Well paid women can't find good husbands

[Simon_Jester]

In theory yes, but if that theory were fully correct we'd already have wage equality.

What this misses is the asymmetry of the labor market: I need a job in general more than a prospective employer needs to hire me personally- indeed, I probably need a job more than the employer needs to have that position filled at all. Except in very specialized fields where labor is in short supply, the typical employment model is for employees to search for a job and take the first one they find, more or less regardless of whether it offers good benefits and ancillaries. If they're in good shape financially they MIGHT choose to pass over a bad job offer in hopes of finding a better one, but if the entire industry's practice is to make bad offers this does little good- you'll have to accept one of the bad offers sooner or later.

Now, sometimes someone who already has a (bad) job will search for a better one- but this is comparatively rare and most people hesitate to do it for a variety of reasons. So a large fraction of all female professionals simply don't benefit from the kind of "competition to offer better benefits" that you cite. Nor are they in a good position to shop for a job that won't underpay them by 10%, or that (more likely) fails to give them bonuses and raises over time to increase their salary above the entry-level value.

The cumulative effect is that labor suppliers MUST find a buyer, and quickly. But labor buyers are free to shop among dozens of candidates and take their time before picking the most appealing (i.e. NOT the most choosy and demanding supplier). This makes it very hard for competition among employers for the best employees to actually have much effect on employee benefits. Exceptions mainly occur in fields where employment is stable and experienced staff are very rare and in high demand- and there isn't much of the economy for which this is true nowadays.

[hunter5]

It's a 9% once you account for industry and union status. I see that as fair when the average woman will have two children and spend at least a year not working and likely a few more than that besides working reduced hours.

You are a real shitstain aren't you, Jub?

The whole point of maternity leave is to not penalize women for having children, and even given that, why the fuck are women disproportionately responsible for child care such that they are the ones taking parental leave, and working shorter hours every time they spawn?[qoute] They are not being punished raises and promotions are earned and it is hard to get these when you are not working and as far as I know men do not have the same job protection for child care as women (ie if they take to much time off for child care they do not get their job back). There needs to be mandatory paternity leave for fathers which would help to even out the time at work.

[Darmalus]

They are not being punished raises and promotions are earned and it is hard to get these when you are not working and as far as I know men do not have the same job protection for child care as women (ie if they take to much time off for child care they do not get their job back). There needs to be mandatory paternity leave for fathers which would help to even out the time at work.

I think that's the policy in Sweden, and really strikes me as the best policy for eliminating that part of the promotion gap. Give both parents equal amounts of mandatory parental leave, and from the companies perspective there stops being a difference between them.

[Kitsune]

Think I remember from an article about the Netherlands that Paternity leave is mandated

[Siege]

It isn't. Paternity leave in The Netherlands is two days that have to be requested (employers may not deny the request). Those days do not include the birth itself, which is covered by emergency leave. During both you are guaranteed full pay. If a father wants to stay home longer he'll have to take up vacation days, unless there's medical complications, in which case a longer absence is covered by care leave during which his employer pays 70% of his wage.

A specialized maternity care medical service provides postnatal care to a new mother and her baby in the initial eight to ten ten days after birth. And there's a further general parental leave, which is a total of three months worth of unpaid leave parents (both mum and dad) are legally allowed to take in work hour reduction until their child is eight years old.

[Eternal_Freedom]

In the UK you can get Statutory Paternity Pay which is comparable in amount to the Statutory Maternity Pay, but I don't tihnk you can claim it for as long a period.

[Enigma]

In Ottawa (Canada) when my brother's son was born, he was able to take somewhere between 9 months to a year off on a parental leave while still maintaining most of his pay. Then again he is a unionized government employee over at OC Transpo.

[Thanas]

In Germany you get up to 1 year of paid leave and an additional two years of unpaid leave (but with gov. subsidies up to ~2+k € a month) and/or a right to demand part-time employment if you want to.

And I still do not think it is enough as rearing a child is hard as hell.

[madd0ct0r]

feck the UK:

When you take time off because your partner’s having a baby or adopting a child you might be eligible for:

1 or 2 weeks paid Ordinary Paternity Leave
up to 26 weeks’ paid Additional Paternity Leave - but only if the mother / co-adopter returns to work
You may not get both leave and pay, and there are rules on how to claim and when your leave can start.

[salm]

In Germany you get up to 1 year of paid leave and an additional two years of unpaid leave (but with gov. subsidies up to ~2+k € a month) and/or a right to demand part-time employment if you want to.

And I still do not think it is enough as rearing a child is hard as hell.

Your spouse gets 2 months off in addition to that. And the two parents can split the time as they wish. for example both can take of the first 2 months, then one can take 4 more months and after that the other can take the remaining 6.

[Zixinus]

I am almost certain that these politicians would be talking completely differently if the law effected their own income.

But this is an important thing when using the word "patriarchy". It isn't just men violently asserting their rights over women, or men assuming their privileges are normal. It's women oppressing other women because they think the men are right.

Do companies care about attracting and keeping talented women? Then they need to offer incentives that make them want to work for them and not the competition. It's simple math here. A company that offers benefits to women like not penalizing them for getting pregnant will attract more talented female employees than their competitors that don't, and more women will want to spend money with them in return.

In an ideal and uncomplicated world where this would be a vital factor, maybe. But if you are a talented, skilled women and you have several competing job offers more important considerations will play a role. Like how far they would have to work, how much they would earn, how does the company handle insurance, etc. How lenient the company is with maternity leave would be just one factor among many.

[Dalton]

The Bible says that women are subservient to men. End of story as far as they're concerned.

[Borgholio]

Bible also says it's ok to commit infanticide against an enemy nation, and that you must impregnate your sister in law if your brother dies.

Best not to live your life by a 3,000 old moral code.