How feminism widened the rich-poor gap

When women entered the workforce en masse starting from the 60s and 70s, the women took up many jobs that would have otherwise gone to men. Feminists claim that women don't take jobs from men. They say that the economy just expands to create more jobs. But this is not true - as the recent recession in the US showed. While Obama's policies created many jobs, feminists demanded that most of them go to women, even though it was mostly men who lost their jobs during the recession. Why would feminists demand that most of the jobs go to women? Wasn't it they who claimed that the economy would just expand to accommodate everyone?

"Assortative mating"  and hypergamy are important parts of female reproductive behaviour. It is commonly known that women are more likely to marry those with more or equal status to themselves. For most people, status means economic class.

Lets take a trivial example. Suppose in the economy there are 2 jobs, each paying $100. There are also 2 men and 2 women. If the men get the jobs, then female hypergamy ensures that each woman chooses one of the men. But more importantly, both women are happy, and both men are also happy. Each person effectively has $50, assuming that each family is taken as one economic unit (so if each economic unit makes $100, then that money is split evenly among everyone in that economic unit).

Suppose instead that one man gets one of the jobs and one woman gets the other job. Now this situation actually causes problems:

1. If the woman without a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. The other woman is unhappy because she's stuck with a man who doesn't have a job, and the man's unhappy because he's unable to perform his role as breadwinner. The man is also in poverty because he doesn't have a job. It is a given that the single woman will not marry him. In this situation, the married man and woman each have $50. The single woman has $100 and the single man has $0. Now we are starting to see gaps and economic classes start to form.
2. If the woman with a job marries the guy with a job, both are happy. But the other two have nothing; they are living in povery. The single woman is also very unlikely to marry the single man. Here, the married man and married woman each have $100, and both singles have $0.

What if both women get the jobs and the men don't? In addition to economic inequality, everyone is also unhappy (money doesn't make women happy). This society will also eventually implode because when women are focussed on career, they can't perform the essential "mother" role. When a woman tries to be a man and a woman at the same time, she will most likely fail at both.

Feminists made a big mistake by not understanding the nature of production and reproduction. Production is only the means to an end. Reproduction is the ultimate goal of all life on earth. Women have reproductive power which can only bear fruit when combined with a man's productive power. But why do women need men's productive power? Because they can't exercise both productive and reproductive power at the same time. A woman's reproductive power is incomplete without a man's productive power (as a single mother with small children knows all too well).