According to radical feminism, an ideology that I strongly subscribe to, inequality in pay is a severely minor outcome stemming from overarching patriarchal constructs. While fixing the “77 cents” problem is important, it won’t solve the root of why these problems exist. I believe solutions to gender gap and economic growth problems must fundamentally change our way of thought and current social/educational structures.
The first step is to increase female representation at all levels, particularly at the top where the ratio is harshly skewed to males. The presence alone of females gives an added perspective that cannot be learned or considered by men in the workplace. An environment of equal representation creates a safe space that is more welcoming and productive. Let’s take government for example. We have 196 countries, yet as of as of “January 2015, 10 women served as Head of State and 14 served as Head of Government” (“Facts,” 2015). The fact that women don’t hold power is evidence of the social and gendered stigmas that prevent women from rising. Strict enforcement of gender quotas are a method of resolving this issue. In 2006, Norway instated a 40% female gender quota for company boards. Germany followed suit with a 30% female gender quota. Competent and skilled female workers are available, especially considering that women outpace men in higher education; however, they are not given the jobs they deserve. “One study found that a commitment by hiring committees to shortlists with at least 25% women helped to remove anti-woman bias” (H.J., 2014).
Another societal shift that needs to occur is the removal of gender roles. Female (maternal) roles are intensely degraded. The dilemma of “having it all” should not be just a women’s concern. Along the same lines, any male that appears to take on maternal roles is considered emasculated in society. Providing salaries for parents who choose to pursue maternal parental roles full-time is a key way to change oppressive cultural thoughts. The fact of the matter is that money is a symbol of value and a means to achieving greater power within our capitalistic structure. Paying full-time parents creates financially stable families that can invest back into the economy and their children. “ Paid leave raises the probability that mothers return to employment later, and then work more hours and earn higher wages” (Miller, 2015). Paid leave and payment for parental duties are long-term investments. It creates a larger, more strengthened workforce that can positively impact economic growth.
The removal of gender roles must not begin at parenthood, but start early in schools. “Departments of education should be providing mandatory gender-equity resource modules to in-service teachers” (Chapman, n.d.). Essentially, educators must be made of aware of existing biases in teaching materials and methods. For example, the use of adjectives (nice, polite girl vs. strong boy) even as early as pre-school must be monitored as they influence gender role identity. Schools should develop and use gender-neutral language/material in order to build environments and a future consciousness of equality. When children grow up without being berated by these social constructs, they are less likely to find ideas of equal pay, equal gender quotas, or paid leave as absurd or financial burdens.
References
Chapman, A. (n.d.). Gender bias in education. EdChange Project. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html
Facts and figures: leadership and political participation. (2015, February). UN Women. Retrieved from http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures
H.J. (2014, Mar. 25). The spread of gender quotas for company boards. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/03/economist-explains-14
Miller, C.C. (2015, Jan. 30). The economic benefits of paid parental leave. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/upshot/the-economic-benefits-of-paid-parental-leave.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0
I’m not entirely sure what you’re arguing for in your second point. Are you saying that individuals who choose to be full-time parents should receive full salaries or should they receive smaller stipends?
Either way, I’m not sure how this would contribute to the removal of gender roles. Women already disproportionately leave the workforce to care for children compared to men. If they are given financial incentives to do so, then I think this imbalance would increase. With these incentives, many families would reason that rather than having two working parents, it is financially better for one parent to remain home with the kids, and in most cases, that parent would be the mom. Not only would this increase the gender divide in the workforce, but it would also cause the workforce to shrink, which would have significant economic repercussions.
Furthermore, implementing this solution would be nearly impossible. Finding sources of funding to pay each stay-at-home parent a salary/stipend would be extremely difficult. Also, our nation’s political culture makes it almost impossible for any policy with even the slightest socialist bent to be implemented. Even in liberal New York, I can’t see such a radical bill receiving a lot of backing.
I like the ideas that you bring up in your post, but, I have to agree with Aychen’s comment. I highly doubt New York or many other places would implement the idea of paying people to be stay at home parents due to the costs of funding as well as the idea being able to be portrayed in a socialist light. In addition, unlike other investments, where there is usually a return in the near future, paying parents to be stay at home parents has none. They would have more money to spend, but wouldn’t be generating a useful product. Obviously a well-raised child is a great investment, but a parent is going to raise their child to the best of their ability regardless of if they’re paid for it or not, meaning not much is gained by paying parents. Mandating companies to provide equal time and pay amounts of maternal and paternal leave seems like a more feasible idea. It would promote a society that supports the idea of any parent raising their child regardless of gender and without any biases toward or against one gender. Unfortunately, this may not balance out the number of mothers and fathers that choose to be stay at home parents.
I thought the way you approached the problems you identified was thoughtful and well-constructed. Although I have spoken a lot both in my posts and in class about the problem of women in leadership positions, I had never considered the possibility of a gender quota. In fact, when the discussion came up in class about how women are paid and promoted less and in turn might only seem qualified for lower paying, lower ranking jobs, I saw it as a viscious cycle that would take generations to break. After reading your post, I think gender quotas are needed as the initial push to get women into these leadership postitions. Ideally, in time, such a high percentage of powerful women would be so normal quotas would not be necessary.
Your strikethrough of the word “maternal” replaced with the word “parental” was extremely powerful and captures the issue at hand perfectly. Which parent gets to stay home and care for a child in their early years could greatly influence the child’s perception of gender roles. Adopting the idea of providing both maternity and paternity leave, as Max discussed, would eliminate those gender assignments. I think gender language in schools would be a lot more effective if the children did not already have preconcieved notions about gender from home.