Why the romanticisation of conditions that are proven to be damaging to women?

I was watching a documentary last night about family structure in the Victorian era and a few things struck me.

The presenter was discussing how at the dawn of industrialisation work was shared somewhat more equally amongst men and women in the family. They used the example of a weaver, while the man may have been the figurehead of the family business in reality the women were equally involved and resources such as money and food were distributed more evenly. Boys were expected to assist in household chores and as a financial contributor to the household women held more power and were considered to have more value.

As industrialisation advanced and work was taken out of the home it was men who were given the highest paying jobs and women, tethered to the home by children and chores lost autonomy and power.

As their sons reached working age of around 6-11 they were no longer required to help in the household and this fell solely to girls and women. The young boys were placed ahead in the hierarchy above their mother and sisters and were given access to better resources such as clothes and food. In working class families women and girls subsisted on a diet of bread or potatoes while the “working” men were given better rations.

Women became extremely vulnerable and lost any safety net they may have had and men became omnipotent in the family.

I just found it interesting that so many women want to return to a structure that was so disastrous for women and children when it was introduced.

I assume it’s because they identify with the wealthy classes who had access to more resources and leisure time without acknowledging that these structures were damaging for the vast majority of the population which they’d likely have been a part of. The idea that they’d have been buxom, busty milkmaids frolicking in fields before marrying the local squire is a total fallacy.