Dem
47
GOP
53
Paul Krugman has taken a look at Charlie Kirk from a different angle than most: his economics. Did you expect otherwise? Krugman's Nobel Prize was in economics, not physics. Kirk's view of the ideal woman can be captured in one photo:
Gender roles have changed enormously in the past 40 years. In particular, the percentage of women who have had paid jobs in America has grown significantly since World War II, when Rosie the Riveter made her debut. That was due to necessity. But the real revolution was the kind of jobs women had. Back in the 1950s, women had "pink-collar jobs," like nurses and teachers. They didn't earn as much as men did and certainly had no power. They worked for what was called "pin money," a few luxuries for themselves. Starting around the 1980s or so, women began working in large numbers in fields that were previously almost exclusive to men, like banking, law, and politics. This was partly due to rising divorce rates. Women knew that they might someday have to earn a living on their own, so having a career and a good-paying job was important.
What Kirk was selling was the idea that this was all wrong and the past 40 years of history needed to be undone. Women should stay home, clean house (see photo above), and take care of the kids. They should NOT be bankers or lawyers or politicians. In particular, they should not be competing with men for these good jobs. Kirk never offered an actual plan for rolling back history, but many young men found it very appealing to imagine a world in which men were the unquestioned bosses and women instantly obeyed them. In this fantasy world, if a man behaved very badly in a marriage, his wife would have to suck it up and stick with him because she had no way of earning a living on her own. To some men, that sounds very inviting. Krugman believes that many young men listening to Kirk implicitly bought into his fantasy world where women were there to serve men, not compete with them economically. No wonder they worshiped him. (V)