The Myth of Women's Equality in Europe

aerosolben

Evil Genius
aerosolben
Joined
Aug 10, 2001
Messages
2,269
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435567/site/newsweek/

Some snippets:

Here's a pop quiz on gender equality. In which part of the world are women most likely to reach the highest rungs of power? Choice A offers new moms 12 weeks of maternity leave, almost no subsidized child care, no paid paternity leave and has a notoriously hard-driving business culture. Choice B gives them five months to three years of paid time off from their jobs after having kids. Millions put their offspring into state-sponsored day-care centers for several hours a day. Government agencies, full of female directors and parliamentarians, protect workers at the expense of business and favor a kinder, gentler corporate culture. So which place is better for women who want to make it to the top? If you guessed A, the United States, you'd be right. If you chose B—Europe—think again.
Click to expand...
Why is this? Simply put, Europe is killing its women with kindness—enshrined, ironically, in cushy welfare policies that were created to help them. By offering women extremely long work leaves after children, then pushing them to take the full complement via tax policies that discourage a second income, coupled with subsidies that serve to keep them at home, Europe is essentially squandering its female talent. Not only do women get off track for long periods, many simply never get back on. Nor have European corporations adapted to changing times. Few offer the flextime that makes it easier for women to both work and manage their families. Instead, women tend to get shuffled into part-time work, which is less respected and poorly paid. Those who want to fight discrimination find themselves hamstrung by laws favoring employers.
Click to expand...

The article goes into detail about the imbalances and mentions efforts to correct them as well:

Germany's new minister for Family Affairs, Ursula Von der Leyen, a working mother of seven, recently pushed through a law stipulating that only couples in which both parents take time off with babies will be eligible for a full 36 months of leave. And Iceland now stipulates that at least three months of the allowed nine months of leave must be taken by a father—which 30 percent of dads now do. Other positive signs are emerging. This past December, France passed a law mandating pay equity between men and women within five years. Over the past two years the French business school HEC has launched a major campaign to recruit more female M.B.A.s, raising the percentage of women in the program from 16 to 32. Norway recently decreed that all corporate boards must be 40 percent female within two years, or face being shut down, while the European Commission for Employment and Social Affairs will soon begin a yearlong study to determine whether discrimination laws in Europe are being properly enforced. Meanwhile, the EU has set aside funds for the creation of a gender-equality institute in 2007. Its goal: to "come up with concrete solutions" to Europe's gender gap, according to Commissioner Spidla. If it does, the future will be a lot brighter for all Europeans.
Click to expand...


I thought the article was interesting, but, as an American who's never worked in Europe, I don't really have much of a basis for comparison. Is it a fair assessment?
 
MSNBC said:
Here's a pop quiz on gender equality. In which part of the world are women most likely to reach the highest rungs of power?
Click to expand...
I choose New Zealand, Indonesia, The Philippines, and England. Hey, I was right!
 
It's one view I suppose. One that thinks equality is all women choosing to do the same things as men and sod the consequences on society.

Anyone who has working France will know that the law does not "favour employers".
 
There is a lot of press in the UK at the moment around the impending 'baby gap' because women are choosing to concentrate on their careers. There are concerns that there will not be enough taxpayers in the future to support older generations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4728950.stm

The proposed solution to this is to offer more maternity and paternity rights, and free childcare.

The choice is up to the individual woman though. I've always seen it as a blanket choice, if you want to rise to the top of your profession, you will have to sacrifice having children, or sacrifice the quality of your relationship with them.
 
I agree - and I wonder what the effect that choice has on society.

Certainly now lots of women work the prices of houses have rocketed - two people applying for the one mortgage has raised the stakes. So single people cannot afford housing anymore, and poorer families have mums that work to keep up and their kids are not going to great schools anyway.

Maybe there is a correlation between women working and the behavioural problems we are seeing?

I wonder that putting equality and personal rights at the absolute top of the adgenda all the time is such a good idea. Sure you win an ideological and intellectual argument but does it actually make us happier in all cases?
 
Splossy said:
One that thinks equality is all women choosing to do the same things as men and sod the consequences on society.
Click to expand...
Tkingdoll's link suggests that women are not taking time off to raise children. Apparently, they're focusing on their careers. And failing.
 
aerosolben said:
Tkingdoll's link suggests that women are not taking time off to raise children. Apparently, they're focusing on their careers. And failing.
Click to expand...

It does seem that way, although I think it's more that they're focusing on having two incomes rather than climbing the career ladder. To give credit to my gender, I would say that if a woman wants to rise to the top of her profession, she could do it by hard work and sacrifice, same as men. I think it's a little unfair to assume that women aren't getting far enough because they're being discriminated against, although I'm sure that happens on occasion.

I've known plenty of female company directors, they were all either divorced or childless, funnily enough. To put in the sort of effort it requires to get to the very top requires a huge amount of commitment, particularly between the ages of 20-40, which of course happen to be the child-bearing years.

But the inequality in the male:female ratio at the top of the ladder...well, maybe some women aren't good enough? That sounds harsh, I know, but from my own experience, the majority of middle-management females I've worked for will never get any further up the career ladder, they just don't make the grade.
 
Something else to keep in mind when considering the scarcity of women in leadership positions in the concept of comparitive advantage. From an economic point of view, the issue of whether men are better at leadership roles than women is irrelevant to the respective ratios. What matters is whether the amount that men are better than women in leadership roles is more than the amount that they are better than women in other roles. If, in fact, men are slightly worse than women in leadership roles, but much worse than women in other roles, then ecomonics predicts that men will end up in leadership roles.
 
An example from my own life: I work with a team of researchers which includes some married men with grown children, some married women with children of various ages and me, the sole single female.

We have been under a big crunch in the last couple of months with major deadlines etc. And it is especially bad the last week or so up to March 1.

A typical day for the married men and me these last couple of months: up at 5:00am. Working throughout the day (with short breaks now and then) until 10:30pm when we have an online check-in to plan the next day.

For the women with children, the work day revolves around their children's schedule. They can work from 8:30-3:30 and, if they have an understanding partner, for a few hours after the kids are in bed. But, more than one has a husband who doesn't want his wife working at home. A couple have even gone to the Head and said "my husband feels I'm working too much" Can you imagine a man ever doing that?

How can these women possibly keep up? How can they ever become core members of the team? The worst part is their resentment and entitlement that our work revolve around their schedule too and that the single woman (me) picks up their slack.

They made a choice to have a family. And I'm sure there are many rewards that come with that. But there are also costs. They don't seem to understand that. And they don't seem to understand that their choice is no more valuable or important than mine.

Well, that was a little vent...off to work now...
 
TruthSeeker said:
How can these women possibly keep up? How can they ever become core members of the team? The worst part is their resentment and entitlement that our work revolve around their schedule too and that the single woman (me) picks up their slack.

They made a choice to have a family. And I'm sure there are many rewards that come with that. But there are also costs. They don't seem to understand that. And they don't seem to understand that their choice is no more valuable or important than mine.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I'm sure there are many who would say "it's easy for you to say, you don't have kids". But, if I did, I would accept that I can't have it all, and would sacrifice some career progression.

ETA, I once worked for a company who, during the annual fight over who has to work during Christmas week, gave priority to staff who had children, because 'Christmas is more important when you have kids'...! Boy, did I raise some hell over that one.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I get a lot of that. I had one woman say to me in explaining her lack of productivity: "I haven't slept a full night since my oldest was born. You have no way of understanding."

What I wanted to say was "Oh, I didn't realize you were forced to have 3 children in 5 years. You poor thing. That explains why you haven't published in all these years"

Instead, I said nothing. It's a difficult situation to be in.

OK, enough about this from me. It makes me angry and it isn't worth that.
 
ceo_esq said:
Has anyone come across a link to the ILO paper in question?
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to find anything. The ILO website seems to indicate that their publications aren't available online, but it isn't entirely clear.
 
TruthSeeker said:
They made a choice to have a family. And I'm sure there are many rewards that come with that. But there are also costs. They don't seem to understand that.
Click to expand...
Didn't their husbands make the same choice? Why does becoming a mother come with a cost, and becoming a father not so?
 
Bjorn said:
Didn't their husbands make the same choice? Why does becoming a mother come with a cost, and becoming a father not so?
Click to expand...

Ah! The million-dollar question!

And do you know, I don't have the faintest idea what the answer is. It's always baffled me. Perhaps it's because women have traditionally been homemakers not breadwinners? That old mentality still lingers.

I'm reluctant to say it's because mothers are more dedicated to their children or are better at parenting, because I would hope that's not true.
 
Bjorn said:
Didn't their husbands make the same choice? Why does becoming a mother come with a cost, and becoming a father not so?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. Some friends of mine and I mulled over a few bottles of wine one evening if perhaps most families (but not most businesses) would be better off if while the kids were young both parents worked part-time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom