I agree with your premise that unequal incomes (especially if they are glaring) can be a significant barrier to relationships. But what if e.g. the woman makes enough for the both of them, and all she is looking for in a partner is emotional well being, someone to talk/share activities etc.
So its not just a money thing IMO. It seems like the US culture has still not adopted to the economic realities of today. And it hurts everyone: a woman may know that she doesn't care about income differences and wants a partner for other reasons, but she will be dissuaded from pursuing such relationships by her friends/family etc.
It worked well unless you were a woman with ambitions outside of the kitchen and bedroom. In that case, it was living hell and maybe you'd get luck with a world war.
Slavery worked fine too, unless you were a slave.
Not it wasn't living hell. Having professional goals was a luxury.
Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.
Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy
The nice thing about this is that it's largely a statement of fact, not an ideological question. It's an issue we can actually evaluate using evidence.
So. Where's your evidence for this claim?
I have plenty of evidence for mine. We can go read memoirs, first-hand, and second-hand accounts from women in the 19th and early 20th century. The downsides are well-documented.
> Having professional goals was a luxury
Those well-documented downsides extend far beyond the absence of professional goals.
Financial dependence is coercive, especially when paired with lax legal protections. Lack of personal economic autonomy, enforced by culture and in many cases law, gives rise to a whole range of depressing conditions. Lack of professional ambition was only one contributor to a huge constellation of factors that made many women's lives a living hell.
> Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.
Of course, men also enjoyed professional positions in academics, in industry, and in government that women were cut off from.
> Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy
What is the relevance of this observation to the current discussion?
Does doing a crappy job entitle a man to the affection or devotion of a woman? If not, then what bearing does the existence of crappy jobs have on the status of women in society?
Also, there's plenty of pain and misery to go around. No reason to turn it into a contest. And we certainly have no good reason to condition women's status in society on the total abolition of men working undesirable jobs.
Reading your post, it's not obvious that this is what you meant.
And in any case, you are still ignoring the woman's perspective. It was entirely too common for women to enter into relationships that they had no real interest in out of social and financial necessity.
So lets look at a single person without a job in that context: On day one when two people meet, when both are single, if one of them doesn't have a job, it is a red flag that the person without a job might not be willing or able to contribute in the future. The relationship starts without a shared home, so just one person spending all the money. It isn't balanced.
So when you get down to it, it isn't a gender thing. It is a money thing.