[Bracketed part is W. F. Price's introduction to the quote]
[Responding to Spanier’s poston raising daughters, commenter Jean Valjean points out some of the problems with feminism+hypergamy as they relate to family formation and economic equality. Not only do men lose out, but women as well, as the combined force of female social elitism and assortative mating conspire to concentrate earnings in the hands of the few.
It would be difficult to argue with Jean’s logic, which is why feminists almost always ignore these issues, despite the fact that they are immensely more important to your average man or woman in an average job than sexual harassment or the gender gap in wages:]
Why don’t women have kids at 21 instead of 31 or 41? Indeed it is far more logical for women to have kids earlier. Not just for the reasons you cite but also because by delaying a career for 10 years she can see her children to a point where they are semi-autonomous.
Once her kids reach 10 she can see them off to school in the morning and spend the day going to college or trade school. By the time the kids reach high school and need the least oversight the mother can begin her career and any employer can be assured that she will be more dedicated than if she had no children or had young children.
But feminists don’t want this. As Simone do Beauvoire wrote in “The Second Sex,” women cannot be given this choice because they will choose it.
Most women intuit the lie of feminism: that being a stay at home mom is “oppression” the moment they have a child and want to stay home. For the lucky few they are afforded the luxury of doing just that because of a willing and able husband. For most women, their choices are greatly limited thanks to feminism. Many men simply cannot support a household on their own income. Women, competing against men and employing hypergamy not only results in lower status men but also lower status women.
For instance, if we have a community of 1000 workers and there are 100 good jobs paying around 100k a year, and only men are allowed to work those jobs then that means that 100 families will have an income of 100k a year. But when women compete against men and say 40 of those jobs go to women and those women employ hypergamy then only 60 families have an income of 100k, and 40 have an income of 200k.
This means that 40 women will have to marry men who make less than 100k. This contributes to the widening gap between the rich and poor that many financial pundits fail or refuse to recognize.
This same dynamic applies to those families with two 50k incomes. The actual pain of these lower incomes is really felt by the mother most because she has to work to keep the family at the middle class level whereas 40 years ago she could choose to stay home.
But the real pain is felt at the lower incomes. Even two 20k incomes aren’t enough to allow a family of 4 to enter the middle class. And these lower incomes are the most common (and so is divorce among this class).
As always, feminism has always benefited the rich white women the most because the same dynamic that propels the sons of the rich into high paying occupations also does the same for the daughters.
The problem is that hypergamy (and high divorce not discussed above) are creating more lower income women than before. Feminism is harming women only women are too indoctrinated and selfish to realize it.
(Feminism harms men more but we already know that)