Beyond "tradwife," part two

rethinking reactionary narratives on women’s education, work, and family

Guillaume Seignac (1870-1924), Diana the Huntress

Quick note: thank you all for the fantastic response to the first iteration of this series, which, in case you missed, you can read here. For those of you who have chosen a paid subscription, goodness, where do I start? You’re enabling me to dedicate time to research and writing, and for that, I am deeply grateful. I am parting ways with the media company I worked for after a season of lessons learned, and as I begin to pour more of my energy into Substack, I will continue to rely on your support.

I’m thinking of ways that I can acknowledge your sacrifice, and my heart tells me something personal and tangible is in order. Reading group? Snail mail? Whenever we return to the states, I’d like to start hosting in-person events. My friend Katherine Dee, who tends to psychically predict trends ten years before they become mainstream, believes in-person human interaction is about to have a big comeback. I’m open to suggestions!

Here begins part two, in which I will tackle the claim:

“Women’s education and work in the formal remunerative economy is disruptive and unnecessary.”

STEELMAN: 

Women’s presence – in academia and industry – represents, first of all, an artificial invasion, made so through preferential hiring practices, aka affirmative action. Women, since arriving on the scene, have introduced a system of emotional checks and balances, instrumentalized through human resources departments, that stifles creativity, adds to corporate bloat, and reduces overall productivity. On the macroeconomic level, their presence depresses male wages through a simple supply and demand function: a larger labor pool decreases the cost of labor, and the take-home pay of workers by extension.