Molly-Mae, your classist views reek of privilege

Ellie Fry, The Independent

Yesterday, millionaire influencer Molly-Mae Hague’s name was trending on Twitter, but not because of a PrettyLittleThing competition she may have been promoting. Instead, the Love Island star came under fire for comments she made about success, wealth and background during an interview on Steven Bartlett’s podcast, Diary of A CEO.

While speaking about privilege, Hague admitted that she’d previously faced criticism for arguing that we all have the same amount of time in the day to achieve our goals (the infamous quote about Beyoncé springs to mind), but continued to reject the notion that someone in poverty would find it harder to climb the socioeconomic ladder than her.

“I understand we all have different backgrounds and we’re all raised in different ways and we do have different financial situations, but I think if you want something enough you can achieve it,” she said. “It just depends on what lengths you want to go to get where you want to be in the future.”

Hague’s ignorance around social mobility is rather galling — research shows that class inequalities cause barriers to education, employment and pay — but it seems to me there’s an entrenched belief in individualism at play in her comments.

In general, the obsession that privileged, wealthy people have with meritocracy is all based on maintaining the status quo — which happens to be the very antithesis of the “hustle culture” that Hague is trying so desperately to promote.

For example, it appears to me that it’s far more convenient for the star to ignore her inherent privilege in favour of a rags-to-riches tale, as this narrative absolves her from any societal responsibility — while simultaneously adding clout to her personal brand. By refusing to accept that her background has helped her gain success, isn’t she validating the inequalities that come as a result of the class gap, while helping to uphold the neoliberalist views that keep disadvantaged people in poverty?

Thankfully, Hague’s opinions are debunked by data on social inequality. According to research by Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison, just 10 per cent of those from working-class backgrounds make it into Britain’s “higher managerial, professional or cultural occupations,” with specific fields such as medicine and journalism being even worse hit by socioeconomic disparities.

Unfortunately, these barriers don’t end if you do manage to gain access to senior roles. The UK’s Social Mobility Commission also found that there’s an average annual class pay gap of £6,800, with women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities being hit the hardest.

Differentiating factors include education and job type, but after controlling all of those elements, the survey found that “those from working-class backgrounds are still paid £2,242 less than more privileged colleagues”.

It’s proven that invisible biases including judging a person’s accent, educational background and poor connections can hinder a working-class person’s progression, even when they’ve managed to smash the so-called class ceiling.

Of course, this is not to say that those from working-class backgrounds cannot obtain serious wealth, but they are exceptions to the rule — and often have to take a far harder route than their more privileged peers. Fans of the meritocracy model rely on wheeling out these success stories in order to push the narrative that anyone can become a millionaire, and revel in the delusional gratification that success is solely down to hard work.

But this world view ignores the social inequalities that many people face, and conveniently keeps the status quo for the upper classes. If we could all get rich based on merit alone, poverty wouldn’t exist.

In my opinion, for Hague to insinuate that someone in a lower-paid job works less hard than someone on a higher wage is to spew Thatcherite ideology under the guise of girl boss entrepreneurialism, which might inspire her fans to buy into a false sense of security.