Thoughtful Thursday: to be equal or not to be equal? that is the question...

My friend Ableponder yesterday posted a link to this interesting article. It's an article about the reality of French women who while having a lot of public help in the form of childcare, pre-natal care and tax breaks for families but still earn less than men, have to shoulder the far bigger part of domestic work and whose chances for advancement into the higher echelons of public service or a career are still far below those of her male partners. After reading it I thought the article was well put together but nothing new. By far more ineresting was what my friend made of it:

"Not unsympathetic-- what mama would be? But as an econ major, one thing strikes me... if you have two workers, one of whom is going to take several years off from work, miss more days, etc, you are likely going to protect yourself against the anticipated costs by paying her less." (she said it here)

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that her reaction to the article is so different from mine. My first thought was: What a crying shame! After these many years of laboring for equality we're still restricted by our wombs.
The status quo as described in the article bothers me on several accounts:

1. While on a cursory glance one might think that through free childcare and other (monetary) benefits French mothers have more choices when it comes to motherhood and/or a career. But on a closer look it seems to me the opposite is true. There seems to be more pressure on women to be "productive" in the workplace as well as in the breeding process. Women who try to elude this mandate by either deiciding not to have children or by deciding not to enter a "paid" job in favor of taking care of their children apparently face great social pressure if not ostracism.
2. Earning 26% less than a man in the same job is not fair. No matter how you turn it. First of all, this applies to all women, regardless of their choice whether to have children or not. Basing the reality of less earnings on the abstract possibility that a woman may or may not have children is not equality. Second, it is not a woman's fault that she is the one who has a womb and not her male partner. Human reproduction is beyond our control in that matter, so a couple's choice (there are always two involved in this, you know) should not impact either one's wages just because they cannot choose which one of them is going to give birth. Of course once the child is born and the initial phase of necessary care by the mother is over, men could (and in some cases do) take over the task of caring for their offspring, But the fact that so few do, has in my opinion a lot to do with the fact, that the man is way more likely to have the higher income and therefore it makes (financially) more sense for him to be the provider instead of the caregiver. (and of course the fact that our society is still not mature enough to look upon a father who chooses to stay home with respect, he instead generally faces a lot of ridicule)
3. (Unpaid) Domestic work is work, too. There are studies estimating the value of this unpaid domestic work and it is a significant amount of a country's GOP. The fact the most of that work is still provided by women, and that they get neither recognition nor benefits for their work is quite frankly sad. 

So, what conclusion do I draw from this? I think this is not so much an economic problem but a social one (but then again I'm not an economics major but a humanities one). As long as we still consider women as the primary caregivers, as long as we do not recognize domestic work as valuable and as long as we do not give fathers an equal opportunity at caregiving we will be in this quandary. I think women should have the choice whether or not to become mothers (and by the by I think it is perfectly legitimate to decide to remain childfree, IMO it does not decrease your womanhood or make you less grown-up and whatever rubbish I've heard spouted on that subject). And their coice should be free from social and financial pressure. Likewise should be the choice on whether or not you choose to work or stay at home (and do your work there). And if you choose to stay home it should be free of pressure which partner chooses to do so.

I found an interesting take on this on figleaf's blog:

"The best thing from my perspective would be that since women who have children still spend some time out of the workforce (in my experience three months for the rarely mentioned “fourth trimester” isn’t unreasonable) and therefore put some fraction of their earnings potential on hold (at least till we get solid progressive family leave policies) then it makes sense that women ought to at least start out with higher incomes. (It makes sense that their partners would also support that.)
The advantages are considerable: there’s be no particular intra-family earnings imbalance due to children, there’s be no strong incentive for the partner who stayed at home with the first child to stay at home with the next, etc. And if the family did decide to go the “traditional” avenue where the woman stays home with succeeding children she’d still have an easier path towards reaching income parity when she chooses to return to the workforce.
Yeah, it doesn’t have to be that way As we see in parts of Scandinavia for instance a really strong public/private/family network can be pretty powerful. But at least for now it is that way. And so a trend towards women earning more, at least initially, at least in theory, ought to support more egalitarian — and therefore stronger — long-term relationships." (he said it here)

Hmmm,  giving women higher earnings to start with so that they can buffer those times when their earnings will be less due to maternity...maybe not a bad idea.

As an aside: So French women now produce more kids than German women do. Is there any point in it now? Or do they realize that somehow the basis for this race has shifted? Just curious.

One more thing, does anyone other than me find it disturbing that the reason French women get so much Pre-Natal care is to be attractive to men again and to reproduce? And not because of their health?


Happy Thursday and hopefully this will be seen as some food for thought. As usual, let me know, what you're thinking.