The Fundamental Problem in the Political Logic of 2016 Feminism…

…is that the most patriarchal households are also the ones doing the best under the current system.


The families where women are earning much less than men are also families which have a fair amount of economic incentive to keep things how they are; families with a strong incentive for change are also families where women might most want the men around them to be earning more rather than less.

As Hanna Rosin described it in 2013, the women crowding Anna Marie Slaughter’s presentations about “Having it All” are not only a selective group for whom the Patriarchy is still a going concern; they are also the (younger, and either unattached or only recently attached) group whose household incomes are more unambiguously dependent on their own earnings rather than men’s.

If you ask why Hillary lost 53% of white women to a guy who has been the embodiment of a “male chauvinist pig” since that phrase first came into style, I don’t think you need to reach for evolutionary psychology-style explanations about “what women really want,” you just need to recognize that (unlike most race-based appeals), for the older people who form the core of the electorate, the economic logic for feminism just isn’t clearly there.

That might change quite quickly, of course.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s