3 ms·

> Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. I'm not sure how cutting parental leave eliminat

> Moreover, a women will also face more headwinds for doing less mothering in order to continue in her career. I'm not sure how cutting parental leave eliminates pr reduced these headwinds. It seems to me that it's deliberately putting more financial pressure on women to tolerate those headwinds. Not eliminating those headwinds. Women's choice is strictly less with 6 months of paid leave as compared to 1 year. Women have the choice to take 6 months of leave instead of the full year (the article mentions that they use 77% on average). It still seems like this is trying to justify limiting women's choices and benefits, because it makes more of them work.

rayiner 8y ago
It reduces this headwinds in the long term. Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-workin.... That, in turn, reduces gender inequality for the next generation.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions. Note that "reduced headwinds" isn't one of these. Countries with high rates of mothers in the workforce don't necessarily have more flexible gender roles. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have the highest rates of working mothers, but have some of the strongest workplace segregation. It's also a largely circular justification: more working mothers are better because their daughters are more likely to become working mothers. Again, this only functions as a justification for those that subscribe to the belief that working mothers are categorically better than non-working mothers. My original point, from which we have diverged significantly by now, is that this article and many in this thread seem to believe that working mothers are categorically better than full time mothers. This seems to have led us to respond positively to measures that increase the former, even when those measures are coercive (in this case, cutting benefits and putting more financial burden on mothers).

rayiner 8y ago

It reduces this headwinds in the long term. Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-workin.... That, in turn, reduces gender inequality for the next generation.

manfredo 8y ago
> Girls raised by working moms are more likely to have careers, earn more money, and hold supervisory positions. Note that "reduced headwinds" isn't one of these. Countries with high rates of mothers in the workforce don't necessarily have more flexible gender roles. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have the highest rates of working mothers, but have some of the strongest workplace segregation. It's also a largely circular justification: more working mothers are better because their daughters are more likely to become working mothers. Again, this only functions as a justification for those that subscribe to the belief that working mothers are categorically better than non-working mothers. My original point, from which we have diverged significantly by now, is that this article and many in this thread seem to believe that working mothers are categorically better than full time mothers. This seems to have led us to respond positively to measures that increase the former, even when those measures are coercive (in this case, cutting benefits and putting more financial burden on mothers).