Assuming there was some way to reproduce without pregnancy, would the social status of women increase or decrease?

[Anonymous]

Assume there's some way babies can grown in pods that meet all of their needs that still requires a sperm and egg. Would women be freer as a result of easier reproduction or would they lose status because their role has been diminished.

Increase

Decrease

[Shiprex]

Unfair as it may seem, women's social status would diminish as a lot of what make them special in the eyes of society is their ability to have children BUT the barrier to career would perhaps not hinder them so much and they could achieve more commitment to work which isn't the flex I think many realise. That "work" ethic is stronger in men and men tend to be more willing to work those longer hours, do the physically demanding jobs AND have a lower absence from work rate (that accounts for having children before anyone gets upset).
There's also a lot of evidence that hiring managers are more comfortable working with men than women, even and especially female managers. So there's that.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

The only reason we have male gods, patriarchal society, and a male-favored experience is because men found out women can’t get pregnant without their intervention. Before that, the world was a matriarchy, rules by priestesses and goddesses because women were the makers of life and closer to the creator than men could ever be. If we take away the power of impregnation from men, I have no doubt women would slowly move away from dating altogether and gain more power.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I think it would remain the same because our value isn't tied to our reproductive capabilities, or at least it shouldn't be, and those who reduce us down to a baby making machine are just wrong.

[Flower7]

Increase because a woman who can’t get pregnant without even needing condoms would surely be very highly desired.

[DrPepper12]

No more baby barrier to career. Increase

[Dargil]

Neither