One things that we hear constantly whenever historical relations between men and women are brought is the fact that women were economically dependent, and that this was the basis of male power. Everything flowed from this. And everyone agrees on this, from feminazis at Jezebel to standard run-of-the-mill terminally shallow liberals in NYTimes and Economist , to conservative imbeciles at Breitbart who rage against Anita Sarkeesian but consider Betty Friedan a saint.

But who is economically dependent?

A woman who without her husband's money would live on the street but with her husband's money lives in a little house?

A woman who without her husband's money would live in a little house but with her husband's money lives in comfortable middle class home?

A woman who without her husband's money would live in a comfortable middle class home but with her husband's money has a huge house and a BMW?

A woman who without her husband's money would live in a big house with a BMW but with her husband's money has a yacht, private jet, Rolls Royce, McLaren, villas, palaces, foundations,....?

If we were honest, we would say that all of these women are economically dependent. True, some of them are quite rich on their own but everything is relative. If you are used to a yacht and private jet, then falling back on a BMW is a considerable plunge in standard of living, quite comparable to ending up in poverty.

Isn't Melinda Gates economically dependent (and therefore oppressed)? Even if Melinda Gates could make 100 million dollars on her own (doubtful), that is still 1000 times less than what her husband made! Husbands in 1950s didn't have nowhere near 1000 times more money than their "oppressed" housewives.

Every woman who makes considerably less than her husband will have to be called oppressed. If family can get by without her money (and Gates family can get by without Melinda's own money quite easily), she is functionally a housewife. If we don't call her oppressed, we can't call a 1950s housewife oppressed either.