I see a woman in a tailored pants suit, hair swept into a bun, and strangely, the woman in my mind is biracial. I don't know, I'll just go with it.
I recently had a lovely facebook conversation with a friend and a friend of this friend about "working women." It was started by an article on Slate called "If America is Hell for Working Women, France Might Be Heaven." (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/02/24/america_makes_life_impossible_for_working_women_so_how_come_they_re_so_much.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_bot)
Just the title made me hot and bothered because having lived in both America and France, I'm done with Americans making France out to be some sort of social paradise (health care, women rights, etc.) based on what they read about it without having actually experienced it themselves. Yes, France has universal health care, but go visit a hospital and tell me you want to go there. Anyway, I digress. The article also featured another of my pet peeves: making assumptions based solely on statistics. If I ever need to make an argument why qualitative research is necessary, I'm going to use this article.
Statistics do not give a full picture. This article claims that French women are having more babies than Americans--if you follow the link in the article, it reveals a smidgen of a difference on a bar graph. I researched the actual birth rates, since I could barely tell a difference on the bar graphs: America has fallen to 1.86, and France is 2.01. To me in the real world, where babies come whole not in fractions, these two numbers sound pretty much the same but I'm not a demographer. The French government site,(www.diplomatie.gouv.fr), claims that they have such a great birth rate because of their great family friendly policies. But, Wikipedia backs up my impression of France from when I lived there during my LDS mission--the immigrants, specifically those from a Muslim background, are increasing the birth rate. Perhaps those family friendly policies are convincing some French women to have children, but it is not the sole factor.
(I'd like to note that the below chart is using 15 year old data and does not represent the current 2.01 birth rate in France. If anyone can find more current data, thank you in advance.
| Average number of children in France (1991–1998) | Average number of children in country of origin (1990–1999) | |
|---|---|---|
| All women living in metropolitan France | 1.74 | |
| Women born in Metropolitan France | 1.70 | |
| Immigrant women | 2.16 | |
| Women born in overseas France | 1.86 | |
| Immigrant women (country of birth) | ||
| Spain | 1.52 | 1.23 |
| Italy | 1.60 | 1.24 |
| Portugal | 1.96 | 1.49 |
| Other EU | 1.66 | 1.44 |
| Turkey | 3.21 | 2.16 |
| Other Europe | 1.68 | 1.41 |
| Algeria | 2.57 | 1.78 |
| Morocco | 2.97 | 3.28 |
| Tunisia | 2.90 | 2.73 |
| Other Africa | 2.86 | 5.89 |
| Asia (Mostly China) | 1.77 | 2.85 |
| The Americas and Oceania | 2.00 | 2.54 |
Also with statistics, you have to take into account definitions that were used when compiling statistics. According to one French friend, her mother had been on maternity leave for years--was this type of women counted as "working" in their 85% of women working even though she was no longer actively engaged in any type of economic production? Oh, and she was still receiving pay.
So "working"? What is the definition? Its always tricky to ask women (and I am one) if they work. Yes we work, whether it be at home or somewhere else, but we all know what they mean when they ask "Do you work."
Do you answer "yes and no."?
Do you say, "No, I'm a stay at home mom."
"Yes, I'm a stay at home mom.
"Yes I'm a home-based mom."
"Yes I'm doing the most important work a person can do."
"Yes and I'm exhausted."
So what if France counts SAHM in their stats? What if America started counting moms who don't work outside the home are counted in "employed" statistics? The employment statistics are used to represent how well the economy is doing. After my Facebook conversation, I realized that moms do play a part in economic production. What if moms who don't work outside the home are counted in "employed" statistics? For one, Utah would stop getting slammed in the press (just one example of many: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?abt=0002&abg=0 ). But more importantly, women would understand their work is important on an economic level. We all remind ourselves that what we are doing is important morally and spiritually, but I say yes, economically as well. I believe that mothers who make the choice to stay home are not letting America down as the Slate article made me feel; nor, are we a throwback to the male dominated 1950's as the NY Times article suggested; nor should the feminists feel disappointed in us. We are powerful women who see our best opportunity at home. By raising resilient, creative, and loved children (and of course, we're all hoping for geniuses), we are affecting the ability of America to govern, produce, and serve better.
I hope that America/press/world will one day recognize the virtue behind the statistical anomalies of women not working and stop shouting about repression and dominance. If nothing else, I hope that women know that stats and their interpretations are not always truth.
**I'd like to add a post script for the women who do work: you go, girl! Some women do have "best opportunities" elsewhere. I was raised by a working mother and she is a great mother and I wouldn't have chosen any other nor any other way to be raised (except the bit about working on Christmas and holidays). This is not meant to make you feel guilty that you are working, but rather an economic argument for those of us that aren't represented in "employment" statistics.
