"This is in large part because care for family members(children and elderly parents usually) is more often foisted upon women in our society than on men."
I disagree. The primary cause is that women can become pregnant - the possibility alone is in most cases enough - in which case they leave the work force for X amount of time. Depending on country, laws, and personal preferences this time period can range from a few weeks to years. In some countries when this hypothetical becomes a reality it can have a large negative impact on the employer. For instance, in Germany the woman's job position must be held open for her until she decides to return to work (possibly years later), not to mention the full salary compensation months before and after giving-birth, when she is no longer working.
But to simplify it down to flatland, lets assume a woman were to just take 1 day off before giving birth, have a job that required no movement or lifting, and the employer didn't have to compensate her. Still, in this simplest case, a woman is at a disadvantage compared to a man.
Because of this biological disadvantage, I think there will never be the sort of absolute equality we want until people are born in tubes or the capitalistic employer/employee relationship changes.
> For instance, in Germany the woman's job position must be held open for her until she decides to return to work (possibly years later), not to mention the full salary compensation months before and after giving-birth, when she is no longer working.
The company will be reimbursed for the salary by the health insurance upon filling out a form. A company does not pay a single cent more than the cost of hiring another person for the position.
You actually want insurance for this because you don't want, for example, small businesses avoiding fertile women because they "already have too many pregnancies right now". If all the employees had kids simultaneously (an irrelevant random event), it shouldn't cause a bankruptcy.
In practice, people aren't typically so fungible, but the insurance at least hedges the salary portion of the risk.
> A company does not pay a single cent more than the cost of hiring another person for the position.
Losing someone with expertise/connections and onboarding someone new is a huge cost, though. Not just in the new person's salary, but in opportunity cost as that person slows down the people they work with in the process of getting up to speed.
Sure, but we are talking about 3.5 months (1.5 before birth, 2 after). In addition in the months before birth you are allowed to continue working if you wish so.
I'd argue most of the companies will be able to handle that. Especially since you have plenty of time to prepare.
Above is only the part which is different for men and women for obvious biological reasons. There is also a paternity system leave starting from 2 months after birth but this should ideally not discriminate either gender.
Note, that fathers now have similar rights. There are some exceptions right around the birth, because that clearly affects women an men differently. I might also miss some differences.
But the current legislation allows both my partner and me to take out equal amounts of time (about 7 month) in the coming year (we can split 14 months, as long as they each takes at least 2 and they can overlap) with 66% compensation replacement from the state.
So the employer cannot rely anymore on a man not taking time off.
(The total amount without is about three years instead of 14 months, but only those 14 months are covered financially).
The difference is that a woman has to take time off (for health reasons), whereas the man can take time off. Economically, there is a penalty for taking time off (lower salary, lower skills, lower future earnings), its economically rational to not take time off. But only a man can make that choice.
In other industries I can see this being a concern, but in tech?
Turnover is so fast in the tech industry, with many employees regardless of gender stay from 1-4 years most of the time AFAICT. Other opportunities and challenges greatly dwarf concerns of pregnancy to the point that I've never once heard one person voice concern over pregnancy but many times heard concern about a candidate likely not sticking around longer than a year (because they have a history of hopping or because we don't think they would be challenged or interested in the work/role).
No. My observations would just suggest adressing the issue at the employer/employee relationship or market motivator level, whereas yours suggest handling it at a propoganda/media/educational level to remove the social norm of women staying at home.
My opinion is that that norm is old and dying if not already long deceased and any future gains in equality will be found in the market motivator domain, in which biology in tandem with govt policy constitute the major factors at play.
I disagree. The primary cause is that women can become pregnant - the possibility alone is in most cases enough - in which case they leave the work force for X amount of time. Depending on country, laws, and personal preferences this time period can range from a few weeks to years. In some countries when this hypothetical becomes a reality it can have a large negative impact on the employer. For instance, in Germany the woman's job position must be held open for her until she decides to return to work (possibly years later), not to mention the full salary compensation months before and after giving-birth, when she is no longer working.
But to simplify it down to flatland, lets assume a woman were to just take 1 day off before giving birth, have a job that required no movement or lifting, and the employer didn't have to compensate her. Still, in this simplest case, a woman is at a disadvantage compared to a man.
Because of this biological disadvantage, I think there will never be the sort of absolute equality we want until people are born in tubes or the capitalistic employer/employee relationship changes.