I don't really want to get into another mud slinging match though. Appreciate I can be a little direct at times but ultimately it's just my opinion, which many no doubt disagree with. And we certainly hear enough of the counter argument. Often in an equally aggressive manner.
But my experience is that I notice a lot of women espousing strongly feminist views when young (in their late teens/their 20s) but quietly shifting their focus with age. Initially, they go from being a kid to a young adult and the commencement of university often exposes them to a lot of new ideas. Logically, it makes sense that women should be paid as much as men, and statistically it's clear that as a group we're not.
You'll see a lot of young women trying to 'educate' the rest of society as if they've experienced some epiphany of truth which the unenlightened majority haven't. Not just with feminism but all manner of woke stuff.
But then many of us hit our 30s and things start to change. I'm only a little past 30 but I notice it in many of my older friends from my office days. When I was in my early 20s and they their late 20s it was all about the career and climbing the ladder etc. But then many had kids and stepped back for a bit. At some point they decided that their husband/partner's salary was enough for them to stay part time and that's what they did.
I think many shift focus and prioritise their family/children over their career, which may be an innate biological drive, but that's a discussion for another thread. I see many such women popping up in SAHM threads and often they're quite defensive of their choices, like some working women are a little derisive of 'full time mothers'. A common reply is 'we did what was best for our family' or 'what we decide is nobody else's business'.
Both are reasonable statements IMO but it must be acknowledged that these choices are a significant factor driving the pay gap and many of these women might've sung a different song a decade prior. Ultimately, their choices fuel the debate around the pay gap.
Of course it's not always a choice and some families can't afford to lose the wage of the primary earner. But if you holiday several times a year, have a nice house, drive nice cars, have kids at private school, etc, then most likely you could tighten the belt and get by with two full time salaries totalling slightly less than one optimised salary.
The reality is that people will often talk a good game but ultimately do what gives them the greatest personal benefit/quality of life. Especially given that the personal reward will be significant compared to the social benefit bestowed by a single person choosing personal sacrifice for the greater good - this only works when many thousands of people do it. It's just human nature to put yourself and your family first.
If straight white men are the most privileged demographic then straight white women are a close second. And the latter are usually the first to complain about the former, despite being the ones that choose to marry them. Once you're in your 30s-40s with kids at school, working part time, sharing a joint bank account, living a decent life. This is the point where you probably aren't too upset about men earning more, because if they didn't your family would be much less comfortable.
NGL, if I met an extremely wealthy Channing Tatum lookalike who was rich enough for me to become a lady of leisure without blinking an eye, I'd probs give it a crack. If it didn't work out there's always another machine to drive and it usually takes but a couple of calls to get another £50k job starting next week. Might just have to spend a few hundred updating my tickets/CPC if it'd been more than a few years.
Appreciate that's not the case for all women but generally reward doesn't come without risk. If you don't want to risk remortgaging your house/wasting your savings then nobody is forcing you to start a business, but you probs won't end up extremely wealthy either. Having the option to work part time for 30-40 years without any personal risk is an absurd expectation IMO, but no doubt more appealing a risk if you're not a high earner or in a career job - a minimum wage worker has much less to lose and may well walk away better off.
The conversation is typically framed from a middle class professional perspective but honestly I'm doubtful if all the Range Rover driving bimbos I see turning up at my mate's daughter's private school would be earning £100k were they working full time.
Apologies, I was trying to write a more diplomatic post but I've failed. 🤣