Why Nations Fail Offers Hints into Backlash Against Women’s Rights

I just finished reading the fascinating work Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson.

The book was published in 2012 and didn’t touch much on current affairs (especially in the United States), but it offers intriguing insight into why our nation teeters on the edge of destruction, though the authors may not know it.

The Premise: Extractive Political and Economic Institutions

Hey folks! Transparency Disclosure- Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. That means I’ll receive a small commission if you decide to click on it and buy something. Don’t worry, it doesn’t cost you anything extra!

Everyone should read Why Nations Fail to fully understand why and how it works, but the basic premise is that extractive political and economic institutions lead to failure, while inclusive ones lead to success.

Extractive institutions hoard wealth and power with an elite few, while inclusive ones “share the wealth,” so to speak. Inclusive institutions allow room for innovation, the driving force of prosperity, while extractive ones stifle creativity, causing stagnation.

Of course, the wealthy elite in charge of extractive institutions don’t care, because the wealth created from stagnation is far better than risking power and personal prosperity, making it extremely challenging for a country to move from extractive to inclusive.

Obviously, the two-paragraph summary doesn’t do the book justice, but it’s enough to move on with our premise, which is that challenges to the oldest extractive institution in human history caused massive societal backlash.

The Oldest Extractive Institution in Human History

Throughout history, humans created extractive financial and political institutions. Slavery is the clearest example, where the elites kidnapped people and forced them to work, extracting their labor, resources, and lives to enrich themselves.

However, it comes in many forms, both political and economic. Serfdom, monopolies, laws that limit voting or property rights, and the absolute power of kings provide some examples (while the book showcases many more and highlights how these institutions work to extract resources from one group for the benefit of another).

There’s one extractive institution the book didn’t mention at all, though, which is odd because it’s probably the oldest and longest-surviving extractive institution in human history.

Of course, I’m talking about marriage.

Marriage as an Extractive Economic and Political Institution

Marriage extracts resources from women and gives them to men. The extractive nature of marriage holds across cultures and time, though it’s far more noticeable in some instances than in others.

We can point to countries like Afghanistan and Sudan to showcase the worst modern examples. Women in these countries have no political or economic power.  They’re assigned a husband, and must do as he commands, providing sexual and domestic labor to birth and raise his kids, cook his meals, and clean his house. They can’t work, own property, vote, or even go out in public by themselves. Everything they produce is extracted for the benefit of their husband.

The History of Marriage in the United States

Most people in the West can see the massive human rights violations in countries like Afghanistan, but they never stop to consider that even Western marriages have extractive roots.

The institution of marriage began as a property transfer from father to husband. In some cultures, he paid for her; in others, her family paid him because he was stuck with the “burden of providing for her,” though as we will see, he usually got the better end of the deal.  

All her property belonged to her husband. She couldn’t divorce him, she couldn’t own property, and she had very few prospects for work outside the home. The best a woman could hope for, for centuries, was getting married off to a kind man.

The institution benefited men greatly at women’s expense. Just like in Afghanistan today, Western men had access to a woman’s body and labor, and she had very little recourse.

The Battle for Economic and Political Power

Men held all the political and economic power for centuries. He could vote, hold office, and petition the government. She couldn’t. He could sell his labor as he chose, own property, and invest – she didn’t have those options.

Things changed in the 21st century, as women fought for and won political and economic power. 

In 1920, American women gained the right to vote, to finally have a voice in the political process. The massive win was only a little more than 100 years ago, and it took even longer for women to gain full economic power.

In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, ensuring women would earn equal pay for equal work. The Civil Rights Act came a year later, in 1964, making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. Of course, that didn’t stop it from happening, and it took numerous court challenges and policy changes for the law to fully take effect.

The passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974 finally allowed women to achieve full financial freedom and economic power. It prohibited discrimination in lending and banking, allowing women to open lines of credit in their own names for the first time.

Is Marriage Really Extractive?

Marriage began as an extractive institution, and remained that way throughout most of history. 

However, it’s crucial to note that marriage doesn’t have to be extractive.  

In today’s world, we see multiple examples of healthy marriages where each partner equally contributes to the relationship, household, and partnership. When it works out this way, it’s a beautiful institution filled with love and blessings.

It’s not marriage itself that’s necessarily extractive, but the underlying systems of misogyny that prevent women from having equal footing in society.

Systems built on misogyny force women into extractive marriages to survive.

Historically, men benefited, but as women gain full independence, men are watching their social power wane, and it’s causing a massive backlash.

Misogyny prevents women from participating equally in society, leading to extractive marriages. Both exist today. 

Challenges to the Extractive Nature of Marriage

Despite the political and economic power women gained in the 21st century, marriage remained an extractive institution. 

Men buy their free time with their wives’ labor.

Even today, married women (especially those with kids) have less free time than their husbands. Women handle the majority of the childcare, domestic labor, household management, and emotional labor of the home. They cook, clean, take care of kids, manage schedules, and more, all while also contributing financially.

But tides are changing.

The women who grew up with full economic and political power (the Late Gen Xers, Millennials, and now Gen Z) have started questioning the extractive institution of marriage. Why should they work outside the home and do the bulk of the work within the home, while their husbands lounge around?

From the 4B movement in South Korea to the rise of Walkaway Wives in the United States, women are fighting back. They’re refusing to date and marry men who won’t contribute equally to the household. They see marriage for what it is and demand better, and have no qualms about opting out if men won’t step up.

Challenges to the extractive nature of marriage led to the rise in loneliness among men, who are no longer guaranteed a wife the way their fathers and grandfathers were, but refuse to change themselves to become the partner today’s women want.

Men Strike Back

In Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson explained that elites never want to change extractive policies because they benefit from them. The powerful kings at the top want for nothing while their people starve.

It makes sense. Why would those in power want to change anything when they’re living a life of wealth and luxury?

They wouldn’t, and historically, they didn’t. The elites protected what they had in any way they could – from enacting laws to hold people down to waging wars and silencing opposition.

The same holds true for challenges to marriage as an extractive institution. Men benefited greatly from the extractive nature of marriage. They were fine with women gaining economic and political power, especially when it benefited the household (the men). When women could work, the household had more money, which benefited the “head of the household.”

But lately, things have changed. The taste of real freedom transformed women’s attitudes about marriage, and it has reached a tipping point. Once a large group of women realized the harmful impacts of marriage and started demanding equality in the home, men fought back.

We can see the backlash in the rise of far-right influences who demand society re-subjugate women, in the growing calls to repeal the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote, and in the rise of tradwife propaganda designed to convince women that getting trapped in a marriage with no rights is better than having economic independence.

The Rise of the Right

This phenomenon explains why the right wing won men of nearly every age group, making spectacular gains among young men in particular.

Historically, men had all the power in relationships, if not in society. They could be “head of the household” and relax while they had a built-in servant (wife) to handle everything at home.

Modern men see their grip on that power fading as women reject modern marriage and relationships, and they’re fighting back.

They’re fine with losing economic and political power on a grand scale if they can maintain their power at home. Most feel powerless in the grand scheme anyway, but the domination over a wife, child, and homestead satiated their thirst for authority.

They see this tiny sliver of power slipping away, and know that when it’s gone, they’ll have nothing: no influence or control over anything.

How to Fix It

As we see in Why Nations Fail, extractive institutions are bad for society as a whole, even if those with the power see some benefits.

Therefore, it’s a net positive that we’re rethinking gender roles and marriage, moving toward equality, and allowing everyone the freedom and opportunity to live their lives as they wish.

But the people losing their grip on power don’t see it that way.

How do we change that?

Understand it’s not a “Men” Problem

We know that not all men fear women’s equality or changes to the institution of marriage because 45% of all men voted for Democrats, while only 51% voted for Republicans. Yes, it’s a majority, but it’s a small one. 

Therefore, to fix it, our first step is acknowledging it’s not a problem with “men.”

It’s a problem with the distribution of economic and political power in the United States. 

Men who voted for the administration tended to be poorer, less educated, and have less power than the men who voted against him. The only small semblance of power they have left is via their marriages, and they’re watching that erode too. They voted to secure it.

Men who voted against it have economic and political power. They’re educated with good jobs and able to navigate changes in the institution of marriage without losing their personal claims to power.

The disparity in voting provides valuable clues for fixing the problem rather than blaming men. Not surprisingly, the answers lie in the premise of Why Nations Fail:

•       Provide Economic Opportunity for All
•       Provide Political Power for All

How Americans Lack Economic Opportunity

America brands itself as the bastion of equal opportunity for all, but it’s a lie. Social mobility has been trending downward for the past fifty years.

In the 1940s, 90% of children had the opportunity to outearn their parents. By the 1980s, only 50% did.

Millennials and Gen Z work harder than their parents for a lower standard of living. They can’t afford homes, they have no access to healthcare, and many believe they’ll never retire. Good jobs require college degrees, which are unaffordable, as college tuition has increased by over 1500% since 1977.

Everyone is seeing their economic power slip away, and feels powerless to stop it.

Our economy is becoming more and more extractive before our very eyes, as young people can’t own property, can’t afford the education required to advance, and get stuck in dead-end, toxic jobs just to survive.

Many have no hopes of advancement.

How Americans Lack Political Power

The loss of economic power coincides with a loss of political power. We say everyone has the right to vote and to choose their own representatives, but it’s clear that regular people have little say.

Although the rich and powerful have been hoarding power for centuries, it got noticeably worse after the Supreme Court rendered its decision on the Citizens United case, paving the way for the rich to spend unlimited amounts of money in pursuit of their political agenda.

When the court equated money with speech, people without money lost nearly all their power. Now, the wealthy could control elections with their vast resources.

There are hundreds of other little cuts to our political power. Gerrymandering limits people’s voices in local elections. Closing voting stations and limiting mail-in voting restrict access to the polls. Strict voting laws and limitations on what can happen near voting places (like you can’t hand out water in line) make voting harder for millions of people.

The “first past the post” voting system prevents candidates with good ideas from rising, as everyone picks “the lesser of two evils,” fearing horrible repercussions if the wrong person wins.

People don’t even vote anymore because they feel it doesn’t matter. 

Giving Americans Back Their Power

It’s no surprise that America gained racial and gender equality during a time of massive political and economic freedom and growth. It’s therefore no surprise that our current hardships created a backlash.

To fix it, we must give regular Americans their power back by fighting monopolies, overturning Citizens United, and creating economic policies that work for everyone, not just the elites. We must reinstitute the political institutions to allow everyone a say in their governance.  

If we lean into inclusive institutions, everybody wins.

Why Didn’t Why Nations Fail Address Marriage and Misogyny?

My premise is that marriage (because of misogyny) is one of the oldest extractive institutions in human history, but if that’s true, why didn’t the book address it?

Although Acemoglu and Robinson made excellent points about society based on historical facts, they missed two major extractive institutions. Obviously, misogyny, which we discussed, but the book also failed to address globalism as an extractive institution (outside of how colonialism impacted the colonized nation).

I won’t offer excuses as to why these institutions were neglected because I’m not the author.

However, I will say that the focus was on the country level, with discussions on political leaders, parties, and power struggles over who rules.  Marriage as an extractive institution is at a lower level, impacting individuals and families more than a country as a whole (though I’d argue that limiting the economic power of half the population does impact a country). Globalism is at a higher level, and the book didn’t address most of the 20th-century politics that allow one country to extract resources from another.

Misogyny as a Factor Commonly Ignored

I’d also posit that nobody ever really considers the extractive nature of marriage outside of feminist circles. The conversations about the mental load, domestic labor, and walk-away wives only began in earnest in the last decade, after the book was researched and published.

Misogyny is so ingrained that we don’t even think about it. It’s in our language, in our systems, and in our institutions. For centuries, and even now in many parts of the world, it’s just normal.

Insults like “You throw like a girl,” bossy girls vs. assertive boys, pornography, victim blaming, and all the derogatory, feminine-coded language I won’t repeat here, all highlight how deeply rooted negative attitudes toward women are.

I’m thrilled that the conversations are finally starting to change.

Ending the Extractive Nature of Marriage

I’m not arguing to end marriage. I think marriage is a wonderful institution when it’s fair to both parties.  I’m married, and I love being married. My husband and I share the household load. He supports me, and I support him. We have a marriage of equals.

Everyone’s marriage doesn’t need to be like mine. I believe a couple should get to decide together how their marriage will work.

However, I do think we need to end the extractive nature of marriage, to change people’s expectations of the institution. We should celebrate the institution as a partnership of love and commitment, something we enter into and stay in because we want to, not because we have no other options. Nobody, man or woman, should be trapped in a marriage they don’t want to be in.  

American society has made wonderful strides toward that in the past decades, but the backlash is terrifying.

We’re at a precipice, and we need to make a choice.

Will we continue to work towards inclusive institutions that benefit everyone and society as a whole, or will our nation fail as certain groups horde power for themselves?