Vox Day points out a woman who gets it:
Weldon, 85, says the feminist revolution had adverse implications by ‘halving the male wage, so it no longer supported a family.’ That meant some women had to get jobs, even if they would rather have been at home with their children.
I noted the same thing a while back (if I may quote myself):
keeping women in the workforce after WWII (unlike after WWI, when they went home) eventually allowed for the relative decrease in salaries (in terms of purchasing power) for all employees, over time; this was no doubt realized, and seized upon by greedy and unscrupulous employers. (Consider that a single middle-class salary could support an entire family quite comfortably, able to maintain that middle-class status, in the 1950s; whereas now, it takes two working middle-class people to maintain such an existence. Surely, this was foreseen, and considered good for business, even though surely self-evidently not so much so for families.)
So Big Business and Big Government worked together to attack the middle class by promoting feminism. With the combined effects of feminism and inflation, Big Business got to eventually pay out relatively less (by half, in terms of purchasing power) to their employees (while still expecting the same amount of work out of each, of course); and Big Government raked in more taxes (two sets of income tax per middle class family instead of one; plus more sales taxes on everything from more vehicles to more clothes to more meals or coffee out, etc.).
Win-win for Big Government and Big Business; lose-lose for the middle class.
Too bad the middle class didn’t realize they were hurting themselves in embracing feminism…
More related observations from Vox in his post:
It’s interesting how everyone understands that immigrants cause labor prices to fall, but most people don’t grasp that a substantial increase in domestic work force participation, by any group, has the same effect.
While immigration too plays a role here, the only significant effect native women have when they enter the labor force in greater numbers is to depress the price of labor.
One-third of working class women have always worked. The change brought by feminism is that now middle class and upper middle class married women work as well. And the more women that work, the more women have to work and the less time women who don’t work will have with their husbands who support them, because an INCREASE in the SUPPLY of labor necessitates a DECREASE in the PRICE of labor, demand remaining constant.
And to make matters worse, demand does not remain constant, but actually declines, because a woman who works is statistically much less likely to eventually become a wife and mother, and even when she does, she becomes one several years later and has fewer children. This means that feminism is a structural economic failure as it creates a downward-spiraling vicious circle of three easily identifiable revolutions:
The increase in the supply of labor causes wages to go down. This is indisputable in either logical or empirical terms.
Female hypergamy, female independence, and opportunity cost reduces the marriage rate and the average birth rate, while increased male work hours and work-related romantic opportunities increases the divorce rate. These connections are all logically sound and readily observable.
The reduced birth rate has a negative effect on consumption, and therefore the demand for labor, 20 years before the consequent negative effects on the supply of labor can help balance it out, putting further negative pressure on wage rates. This is also indisputable, both logically and empirically.
One doesn’t have to be an economist to get all this. One just has to use one’s brain, and do the math.