from close proximity to money in exchange for pretty much anything these days is to take up life in a forest.

This leads to your suggestion that I have conflated personal dependency with access to money.  I.e., one is not dependent on another, or others in general, even if they count on another person or the mercies of others generally to provide them with things that those others could not readily obtain without money.  I may be inclined to agree if indeed humans here in the western world lived much closer to the land generally and didn't have much need for money as a consistent and universal exchange medium.  But, we do.  If it weren't true that money was as important as it is, and indeed a key factor in enabling our relative independence should we have a lot of it, would hypergamy exist?  Or divorce court scenes pivoting around just how much the soon-to-be Mrs. X was going to get in the break-up, even if she's quite capable of earning her own living?  Or people in general (crooked pols, dishonest bankers, etc.) doing grossly immoral or criminal things to get lots of it?  Even removing modernity as a factor, in societies where people live largely the same lifestyle due to a lack of technology or an absence of values that tend to lionize wealth, the thing female members then tend to consider is potential mates' status in the tribe.  Though he own little, the unmarried chief's son, despite looking less like Don Johnson in his youth and more like Rowan Atkinson any time (sorry, Rowan...), would still be a popular date among the single ladies of the tribe.

But here in a modern economy, it's money.  And women in general still have yet to truly decouple their feminine self-images from the Cinderella/White Knight fairy tale thing, said knight riding in on a horse made of $100 bills.  You may insist it's normative and indeed, I agree. But  "normative" just means it's typical, not necessarily desirable.  And perhaps if husbands could be assured that homemaker wives would uphold their end of the bargain, then perhaps I'd be more inclined to say it's fine, provided all parties go in eyes wide open.  But since all too often homemaker wives split the nest after a number of years/kids and walk off with their ex's money, perhaps saying to others how "liberating" such a thing is, and it's great to now be "independent", all while collecting spousal support and child support money, then getting a new bf who's also expected to pay for their dates, spend money on her (not their) kids, etc... let's just say, I have a hard time seeing quite what you mean when you suggest the current state's a good thing.  Well, good for women, maybe, but not men.