To wonder if true workplace equality might actually disadvantage a lot of women

[FleurPower123]

I was just reading the other thread about whether women disadvantage themselves financially and started thinking about this.

Of course I'd like to see a world where women can attain the same success as men, but we often seem to focus on the benefits that men have with less thought given to the downsides of our modern culture. This is possibly because the types of women most concerned with equal pay are logically likely to be those currently in the workplace and those who are ambitious.

I keep thinking about some of the girls I went to school with. Middle class and 'well brought up' with good social skills etc, but some weren't particularly ambitious and others were maybe not traditionally academic and probably wouldn't have fared so well in high pressure demanding corporate careers.

Many are now happily married to middle class men with decent salaries and seem perfectly happy. Some don't work but most work at least part time, but none are the primary earner. I'm wondering how their lives would have turned out if they had been expected to achieve financial success and if this had been an attribute that prospective male partners prioritised like many women do of men.

It definitely seems the case to me that a good looking 35 year old man who earns £25k has less dating prospects than a good looking woman earning the same amount and would probably struggle more in achieving a 'naice' lifestyle. However, it's difficult because I certainly want women who are ambitious to have the same prospects as men, but just without the stigma of being 'unsuccessful' or unambitious if they don't want this life. But can we normalise the success of women in the workplace without destabilising the status of those who don't want to pursue financial prowess.

It's late and I'm probably not explaining this as succinctly as I might've, but I hope people get my point.

I should perhaps have framed this more with 'expectations of success' than 'equal pay'.

Are you assuming that levels of ambition are innate and not influenced by social expectations and norms?

Also there is a world of success away from high pressure corporate careers. I would say it's a minority of men who work these kind of roles.

Sorry, what?

If women were paid equally to men, they would earn too much to be attractive to mem? Men aren't attracted to ambitious women? Married women don't want to be paid the same for their labour as bread winning men?

I am not sure whether you've just expressed it badly but it sounds like YABVVVVU.

If women were paid equally to men, they would earn too much to be attractive to mem? Men aren't attracted to ambitious women? Married women don't want to be paid the same for their labour as bread winning men?

That's not at all what I said!

I'm saying that a man won't likely achieve a naice lifestyle unless he has a good job but many non-ambitious women can achieve this lifestyle because they aren't as judged by their earnings and it won't put off potential partners. This is a privilege whether or not we like to admit it.

How about us unmarried, childfree women? Can we earn the same as our male colleagues, or should we just stfu?

You have a very narrow view of the world.

@LordEmsworth

Sorry, what?

If women were paid equally to men, they would earn too much to be attractive to mem? Men aren't attracted to ambitious women? Married women don't want to be paid the same for their labour as bread winning men?

I am not sure whether you've just expressed it badly but it sounds like YABVVVVU.

I read it as men need to earn more than women otherwise they'll never get a shag. Either way, it's a pretty odd logic.

OP, if women are less ambitious I suspect it's more to do with structural sexism and outdated social norms than some innate desire to marry well and retire from life.

And the demand for equal pay has nothing to do with women becoming high paid types - few men do that - and more to do with women being paid the same for doing the same job. You know, fairness.

This is a privilege whether or not we like to admit it.

No, it is not a privilege. Being financially dependent on another adult is in no way desirable.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make. Society does judge people by how "successful" they are, and women are possibly more shielded from this because they can partner with a higher earning male.

I'm saying that a man won't likely achieve a naice lifestyle unless he has a good job but many non-ambitious women can achieve this lifestyle because they aren't as judged by their earnings and it won't put off potential partners. This is a privilege whether or not we like to admit it

Does this set up come with zero downsides for the woman? They are financially vulnerable for one. And typically they do more household management tasks, chores and childcare.

Although in many ways I see where you are coming from. I think we are failing women by not expecting more of them. And we are failing the men who aren't traditionally ambitious.

And also I have first hand experience of men not wanting a higher earning partner or a career focussed partner. But I'd rather have my career than a man who is intimated by successful women.

I still don't get your point.

Men who earn less have a smaller dating pool because women expect a partner to earn more than they do. Therefore if women earn more, these men will be even less attractive to us, and we will be stuck working instead of marrying. Therefore women shouldn't be seeking equal pay, we should ensure men earn more than we do.

Single women and lesbians will just have to tolerate it, or suck it up and get married, presumably.

Your update is even worse! Women are privileged because men find us attractive even though we earn less

not traditionally academic and probably wouldn't have fared so well in high pressure demanding corporate careers.
So the two options in life are marry for money but don’t work yourself, or high flying corporate career that renders you unmarriageable. Other jobs are available, OP.

Oh shit, I've just realised how late it is. Will try and summarise.

My belief is that middle class men are generally expected to be at least decent earners. People often marry others from similar backgrounds and I believe many MC women would be put off by a low earning man with no financial ambition.

However, a woman who wants a 'traditional' marriage where the man becomes the main earner can often achieve this setup and have a decent quality of life - like the women I mentioned.

Of course many women don't want this setup but I still know plenty of others who were more than happy to step back from their job around the age of 30 and never really seemed that hungry for the 'big career'.

How do we cater for both life choices without invalidating or stigmatising either? If we normalise all women working full time like almost all men do will it still be acceptable not to?

What happens to women who aren't cut out for the big career? Such men usually have to compromise many aspects of their life, so do we accept that sacrifice or do we instead try to destigmatise the status of the low earning male? The latter is as much in our hands as the patriarchy IMO as it could for example be achieved by high earning career women being prepared to marry male secretaries or tree surgeons etc.

No, it is not a privilege. Being financially dependent on another adult is in no way desirable.

Not to you perhaps, but my boss's wife would likely disagree. Was his mum's carer and is now driving a Porsche and doesn't work. I'm sure she could still return to care work if she wanted complete financial independence.

You sound incredibly confused OP. Your small sample of school friends with women you perceive as ‘unambitious’ and men you presumably perceive as ‘ambitious’ don’t represent innate characteristics of men and women. Plus your female friends working part time/being lower earners isn’t demonstrative of some societal benefit for women

@Fullofthejoysofspring

I think I understand the point you're trying to make. Society does judge people by how "successful" they are, and women are possibly more shielded from this because they can partner with a higher earning male.

Exactly this.

OP, if women are less ambitious I suspect it's more to do with structural sexism and outdated social norms than some innate desire to marry well and retire from life.

I didn't say women are less ambitious. I said unambitious women have more options than unambitious men, one being to marry an ambitious man.

@FleurPower123

No, it is not a privilege. Being financially dependent on another adult is in no way desirable.

Not to you perhaps, but my boss's wife would likely disagree. Was his mum's carer and is now driving a Porsche and doesn't work. I'm sure she could still return to care work if she wanted complete financial independence.

And if he decides he no longer wants to be married to her she may have to return to care work - assuming she can find an employer who will take her on with that kind of CV gap. Head over to the relationships board, it's a recurring theme on there.

Personally I'd rather buy my own luxuries and fripperies, like a proper grown-up.

Two recent threads were 'how to a bag a rich man?', and another only a few days ago where the OP was on track to earn big £££ but resented her partner earning less and was jealous of her male colleagues' rich wives who would turn up at lunchtime in designer clobber. We can't pretend these people don't exist.

@FleurPower123

OP, if women are less ambitious I suspect it's more to do with structural sexism and outdated social norms than some innate desire to marry well and retire from life.

I didn't say women are less ambitious. I said unambitious women have more options than unambitious men, one being to marry an ambitious man.

In your OP you talk at length about unambitious women.

And no, unambitious women don't really have more options than unambitious men. Spending your adult life at the mercy of someone who may or may not decide to withdraw your financial support is not an option, even when it's dressed up as some kind of romantic ideal.

Plus, plenty of men do jobs with limited potential for advancement and no one judges them for it. I know know where you live, OP, but maybe (post-pandemic) you should get out and meet a wider variety of people.

Ok, I'm off to bed. I do feel sometimes there is a certain denial on here that many women do marry successful men and live lifestyles which they would otherwise have been very unlikely to lead. I didn't mean to offend but I generally call it as I see it.

I think your idea of equality is a nice quality of life, up mention middle class a lot. equality is it not this.

Being reliant on a partner for income is also not a privilege. There are reasons for why this might be which stem from social norms meant to placate woman, such as woman giving up work to look after children, or woman being seen as delicate (which he suggest in your post What happens to women who aren't cut out for the big career?), or not being seen as able to become the highest earner (because of inequal gendered pay gap).

@FleurPower123

Two recent threads were 'how to a bag a rich man?', and another only a few days ago where the OP was on track to earn big £££ but resented her partner earning less and was jealous of her male colleagues' rich wives who would turn up at lunchtime in designer clobber. We can't pretend these people don't exist.

No one has said they don't exist, just that it is not a great way for functioning adults to live.

Men work dreary, thankless jobs because they have to. They don’t provide any societal value as cocklodgers anyway.

Only working class women have the same dilemma, in that they have to work for a living and there’s a big possibility that a man or government won’t provide for them. More privileged women can choose between or even balance a fulfilling career or family life.

Sorry to take this through a class lens 😕

Did the read the similar thread a few months back? Full of mumsnet members saying things like "I'm lucky to have a high earning husband which means I don't have to work and get to focus on my hobbies."

Loads of posters protested that they wouldn't want to rely on a man but equal numbers said "well, we're happy with our setup and it's nobody else's business" etc. And others pointed out that it wasn't true liberation if only certain lifestyle choices were deemed 'acceptable'. I've been thinking about it all for a few months.