For the past few days I’ve been reading about Iris Evans, the Minister of Finance in Canada’s Alberta province, who announced in a recent talk that at least one parent should stay at home to be with children, even if it means sacrificing income. The story is interesting for two reasons: first it shows that even in enlightened Canada, the battle between work and family life rages on, not just in homes, but also in the political arena. Second, while I think her remarks are insulting and untrue, I love that she said “parent” and not “mother.” By contrast, in the US much has been made by conservative pundits about recent studies suggesting that working mothers are unhappy; their answer? Send mothers (not parents) home.
Despite this glimmer of progressive thinking, it’s not clear that politicians in Europe and Canada have more regard for working mothers than they do here. And while it’s very true that the US is far behind the eight-ball on basic benefits like paid family leave, universal healthcare, and childcare, I’m not sure that women in other countries are better off at home and at work.
Consider this: in Canada women earn 29% less than men (the number is 23% in the US), and male and female executives both say that workplace equality for women lags behind. In Europe women hold just 6.6% of top corporate jobs, and are less likely than their male counterparts to receive constructive criticism and to see promotion decisions as fair.
It’s a wonderful fantasy to think that somewhere in the world women are living lives of leisure, but issues of work life integration in Europe and Canada are going to be more and more pressing. The economic reality is that aging populations in developed countries around the world will need to work longer, and women will play a more and more and more critical role in the office. As women enter and stay in the workforce, it’s likely that their ambitions will change too. Just as women in the US increasingly see themselves as executives, more and more European and Canadian women will shoot for top jobs; it’s already happening. A Catalyst study from a few years ago showed that 1/3 of women respondents aspired to senior management versus 1/4 of men.
Why are there more female executives in the United States than in Europe? Ironically, it may be in part because taking significant time off after having a baby is less feasible for US women. In the long run, it may mean that US companies create better work life solutions because they have more women at the top.
Related links:
- Canada’s Globe & Mail dredges up the mommy wars in response to Iris Evans’ comments.
- Differing perspectives on Evans’ remarks from Marginal Notes, Calgary Rants, the Full Comment at the National Post, and Tiny Perfect Blog.
- An interesting article from TIME on European women and work.
- Pamela Newton asks “Is Life Really Better in Europe?” in The Huffington Post.
You can’t have it all. Too bad. It’s not that the guys at top don’t realize what’s going on. My supervisor laid out a five year plan for me. He was upfront that it would mean a lot more time away from my family. I think the idea here is that we are either a “good” worker or an “excellent” worker. It is a simple fact that the “excellent” worker will spend more time, a lot more, than the “good” and this will necessarily mean more time and energy spent on the “job” than by baking cookies, babysitting, going to practices, etc. Historically, the man was always able to spend this time away form home when he was part of a family. Looking back, you can always find women who dominated their chosen profession, but they tended to be single and/or childless. Of course, this also applied to a large amount of men, but for some reason no-one ever really notices when a man chooses to be single and/or childless the way a woman does. My main point is that, we all must decide what we are going to do with our life. Are we going to be great parents? Are we going to be great workers? It is unfortunate that with our lifespan, short days and need to sleep that we truly can’t do it all.
Once I saw a show on television that reported about and weighed in on this subject…or close to it. It was long ago but the thing I remember is that in Sweeden (I think it was Sweeden) a woman got a really long maternity leave…like 4 months (don’t quote me…I could be wrong, but it seemed long!) and a man could take paternity leave for many weeks – virtually unheard of in the US. I was impressed with how this country “took care” of their people and made sure the family bond was there. I have never forgotten that. We need strong families. But I also think this men – vs – women in the workplace thing hinges on several other things. Like – it would be great if a single parent could take 3 or 4 months off with a new baby, but who can afford that? I think it depends on individual circumstances. If you think about single parent housholds, who typically heads them up? Typically not men.
On the subject of more woman advancing because there are more woman in management type positions….I think it’s going to depend on WHO those women are. I mean, just because there are more women in management/corporate positions does not necessarily mean they will understand, relate to or support the working Mom’s challanges. Could it help? Sure – can’t hurt….but is it an answer to our too many underpaid corporate women problem? I’m not sure.
Pingback: More Working Mothers = Better Birthrates? « The Mama Bee
Pingback: The Mama Bee
Pingback: Why is Women’s Progress Plateauing? « The Mama Bee