My Quota Memo

Just in time for International Women’s Day, the discussion about quotas for women is back with a vengeance. The EU is once again pushing for quotas in boardrooms and in Germany, journalists are demanding equal representation in the media. Naturally, the news is all over it, printing opinion pieces everywhere, which has prompted me to gather all the thoughts and ideas about the quota that seem relevant to me. None of these ideas are mine; I have simply collected them from articles, blog posts and comments, in order to weed out the ones that continuously derail the discussion. None of this is new, but I figured it cannot hurt to be repeated as much as possible.

1. When we talk about the women’s quota, we are already making the first mistake, because generally what is proposed is a gender-based quota. A 40% quota law could  mean that at least 40% must be either male or female. The fact, that such a law would primarily promote women is the sad underlying truth of the whole debate.

2. A 30%, 40% or 50% quota that promotes women would still effectively result in a 70%, 60% or 50% quota of men. Considering that men and women make up about half of the population each, how exactly does this translate to “discrimination against men”?

3. Quotas are supposed to benefit the disadvantaged, not to increase their disadvantages. Demanding quotas for women in less desirable occupations is such a lame argument, I shouldn’t even be mentioning here, but it seems to come up every single time. Firstly, some sectors, such as the public cleaning service in Berlin, already have a quota system, even a successful one. Secondly, men and women are already fairly equally represented in low paid, exploitative and dangerous jobs, there’s absolutely no need to distribute the social inequalities more evenly.

4. A quota arrangement is never an ideal situation. An ideal situation would include the potential results of a quota (equal representation) minus the actual quota rule.

5. A quota can never be a single solution. It is not an all-encompassing remedy for the inequality of the sexes; it may not even be a start in the right direction. The quota as an isolated measure is useless. It is not a coincidence that it has been embraced more in countries, which already have a fair amount of laws in place that promote equality (for example France and the Scandinavian countries).

6. Here is what the quota does:

It furthers the equal representation of half of the population. It helps create a society in which women are active and equal participants; a society that inspires young girls to follow in their footsteps and have high aspirations. Women’s issues and perspectives will become part of the agenda. 

they didn't need a quota to discuss women's issues: the all-male panel testifying before congress about the insurance coverage for contraception. via abc news

7. Here is what the quota doesn’t do:

It doesn’t necessarily improve the performance of a business or generate higher profits. It may even have the adverse effect. A quota arrangement is not designed as a push for the economy. It is an affirmative action to counter structural discrimination.

It doesn’t necessarily change or improve the working culture or hierarchical structures. That’s a whole other set of adjustments that does not automatically follow the implementation of a quota. A lot of rethinking is necessary in that area, and a quota can only ever be a tiny part of that process, if at all.

All things considered, I am still in favour of the quota, but as an isolated measure suggested  and enforced by politicians I find it unconvincing and populist. Evidently, there are different kinds of quotas, and in certain areas they make more sense to me than in others. I am certainly in favour of a quota in the media, and a political party without a considerable amount of women should be unelectable for any woman in my opinion. But when it comes to the boardroom quota for corporations, I kind of don’t really care. Somehow I highly doubt that any woman (or man) could end up in that position without compromising their convictions and throwing other women (or men) under the bus…

That Pesky XY% – The Gender Pay Gap

It’s spring and countries all over the world are “celebrating” their specific Equal Pay Day on the day that symbolizes “how far into 2011 women must work to earn what men earned in 2010”. The global gender pay gap amounts to 15.6 %***; the European rate is 17.5 % on average. However, there are large differences between the nations that contribute to these average rates: Georgia’s pay gap is more than 50%, Japan’s more than 30%, Canada and the United States more than 20% and in Europe the numbers range from 4.9% (Italy) to 30.9% (Estonia). You can find the data of your home country here (only Europe). Note that these numbers do not mirror the countries’ overall progressiveness regarding gender equality. So what do these numbers actually tell us?
What needs to be pointed out first and foremost, because it has led to a lot of misunderstandings, is that the European 17.5%  gender pay gap is for the most part NOT a result of direct discrimination, meaning women generally DO NOT get paid less than men for doing the exact same job. While this form of discrimination may still occur, it has been outlawed by the European Union and can be subjected to prosecution. The more relevant reasons that factor into the wage injustice are the undervaluing of women’s work, the segregation of the labor market into “male” and “female” professions, the traditions and stereotypes that are often responsible for this segregation, and the difficulties of balancing work and private life (for example, only 62,4% of women with dependent children are employed, compared to 91,4% of men). From the website of the European Commission:

“Jobs requiring similar skills, qualifications or experience tend to be poorly paid and undervalued when they are dominated by women rather than by men. For example, the (mainly female) cashiers in a supermarket usually earn less than the (mainly male) employees involved in stacking shelves and other more physical tasks.

In addition the evaluation of performance, and hence pay level and career progression, may also be biased in favour of men. For example, where women and men are equally well qualified, more value can be attached to responsibility for capital than to responsibility for people.”

While these inequalities certainly are a problem in Europe, they become even more pronounced in a global perspective, especially in developing countries where women can be found more often in vulnerable working positions, while at the same time working for free as primary care-takers of the home and children:

“Women may get paid less than men for the same work, or be denied access to better paid jobs because of entrenched attitudes that incorrectly assume men are the main breadwinners and need to earn more. Or women may not be able to compete equally with their male colleagues because they cannot invest an equal amount of time in work when they remain responsible for the greatest share of household and child-rearing tasks. In other words, women’s unequal status can restrict their ability to choose to leave a job as an accountability strategy if their rights are infringed.”(Unifem, p. 55)

It is useful to mention that the feminisation (i.e. the expansion and outsourcing of the tertiary service sector) and informalisation of labor go hand in hand, and that these developments sustain gender discrimination by keeping the female working sectors (subsistence agriculture, care-taking and services) low-paid and free of “fixed costs” (benefits, social security etc.)(p. 57/58). While the statistics show that the wage gap has been decreasing over the last few years, there are studies that claim that this development can be attributed to a decrease of male workers’ wages. So while work that is traditionally considered “feminine” is on the rise, this does not mean that overall working conditions or wages have improved for women. The neoliberal labor market requires well-trained, flexible and less demanding workers, and women who, as mothers and homemakers, are often forced to work part-time, are the ideal employees.

In conclusion, there is not a lot to celebrate on Equal Pay Day, not even the steady reduction of the global gender pay gap. German journalist and blogger Antje Schrupp has gathered some interesting and clever ideas on what we really need to talk about, when we talk about equal pay. I have taken the liberty to translate them here:

1. The actual upsetting “pay gap” we should be talking about is not the one between men and women but the one between rich and poor. Therefore it is wrong to be focussing exclusively on the gender aspect.

2. The gender pay gap is not an illness in itself but a symptom of a much more profound problem of our society. Therefore it cannot be our goal to simply cure the symptom, but we have to tackle the illness – the crass material inequality between people. If we end up having a fifty-fifty quota of men and women among the rich and the poor, but the divide between the two remains as big as ever or even increases, I don’t see how we’ve achieved anything.

3. It is not very useful to compare “men” and “women” regarding their income. Statistics are per se not very conclusive regarding our real lives, but in this context it makes even less sense, because not many men and women find themselves to be in these average situations: in fact, the difference is especially big among the lower income bracket and among the ones who earn a lot; in between among the white-collar employees and other professions, the difference is not that distinct.

4. There is a lot of talk about women earning less money than men, but in my opinion there is too little talk about (some) men simply earning way too much. Now and then, the wages of managers are being debated, and rightly so. But why has no one ever considered presenting the female managers as role models, who are satisfied with earning less money for the same work?

5. All studies show that women confronted with the question of what they should do with their lives, seem to care less about money and status than men, and more about the meaning and the community (study here (in German)). For some reason, this is considered to be a problem. I don’t see why. Rather, it is a problem ( and not just regarding gender relations) that there are still too many men who mainly care about money and status and not so much about the meaning and necessity of their work. We should be talking about this, and about the images of masculinity that lie underneath, and whether or not we still want them. Fortunately, many men don’t want them anymore either.

6. Incidentally, this happens to be my suggestion for getting more women into leading and executive positions: simply pay these positions much less in general. That way, all of those who are attracted to these positions only because of the money and status that they offer, will stay away. Which would surely be to the advantage of the directorates’ quality. Consequently, the amount of women would probably increase on its own.

7. There is always a lot of talk about women choosing the wrong professions. But who should do all the work of the nurses, the carers of the elderly and the nursery school teachers? As a society, we should be thankful that there are enough women who want to work in these professions (and if men want to follow their example, go for it!). It is imperative to have a discussion about the value and the importance of these professions – and, consequently, about how to increase their wages.

8. It is appropriate to encourage women to talk and reflect more about money, and to question their historically socialized distaste for monetary issues. However, the goal should not be that they take on the “normal” approach to money according to “male” standards, but rather the goal should be that they develop their own approach and introduce it to the world.

9. Finally, we need to abandon the idea that men and what they do should be considered the norm to which women need to adapt themselves to, and if they don’t they are to blame for their discrimination. What men do, their tendency to overvalue money, is just as much historically socialized and not at all “normal”. Moreover, it is often enough detrimental to the world at large; financial crisis etc.

10. Therefore I would like to suggest to celebrate Equal Pay Day in autumn from now on: on the day when men can stop working, while normal people (joke) have to keep working until December.

You can find the original text here.

*** I have found different numbers from various sources, some as high as 22%. This variability can be explained by the lack of data from some countries, especially in the developing world.

European Court Of Justice Rules Against Gender-Based Insurance Rates

I have the privilege of having been born the daughter of two public servants, thus making me eligible for private health insurance. Until recently, I was insured under my mother’s coverage, so I never bothered much with the details. Therefore I was quite surprised when one day my mother pointed out to me: “Of course, I pay more for my insurance for being a woman!”
Of course? Why?
“Because we get older than men and have children, and therefore have to go to the doctor more often.”
That got me thinking. It’s true, my mother had two children, me and my sister. But for some reason I strongly believe that my father was just as concerned about our and my mother’s health during and after the pregnancy. You don’t get pregnant without a man involved, so why is it a woman’s responsibility only to pay for her “special needs” when she has private health insurance? We should all be concerned with bringing children safely and healthily into this world, no matter if we are men or women (with or without children).
The difference in the life expectancy of men and women may be debatable. Statistics say it exists, but is it biologically invariant or rather subject to the respective living conditions? Perhaps women get older, because they (are obliged to) go to the doctor more often. The only reason for why I could see my mother potentially getting older than my father is the fact that she is an absolute exercise and health freak. To hold an entire gender financially accountable for their health choices, strikes me as, well, ridiculous. And discriminatory.
So I can’t help but feel a little relieved that this practice has now been outlawed in the European Union. 

On March 1st the European Court of Justice ruled that insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of gender. This law affects life insurance, pension insurance, health insurance and car insurance, all of which offer different rates for men and women according to their risk potential. Statistically, men are considered more likely to cause traffic accidents and women are considered more likely to live five years longer and to give birth. According to these statistics men and women had to face different rates for their insurances, a practice that has now been outlawed in the European Union. The law takes effect in December 2011.

Critics have argued that this law will only lead to more costs for everyone, instead of balancing out the inequalities. However, it should be noted that the loudest voices among the critics come from the insurance companies themselves. Why, in the face of generally higher premium rates, they would be critical of this regulation is a mystery to me, unless, of course, they have been hugely benefiting from this discriminatory practice. Naturally, it is more difficult and takes more effort to determine someone’s individual risk potential if gender is no longer a valid category, even though it would make for a fairer and more appropriate calculation.

In this context, it is worth looking at articles from the 1980’s, when unisex insurance rates were a heatedly debated issue in the United States. Back in 1985, Montana was the first American state to introduce a unisex insurance law, and today it is one of two American states that have outlawed gender-based discrimination in insurance policies, with this law being constantly under threat .
In this article from 1985, the authors offer a cost-benefit analysis of different kinds of discrimination (race, sex and age) regarding insurance policies, based on “the premise that American society has reached a collective judgment that discrimination against individuals on the basis of innate human characteristics is repugnant” (p.332). They come to the conclusion that unlike the elimination of age discrimination, which may be morally desirable but not affordable for society, the elimination of the discrimination on the basis of race and gender is both desirable and affordable.

I welcome this law here in Europe as a means to limit discriminatory practices in the economy. Just like discrimination on the basis of race should never be acceptable, gender should not be a valid category to determine premiums and payments.

"Of course men are better drivers than women, even though my car insurance doesn't seem to think so..."

No Need For A Quota? – Women In The German Democratic Republic

While investigating the quota issue I came across another example, why equality on paper doesn’t necessarily lead to equality in real life: the German Democratic Republic. It is often deployed as a positive example for political interventions that forwarded women’s equality. In fact, the GDR did include the equality of men and women in its Constitution in 1949. Women were quickly integrated into the workforce (70% of all women were employed in 1962), and the government took measures to provide daycare and other benefits for families.

The writings of August Bebel, Friedrich Engels and Clara Zetkin provided the ideological background for these political measures. Engels described the antagonism between man and woman, specifically husband and wife, as the very first class oppression in history, in which the female sex is suppressed by the male. The woman, being financially dependent on her husband, can only be freed by securing her economic independence. The inclusion of women into the labor market was supposed to be the solution to the “woman question”.

This ideological legitimation for welcoming women into the labor market concealed the fact that the GDR depended on women as a labor force during the post-war era. In fact, most of the GDR’s political measures were driven by economic factors: the shortage of labor, the no longer secured reproduction of the population, and the loss of young talent that fled to the West. The emphasis on paternalistic, top-down solutions to these problems ignored specific women’s needs and the far more deeply ingrained inequalities of men and women.

In the German Democratic Republic, working was not simply a right of women; it was expected of them as much as from anyone else. Having children was also considered the norm. In fact, the majority of policies directed towards women were exclusively helpful to mothers (Erich Honecker’s “mommy politics” in the 70’s). Therefore, most women in the GDR were working and having a family at the same time. However, it is naive to believe that this led to instant equality between the sexes. In fact, in most cases it led to double or even triple the pressure for women, who were now responsible for the upbringing of the children and the keeping of the household, while also working full time. Later generations of men became more involved with their children and the home, but the government failed to ever explicitly state the responsibilities of men, thus leaving it entirely to the women to negotiate their standards in the private as well as in the professional sphere.

doris ziegler "ich bin du" ("i am you") 1983/84

Because the employment of women was more an economic necessity than a progressive step towards equality, certain inequalities were never eliminated. Traditional gender roles remained deeply fixed in the minds of the Eastern German people, who were unwilling to redistribute the work at home. The excessive demands in the private sphere discouraged and alienated women, who mostly felt independent and emancipated and not at all as inferior to their husbands. Their unwillingness and inability to put up with this situation is most adequately demonstrated by the increasing divorce rates and the falling birth rates. In the professional sphere, women faced wage discrimination and an obvious under-representation in leading political, economic and academic positions. During the 41 years of the GDR’s existence only three women achieved minister status in the state’s government.

The GDR can be regarded as among the forerunners in the emerging trend of the emancipation of women in the second half of the 20th century, closely followed by countries such as Sweden and the United States. While its society was certainly more progressive regarding women’s equality than its Western counterpart, it nevertheless failed to address prevalent issues that could not be explained from a purely materialist point of view. In fact, the GDR is often praised for its progressiveness mainly because West Germany, where only half of the women were part of the workforce, appeared overly reactionary in comparison. However, the reunification of East and West Germany thwarted many of the positive aspects of the GDR’s approach to women politics. By pronouncing Western German values and ideals the status quo, the reunited Germany failed to take the GDR’s progressive side into consideration, thus eliminating some true potential for a development towards a more equal society. Therefore it is not at all surprising that since “die Wende” not much has changed for the better for women in Germany in terms of policies.

For more information, see: Susanne Kranz: Women’s Role in the German Democratic Republic and the State’s Policy Toward Women.

matthias leupold "untitled" 1985

Breaking The Glass Ceiling: In Defense Of The Women’s Quota

Norway has it, France wants it, and Germany is fighting about it: the female quota in the boardrooms of major corporations. In fact, the recent debate in Germany once again started a discussion about the pros and cons of the quota system in the labor market. Back in 2001, Germany introduced a voluntary quota to increase the number of female executives in companies. Ten years later the results of this ‘’measure’’ turned out to be dismal with little to no progress:

“Women currently hold only 3.2 percent of executive board positions in the 200 largest companies. When the circle is narrowed to the 30 companies listed on the German DAX stock index and the 100 largest companies, the proportion of women falls to 2.2 percent. Put differently, of the 490 executive board members in these companies, 11 are women.” (Beyer and Voigt, Der Spiegel, 2011 )

this is what a quota woman looks like

These numbers, for a Western nation forty years after the Women’s Liberation Movement, are simply outrageous, and chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to “give companies another chance” is a slap in the face to all the women who have been pursuing careers for years and everyone fighting for gender equality. The voluntary system is obviously not working, so what are Merkel’s concerns?

The quota debate has sparked heated discussions, even within the feminist community. Needless to say, it is a sensitive topic that involves fundamental political convictions just as much as the individual’s understanding of the meanings of justice and equality. It is the age-old conflict between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Naturally, in a free-market economy such as ours, the introduction of quota systems into the business world seems misguided. Classic liberal thinking (in the economic sense) is based on the idea of meritocracy which assumes that                 “[d]ifferential status and differential income are based on technical skills and higher education” and that “these high-scoring individuals, no matter where they are in society, would be brought to the top in order to make the best use of their talents” (Daniel Bell, 1973). However, these principles are based on idealistic assumptions that fail to “account for the fact that society itself, through a pattern of selective discrimination against members of certain groups, may be partially responsible for whether specific members of the groups are deemed to be talented. In other words, if over many decades society excludes the members of certain ethnic or sexual groups from educational and economic opportunities which are accorded to others, it ought not to be too surprising that members of the social groups who have been discriminated against are now deemed to be generally less talented than those who have had the advantage of superior training and economic opportunity. [...] [O]ne can see that the philosophical individualism of the argument for meritocracy fails to account for the social realities of the world itself.” (Conrad, 1976)

a woman's path to the top?

In short, equality of opportunity is a legislative term, not a socially given fact. In the past, affirmative action policies have been implemented in order to counteract the ongoing discrimination of certain groups of people. So why not the female quota?

To claim that women are no longer discriminated against is a naive and wrong assumption. With 60 percent of all graduates of business and economics programs being women, how come they are not being represented in the boardroom? Of course, not all of these women will end up having the necessary qualifications; some of them will get caught up in having a family or are simply not interested in pursuing a high-stakes career. However, these reasons should be all the more alarming. If we don’t manage to create acceptable working conditions for half of the population, we’re clearly doing something wrong. A lot still needs to be done, but a quota is a start and an incentive for women to go and grasp the economic and political power that they deserve.

I understand that this is a luxury problem. After all, this quota concerns perhaps 1% of women who would have access to these positions. But a quota is always a sign, a signal to young girls and women that they, too, have the right and the ability to participate at the top of our society, and also, perhaps, the start of a development that would render quota systems more socially acceptable, at least while they’re still necessary. After all, there are many more areas that could use diversity; for example certain academic fields and the media, to name a few.

But what would be the consequences of such a course of action? Would it not result in reverse discrimination? Well, that depends on how you look at it. A quota of 40% of women executives could still result in 60% of male executives – doesn’t sound much like discrimination to me. It just means that men would have to give up a part of their privilege; a price they would have to pay for a more equal society. The idea is to fill positions with women who are equally qualified as men. Naturally, this would give women applying for these positions an advantage over men; ergo the same advantage in reverse that men have profited from for decades.

this is what the patriarchy looks like

Whether or not women in the boardrooms will increase profits for the respective companies, I cannot say. Most likely there will be just as many bad or brilliant female execs as there are male. Only the future can tell, that is if we allow the quota to be implemented. Circumstances rarely improve by doing nothing. Women did not liberate themselves by waiting around and giving society “another chance” to change. They fought for their rights and they demanded laws to protect these rights. The quota law would protect their right to adequate representation in a society that has yet to learn to acknowledge this right.

Slavoj Zizek On The Rise Of The Far Right In Europe

Yesterday on Democracy Now!: Amy Goodman interviews Slavoj Zizek on the Far Right and Immigrant Politicians that are on the rise in Europe.

Zizek on the emergence of the new far right movement:

[...] it’s absolutely crucial how this anti-immigrant explosion is linked to the withdrawal of leftist politics, especially in the matters of economy and so on. It is as if the left, being obsessed by the idea that we shouldn’t appear as reactionary in the economic sense, that is to say that “No, no, no, we are not the old trade union representatives of the working class, we are for postmodern digital capitalism” and so on. They don’t want to touch the working class or so-called lower ordinary people. And here right-wingers enter. Do you know, the horrible paradox is that, apart from some small leftist fringe parties, the only serious political force in Europe today which still is ready to appeal to the ordinary working people are the right-wing anti-immigrants?

To cut a long story short, very briefly, ’til now, we had the standard situation that you also have it up ’til now here: one big left-of-center party, one big right-of-center party—they are the only two parties which address the entire population—and then small fringe parties. Now, more and more in Europe, another polarity is emerging: a big liberal capitalist party, which can even be in social matters like abortion, women’s rights, relatively progressive—pure, let’s call it, capitalist party—and the only serious opposition is the immigrant—anti-immigrant nationalists.

And on the strikes in France:

Of course, in general, in principle, I support those who strike and so on. But did you notice how they are mostly—mostly—state employees with guaranteed employment and so on. [...] Those who dare to strike today are usually the privileged, those who have a guaranteed state employment and so on. And they strike for these things like, no, we don’t want to freeze our salaries; we want raise them up, while, for example, in my country, there are thousands of textile workers, women, who, if one were to offer them what—that situation with regard to which those who strike today are protesting, like “we guarantee you permanent employment, just with frozen salaries for next five years,” they would say, “My god! That’s better than we dared to dream.” [...] The truly needy and poor one don’t even dare to strike.

Well, what the left is missing is a kind of a more global idea of how to restructure entire economy. I mean, they are not addressing the true causes. This makes me very sad. This is typical. All that the left can do today is to propose—sorry, oppose—protest against reductions. The left is, let me be very frank, in this social sense, a conservative force. In the social sense of social, fast changes and so on, it’s capitalists who are today the revolutionary class. This makes it very sad, the situation.

You can watch it here (part 1 and part 2 of the interview).

News- and Blogwatch

A French retiree has to go on trial for physically attacking a Middle Eastern woman because she was wearing a face-covering veil. The attacker defended herself by saying: “I felt it was unacceptable for someone to wear a niqab in (France), the country of human rights. It’s a muzzle, all that’s missing is a leash, it’s the negation of women.” Surely the best way to defend the human rights of someone else is by ”biting, slapping and scratching” that person. Thanks to the recently approved ‘burqa ban’, ‘human rights violations’ of this sort have been outlawed. Perhaps the retiree should join the French police…

More in French news:  gender equality exists on paper, not so much in the heads of the French people.

Raoul Hausmann: Der Geist Unserer Zeit - Mechanischer Kopf

I don’t know much about neuroscience and had to read this text twice, but this strikes me as particularly relevant: “[...] the significance of the Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab paper is really as much political and even legal as it is neuroscientific. If there are demonstrable and functionally relevant features in the brain that underlie beliefs or proclivities that determine a person’s behaviour from an early age, and may be immutable, then the case for a redefinition of gender and for reassignment surgery in transsexuals is strengthened.” (Herbert, 2008)

A great lecture by Tim Jackson on Prosperity Without Growth:

How is it possible for a continually expanding subsystem (let’s call it the economy) of a finite system (let’s call it the planet) to continue to deliver its system goals? [...] How is it that we can consider an economy which, if it grows at the rates that it has done over the last fifty years will be 16 times bigger by the year 2100, or 80 times bigger than it was just five decades ago, and even this 80 times bigger economy won’t be a place which has delivered the poorest nations out of poverty and given them a hope, a chance of a western level of income. If you wanted to achieve that bigger goal, the goal of global equity, you need an economy that is 200 times bigger than it was fifty years ago. The resource implications, the environmental implications of such an economy are barely believable, really, and yet this is the default supposition for the direction of our economy.

Aral Sea Satellite Pictures