The other night, I was talking to a friend when she suggested that feminists were to blame for the current economic crisis. It was hyperbole, I’m certain. Although at the time I changed the subject because I was so shocked to learn that she felt that way.

I can get pretty defensive when feminists are accused of anything. I’ve identified myself as one since I started college and have been one in spirit since I recognized a discernable difference between boys and girls. I can get especially defensive when the accusations come from other women. I suppose that’s because I automatically assume that every woman I meet is a feminist. What woman wouldn’t believe herself to be in every way equal to men, and expect to be treated accordingly—socially, economically, and politically? I simply can’t wrap my mind around the idea that any woman might think differently.

I rejected my friend’s argument as ludicrous but the shock I felt prevented me from articulating why at the time. So, more than just shocking me, it’s been bugging me. I’ve been mulling it over and what I’ve decided that what she meant was because the feminist movement resulted in more women entering the workplace, the two-income family became the norm. Because of the increase in income, families started spending more. When families started spending more, women no longer had the choice to stay at home because the family now needed two incomes to keep up with their spending habits. By now, they were addicted to this increased purchasing power and so started using credit to buy more and more beyond their means and voila!

At least I think that’s how she got from point A to point E. She couldn’t mean that women working in the financial industry were responsible for the mortgage derivative craziness because long after feminist movement eulogies began to appear in newspapers and magazines, women have remained grossly underrepresented on Wall Street, especially when it comes to the executive offices or the field of financial math.

I’m going to pause here to apologize to my friend. It’s not really fair for me to pick on her like this. But then, she can always defend herself. And, in this particular case, she happens to be out of her ever-lovin’-mind. Now that’s out of the way. So, let’s deconstruct her argument.

Point A: Feminists force women out of the house and into the job force.

Point B: Two income families become the norm. Their increased household income leads to increased household spending.

Point C: Families need two incomes to keep up with their spending.

Point D: Families become addicted to spending and maxed out their credit cards while buying houses they couldn’t afford.

Point E: The house of cards falls down and we find ourselves in crisis. Thanks a lot, feminists.

I’ll agree that each point occurred to some extent but I think the cause and effect is highly suspect.

Let’s start with Point A: Feminists force women out of the house and into the job force.

First of all, feminists didn’t force women out of the house. The women who were still in the house were, by and large, ready to get out into the big world. Contrary to 1950s lore, we don’t all love to gossip over the backyard fence and to bake a different cake for dessert every night. Yes, raising children is important. And today, it’s become even harder to balance work and kids due to the explosion of extra curricular activities that kids are shuttled back and forth between. But many women who financially could make the choice to stay home still choose to work—because they want to live a multi-faceted life.

Second, women have always worked, and worked hard. It was only the rise of the middle class and advancements in technology making housework easier and faster that gave women time to even consider that they might be unfulfilled working in the house alone. What’s more, poor women have always worked both inside and outside the home, bringing in money however they could.

So, the first flaw in the argument is that feminism forced women into the workforce. There was no forcing. The second wave of feminism advocated for middle class—and primarily white—married women to be able to go to work outside the home, in addition to challenging stereotypes, advancing the cause of higher education and athletics for women, bringing to light issues of spousal abuse, fighting discrimination, and securing a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own damn body. (Plus, a whole bunch of other good things that I can’t think of right now.)

And now on to Point B: Two income families become the norm. Their increased household income leads to increased household spending.

This happened in middle class households. Absolutely. Of course, women were still making less than men for doing the same job. Some bosses rationalized this by thinking that women were dumber or less productive, and therefore deserved the be paid less. Others felt that because the husband was the primary breadwinner they didn’t need to pay their female employees as much. Although I think it’s fairly clear in 2008, to anyone with a brain, that these two rationales are ridiculous, women still only earn about three-quarters the income of men doing the exact same job.

Now we start to run into some trouble.

Point C: Families need two incomes to keep up with their spending.

I suppose that there is an argument to be made that consumer spending outstripped earning. I’m sure there are statistics to back that up and certainly we can see the anecdotal evidence in the fact that most households have multiple televisions, multiple cars, and multiple computers. But, also anecdotally, people use their credit to make home improvements, send their kids to college, and even buy groceries. The dollars that people are making today are not stretching far enough in many cases to cover even the basic expenses.

Further, plenty of families continue to survive on one income. In some of them, the primary wage earner makes enough so that the other doesn’t have to work. In more of them, there is only one wage earner to begin with. Most single parents are women, who are paid less on the dollar and so struggle even more to make ends meet.

Now for Point D: Families become addicted to spending and maxed out their credit cards while buying houses they couldn’t afford.

I don’t necessarily buy the argument that American consumer spending got out of control and directly led to the crisis. Yes, as a society, we put way to much on credit and we didn’t save enough. But I would argue that many families were maxing out their credit to pay for necessities like groceries and college, so while we overextended ourselves on credit, it wasn’t just for vacations and spa visits.

What’s more, this consumer culture didn’t develop in a vacuum. Our government supported policies that made it easier for consumers to get credit. Maybe it would have been prudent for people to save more money. But that wouldn’t have lined the pockets of the companies that wanted us spending every last cent and it wouldn’t have made money for the credit card companies growing fat off the interest payments.

What’s even more than that, behavior is learned. How are we average citizens supposed to learn that it is better to save than to instantly gratify our need—for food, for education or even for a new Wii—when our government spends and spends on borrowed money so that elected officials don’t have to face the hard questions when it’s time to campaign again?

Point E: The house of cards falls down and we find ourselves in crisis. Thanks a lot, feminists.

I’d say the house of cards is my friend’s argument.

As I understand it, which is admittedly not that well, the current financial crisis is a perfect storm resulting from a confluence of normal economic cycles, deregulation of the financial services industry, consumer overspending, two expensive wars that were financed rather than paid for through tax revenues, and boneheaded, blind greed.

Not the fault of feminists.