I think this article highlights that Marx was right. Capitalism ultimately dehumanizes us by turning us into nothing more than consuming and producing units, no more than interchangeable cogs in the great machine.

So the best way to improve the economy is to saddle American businesses with the obligation to reward mothers for giving birth with paid time off and then to supply child-care for them once they decide to return?
Talk about entitlement issues.

“The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching.�

This is true, but deceptive. What it means is not that the gender pay gap is nonexisitent, but that the gender pay gap grows worse when you fail top control for lower rates of advancement among women in general.

-- ACS

By “denying� the gender gap, you must mean ignoring feminist opinion/studies about it.

noname, I think the government should fund these things, not the corporations themselves. American companies are hurt more than anything by the fact that the government does not fund health care and the inadequacy of social security to cover retirement needs. Ideally the government should step up its funding on the health care front, including medical and family leave. Current law only provides for 12 weeks unpaid leave.

Anyways, I posted this article on the Economist when it first came out weeks ago on feministe, and not a single person responded. I find it funny that it's now being posted here.

Hey noname-
Do you make enough money to know that you can reproduce and still have the financial comfort of knowing you can feed your family?

“the best way to improve the economy is to saddle American businesses with the obligation to reward mothers for giving birth with paid time off and then to supply child-care for them once they decide to return?
Talk about entitlement issues�

Should we be financially “rewarded� for having children? Short answer- YES! Should our society continue to reproduce? Yes, and how do we value this?? I do not mean to under value women who have not had children. That is part of why these values have to be shared across the gender divide. I am a “business� woman who was so concerned about continuing to pay my rent that I missed my “fertile period��. Yes, I did my job well, so did the boys- they still may have children. What’s up now???

“why a man can’t be more like a woman.�

Is that said in a Rex Harrison kind of way or Wilfred Hyde-White?

"Should we be financially “rewarded� for having children? Short answer- YES!" - KalihariKiwi
Why? There are already too many of us. Why encourage more?

I am a feminist, but I don't want my tax dollars to go to raising other people's kids. That is not the government's place.

Those on the left asked for big government. Well you got it, but unfortunately in the form of George W. Bush. If government was smaller, having a douchebag for a president wouldn't be such a big deal.

But back to the point, yes, women are absolutely crucial to our economic growth. Economies where women are not excluded from most occupations are the most advanced in the world today. I find it odd that those who want to keep women out of the workforce are often the same people who are so keen on America being "Number One". But believe me, if women were kept out of the workforce, America would quickly lose its status as a superpower.

drumgurl, your tax dollars already go to raising other people's kids. It's called public education.

noname, countries with paid family leave policies actually have lower birthrates than the U.S.

Tony: Exactly, why ... because they also have publicly funded healthcare as well. Government is simply an elected (well when one has 100% participation is is) body of people representing the collective. It is in the best interests of the collective that all individuals are equiped to their potential.

It is very short-sighted of any government not to invest in the future. And when you are at the top ... the only way is down.

And the single reason America is in the position it is today ... John Maynard Keynes.

Not having children is a perfectly respectable choice, I can't see why people should be punished for it by the government using their money to subsidise people who don't make that decision.

I'm just bewildered why so many feminists have signed up to this form of motherhood fetishism. If you want to fund better daycare and parental leave through a hypothecated tax on parenthood, then go for it, I'm perfectly willing to sign up. But it's quite clear that that isn't the agenda. Instead what we have is nakedly self-interested push to redistribute money from nonparents to nonparents.

nik, we have the exact same discussion going on over in the thread Motherhood Manifesto.

Let me try and unpack what you are saying.

(1) Not having children is a respectable choice:

I completely agree, but it has nothing to do with this issue.

(2) People are being punished for it by having the government take money to those who do not make that decision:

Incorrect. The word punishment suggests that the tax in question is specifically in response to some wrong done by the individual. Clearly, that is not the case.

(3) But the government shouldn't give money to something that only a subset of people who make a voluntary decision will use, because those who don't make that decision won't benefit:

This is one of the most common functions of the government already, including in the realm of the decision to have a child. It subsidizes things such as home ownership, bank deposits, public education, retirement, car ownership, and agricultural combines. Special projects and earmarks regularly channel money to projects that will not benefit all Americans. One typical example is the 2002 fiscal year budget which included $50,000 to fund a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo County, California. In fact, when you account for the fact that most people are still able to work at the standard retirement age, subsidies for subsets of the population engaging in some voluntary activity make up the majority of the government's domestic budget. What's more, the government already subsidizes people who decide to have children: it's called public education.

Advocating the paring down of government so that all redistributive tax policy is abolished, including things such as social security, public education, agricultural subsidy, FDIC, etc. is a consistent position. Advocating the blockage of redistributive tax policy in one area of policy on the grounds of opposition to redistribution is is not a consistent position: it is a hypocritical one.

(4) Motherhood fetishism:

Strawman attack. Those who would fund education out of property taxes are not accused of having a 'education fetishism'. The label has nothing to do with the issue.

(5) Hypothecated tax on parenthood:

You are talking about a fee, not a tax. In that case you would probably be better off abolishing the dependency credits from payroll taxes. But that is a separate issue.

(6) Redistribute money:

All government programs redistribute money inherently. Not a single government program does not redistribute money in some manner. If I based my positions on economic policies on whether or not I thought I would personally benefit from them, I would oppose all tariffs because my job is not endangered by free trade. It is only my concern for others' jobs that allows me to support even minimal tariffs.

in regards to the original post. Men and Women ARE inherently different. Why is that so hard for people to accept (at least in this forum)? Could it be that recognition of this fact, a fact that is bolstered by metric a**loads of empirical evidence and scientific studies, might mean that not ALL social disparities between the genders can be attributed to external factors (e.g. sexism)?

Study after study, not to mention the experience of every society on the face of the earth - confirms that men and women ARE different. Of course this manifests itself in the workplace. It manifests itself in every aspect of life. What is important is that men and women are treated 1) equally 2) as individuals. That is entirely consistent with a recognition that men and women ARE different. That is why, for example, men are more prevalent in high risk careers and/or careers that require greater physical strength. This doesn't mean a woman can't or won't succeed in those careers. Of course they will. It means that one will always see a disparity in representation in (for example) careers that appeal to those that are less risk averse.

A brief response to some of the above points:

(2) Your suggestion that the word 'punishment' is inappropriate is pure sophism. The effect of any tax targeted specifically in response to some wrong done by some individual ('a punishment') can be duplicated by taxing everyone and awarding the money raised a benefit to everyone except the wrong doers (under your scheme this is not 'a punishment', because the tax is not aimed at a wrong).

I'm sure you could maintain the distinction is an appropriate one. But it provides little comfort to those not being 'punished', as they find themselves in exactly the same position as if they would if they were being punished.

(3) I think you misunderstand my central argument. I am not arguing that the government shouldn't give money to something that only a subset of people who make a voluntary decision will use, or that it shouldn't redistribute money. That's a misinterpretation.

I'm simply arguing that the government shouldn't subsidise a group of good associated with *parenthood*. I don't oppose redistribution, I oppose redistribution to *parents*. Advocating the blockage of redistributive tax policy in one area of policy on the grounds of opposition to redistribution in that area of tax policy is a perfectly consistent position.

(4) I feel the 'motherhood fetishism' label is entirely appropriate. As far as I'm aware those who would fund education out of property taxes don't actually fetishise education. There are plenty of pro-parenthood folks who do fetishise motherhood.

(5) I do not understand the distinction you make between a fee and a tax. As I understand it raising income tax on all parents by 2%, to pay for childcare, would be a tax.

Thanks for your reply nik.

On point (2), as you predicted, your reply doesn't justify calling the policy a punishment, any more than any systematic redistributive policy could be called a punishment. You may argue that the effects are equivalent to punishment, but that does not punishment make. Now, there is nothing wrong with focusing on effects & outcomes, but in that case it makes no difference how you label the policy anyways.

(3) Then I misinterpreted your position, and I'm sorry. But in this case your first paragraph reduces to "I can't see why we should do this". Also, most people would still disagree with you, since the vast majority of people agree that K-12 education, which serves parenthood, should be state-subsidized.

(4) Perhaps you are right, but don't conflate ad hominem attacks with the argument itself. I certainly don't fetishize motherhood.

Overall, once you've clarified your points, I don't really see any counter-argument against either family leave or subsidized child care. You've stated your opposition, but don't seem to have given any reasons why, besides the ad hominem point and the semantical issue. As to why I support it, simply because I think that it will improve the quality of life for parents and children (who made no choice to come into the world, but who could use quality care in their pre-K years without sacrificing their financial future).

The reason I oppose the measures usually proposed is because they are a "nakedly self-interested push to redistribute money from nonparents to nonparents". You could instead introduce measure which wouldn't burden nonparents but would benefit parents, (perhaps funded with a parenthood tax) but people aren't interested in these.

I think the key issue is to ask why the quality of life of parents and children is more important than the quality of life of those without children. I don't think it is. If you're interested in improving quality of life in general then go for it, but I can't see why the quality of life of parents and children should be subsidised by those who don't have children. I suspect the reason behind some peoples support of these plans is just a general commitment to the idea that mothers are more important than non-mothers. Hence my accusation of 'motherhood fetishism'.

You may think that having kids damages people's quality of life, and they deserve compensation for this. But if having kids doesn't improve parents quality of life, then why do they have them? And if having kids does improve their quality of life, then why do they deserve compensation for it? I suspect they don't, and what they want is to have their cake, eat it, and have someone else pay for it. Hence my "nakedly self-interested" comment.

nik,

If that is your reason for opposing the measure you can be assured that in my case, it is not a "nakedly self-interested push" and the purpose is not to redistribute money (If it was, we'd simply give the money as handouts, the way the payroll tax deduction for dependencies does.) Personally, my chances of having children are very low. I've much more important things to worry about than that. I support these policies out of concern for other people.

Second, no one has said that the quality of life of parents and children is more important than that of adults without children. The quality of life of everyone is important.

Third, I don't subscribe to the idea that mothers (or fathers) are more important than non-mothers. That's not a part of why I support this policy.

I don't think having kids damages people's quality of life... in the long run I think it enhances it. But I've never advocated this policy as a form of compensation.

The old proverb about having your cake and eating it too deals with a logical contradiction. Since every other industrialized nation has implemented this policy, it's clearly possible to do. It's not a contradiction in any sense.

The government doesn't make anyone's mind up for them. Everyone pays for roads, but the government doesn't tell anyone they can't drive on them. Everyone pays for public education, but the government doesn't tell anyone they can't send their kids there. Everyone will pay for this policy, surely, just like any other policy. But the government won't make your decision for you as to whether you choose to use the service provided.

Anyways, I posted this article on the Economist when it first came out weeks ago on feministe, and not a single person responded.

It's a matter of knowing your audience. People interested in thinking through the implications of a shift toward full employment for both genders won't be found at Feministe anymore.

It just isn't economic for a society to have many people taking care of a job, and dooing it poorer, that fewer people could do. When the state pays for childcare it helps the parents to be productive in the job-market instead of staying at home - soo the state gets more taxes.

The children, our future taxpayers, are taken care of by educated people and are trained in social interaction, as well as participating in all sorts of pedagogic pre-school activities.

Trained personell also have more opportunities to spot abuse and other things that might fuck up our children and lead to future violence, suicidal or antisocialactivities.

From a purely economic perspective, public childcare is a net gain for us tax-payers.

B.

Yes, from a purely economic perspective that is. The problem is (with women & childrearing) that, if given that option, too many will choose it.

Felix,

I am anti-capitalist, but by saying "Let's not even get into the capitalist overtones" means exactly that; it's a whole other discussion that I wasn't going to bring into the post, and I won't now. I wouldn't even call it a minor theme; it was more of a minute observation.