What it seems to suggest more strongly is that the modern (capitalist in general and American in particular) destruction of the traditional extended support networks (both family and nonfamily) in favor of tiny, more mobile, atomic social units that are easier to plug in to places convenient for industrial needs is unhealthy.
Reverting to "traditional" gender roles in the modern capitalist family structure doesn't get you many caregivers (and especially not "personal attention from several caregivers in addition to their biological parents", as the paper points out seems to be important), reverting to an otherwise more traditional family structure even without reverting to "traditional" gender roles does.
In fact, in any family structure, not making child care part of an exclusive gender role gets you more caregivers, each with more time to recharge, but you need a bigger support network, not just different roles within it, for what this article is discussing. To borrow a phrase, "It takes a village..."
What it seems to suggest more strongly is that the modern (capitalist in general and American in particular) destruction of the traditional extended support networks (both family and nonfamily) in favor of tiny, more mobile, atomic social units that are easier to plug in to places convenient for industrial needs is unhealthy.
Reverting to "traditional" gender roles in the modern capitalist family structure doesn't get you many caregivers (and especially not "personal attention from several caregivers in addition to their biological parents", as the paper points out seems to be important), reverting to an otherwise more traditional family structure even without reverting to "traditional" gender roles does.
In fact, in any family structure, not making child care part of an exclusive gender role gets you more caregivers, each with more time to recharge, but you need a bigger support network, not just different roles within it, for what this article is discussing. To borrow a phrase, "It takes a village..."