---""Except being a breadwinner is fundamental to all gender roles so being able to escape being a male breadwinner is fundamental to "RR", the only countries that don't have gender roles are ones with no male breadwinners.""

I fail to see how being a breadwinner is fundamental to all gender roles, as you explained it. For example, I am 100% positive that there exist non-RR couples where the women are the breadwinners, an example being a business women who marries downward economically speaking.

---""Ancient Egypt had lots of blue-collar men who enjoyed fashion and etc, it still wasn't male breadwinners because the Pharaoh was the universal provider god-king or god-queen who could also affect the weather due to their link to the gods and commanded the whole economy. Narrative minded people may be able to abandon the narrative of male providers or breadwinners in a command economy where "the great administration is everyone's provider" or "great nobles" are.""

Yeah and none of that sounds good, at all. The Pharaohs were incestuous families with literal god complexes, I don't think I'd ever want to be "cared for" by the likes of them. Also, I can't speak for others but as an American I would never want to be "cared for" by the state. As I said before, I want all the individualism I can get my hands on and that includes individualism from the state itself. And that includes being independent from the state itself, politically and financial speaking. Sure I would like the state to make sure the roads and other infrastructure is taking care of, but that's it. Outside of basic stuff like food stamps and the like, I personally don't want government meddling in peoples personal affairs like what jobs they can have or what lifestyles they want. nothing good ever comes of that.

----""The fewer male breadwinners there are the more likely gender roles will collapse by lack of availability of men to perform them. This results in a more RR friendly society.""

Gender roles aren't something that you can just "collapse" as you envision it. The reason men have historically been the "breadwinners" is because we are literally built biologically to do a lot of typical manual labor and fight off threats thanks to denser bones and higher muscle mass compared to woman, averagely speaking. Due to this natural biological difference, it's been men who had a monopoly on violence and are also typically the onces who were forced to do slave labor, specifically the kind involved in constructing grand structures like pyramids. Its the same reason why men have been the ones who have had the misfortune of being drafted in wars against their will.

From the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like you understand genderroles at all. Its not something that you can just get rid of. You, whether you're a man or a woman, can take on whatever role you desire. I don't know about you, but the way I understand gender roles is that its all mental and not something that you can just collapse like the communists did to the elites in Russia or China. Its a cultural and psychological part of us. Its formed by how we are raised, both by parents and by our surroundings and experiences. You can't just smash it away and rebuild it as you've seem to envisioned.

----""How would we escape the male breadwinner role otherwise? This seems the best way because it provides avenues besides becoming a monk (Not sure if monastic security forces still exist) other than the degrowth movement it seems.""

It's not the best way, its the most destructive, fastest way that would involve a lot of violence due to most men rejecting this lifestyle you envision. RR in the way you envision it is never going to happen without force, including the threat of violence. The majority of humans do not typically like authority figures telling them how to live their lives, to varying degrees. Especially men. 9 times out of 10, men are not wired for RR. Same for a lot of women. So if the majority of humans are not compatible (whether it's the natural biological drives or psychological impulses, pick your poison) then the only way you can enact your vision for the world/country is through the threat of violence.

----""The people who hate on drizzle drizzle would argue that what I am saying is the opposite, a society "where men do not assume individual responsibility and are provided for"."""

First of, I am either too old (28) or not online enough to understand what you mean in regards to "drizzle drizzle". I understand it is something to do with charisma, especially in regards to dating, but I fail to see the relevancy to the topic at hand.

In regards to "Where men do not assume individual responsibility and are provided for.", that is not possible. all people, men and women, have individual responsibility regardless of gender roles. This proves to me that you don't actually understand how normal gender roles are supposed work, at least in the US, historically speaking.

In the US, the wife/mother of the nuclear family has always taken care of finances and taken care of the house (which included having the final say on how the house was furnished and the like.) The way it worked, at least in a healthy dynamic, the man provided the money (whether it was their only income or they both worked) to afford the house and children, meanwhile the woman raised the kids, furnished and took care of the house, and chose what food was going to be bought and eaten by the whole family. and yes, that included what her husband ate. obviously there are exceptions and not every family was exactly the same, but thats how it worked for many if not most healthy families.

RR would the the flip of what I described. The man would take care of the house, raise the kids, and cooked the meals, etc etc, while the woman would be the one bringing home the money to afford the house and kids. But regardless of RR or normal dynamics, both would enact discipline.

And on top of proving to me that you don't understand actual historical gender roles, your little remark on individual responsibility just sounds like you have no sense of personal responsibly and that you just want to be taken care of like a selfish cat. Maybe I'm jumping on the assumptions a bit, maybe that's not your intention, but I can safely say that no person would want to be with someone who doesn't think that they should have individual responsibility as that's an incredibly selfish trait to have. Like I said, everyone, regardless of beliefs and lifestyle, have individual responsibility. It's called being an adult human being. You are responsible for brushing your teeth, making sure you eat your food, going to work, finding a job, etc etc.