Why isn't Canada a feminist utopia?
Top jobs are universally male-dominated. In response, feminists push for state-subsidised childcare, more involved fathers, and greater support for gender equality. But Canada has already embraced these initiatives, women work at very high rates, yet its senior management remains 64% male. So what’s propping up patriarchy?
Unaffordable Childcare?
We should expect female labour market participation and advancement to be lower if childcare is prohibitively expensive. State-subsidised daycare could help mitigate “the motherhood penalty”.
Quebec introduced subsidised daycare back in 1997. It also introduced 5 weeks of paternity leave, adopted by 84% of fathers.
Yet female share of senior management still remains lower than the national average (28% versus 36%).
At national level, the government budget has stepped up funding to ensure universal access to $10 daycare. I will be curious to learn if this reduces men’s hold of top jobs.
Disengaged Dads?
Canadian fathers are highly involved. Compared to Americans, they’re more likely to provide warmth and emotional support.
Canadian women continue to shoulder the lion’s share of childcare, but this averages less than two hours a day.
Time-use data on gender gaps is slightly misleading (in my opinion), because it only ever includes couples and neglects single mothers who do 100% of childcare.
Yet here again Canada scores as very gender equal. 70% of Canadian children live in intact two parent families, only 16% live with a female lone parent. Compared to the US, Canadian fathers provide more support.
Low female employment?
Canada did have a large gender gap in employment back in 1976. That’s now changed. Female labour force participation has outpaced the US.
Full-time work is a crucial precursor to seniority. As Claudia Goldin remarked on our podcast, “If you're part-time, it's not going to be easy to make partner. If you're part time it's not going to be easy to get a big first promotion in management, and we know that European countries for some good reasons have a greater ability to work part-time than in the U.S, but there is a price that gets paid”.
But 80% of Canadian working women are working full-time. So what’s stopping them from getting ahead?
Discrimination?
All the available data suggests that Canadians strongly support gender equality.
The overwhelming majority of Canadians disagree that a working mother causes a pre-school child to suffer. They also reject the notion that men are better business leaders.
Attitudinal data is prone to social desirability bias. So let’s triangulate by looking at revealed preferences.
In 2015, Justin Trudeau introduced a gender-balanced cabinet. This was supported by the vast majority of Canadians: 74% (including 40% of Conservatives). No uproar, no backlash. That sharply contrasts with the misogyny hurled at presidential-hopeful Hilary Clinton.
So what’s going on?
Canadian women demonstrate strong labour market commitment, fathers are exceptionally engaged, the state subsidises daycare, and compatriots champion gender equality. So what on earth maintains men’s predominance of top jobs?
Greedy jobs?
Top jobs demand long hours and tight deadline. Toronto’s Financial District burns the midnight oil, while childcare centres close at 6. Moreover, parents may want someone to be at home for dinner, bath and bedtime. As Claudia Goldin argues for the US, mothers usually pursue work with greater flexibility. This jeopardises their pay, productivity and shot at promotion.
Goldin’s theory is very persuasive, but it still doesn’t explain why senior management is more male-dominated in Canada than the US (64% vs 57%).
Maximum Hours Regulations?
Canada and the European Union both have working time directives, proscribing anything more than 48 hours a week. This may affect gender inequalities, varying by class.
In their cross-national analysis of the EU, Iversen, Rosenbluth and Skorge (2020) suggest that strict enforcement of maximum hours regulation helps close the gender pay gap among non-managerial workers, because care-free men are unable to gain competitive advantage by working ultra long hours.
However, because hours are capped, careerist women cannot demonstrate their exceptional commitment. Employers may thus maintain their gender stereotypes and apply statistical discrimination.
Iversen and co-authors suggest that these restrictions remain in place because it is supported by non-managerial women, who benefit from greater parity in pay.
Their study exploits cross-national variation within the European Union. Since there is no exogenous shock, it’s impossible to demonstrate causal inference. Economists may be unpersuaded.
It’s an interesting hypothesis, however. It pushes us to recognise intersectionality: what closes gender pay gaps among workers may not mitigate sexism in managerial promotions.
If Iversen and colleagues are right, what’s the solution? How might we correct employers’ sexist presumption that men are more willing to work long hours? Well, if employers are unable to recognise female talent or detect their commitment, one straight forward solution is to stop this male rent. Impose gender quotas in management.
On the other hand, if Goldin is right, then the WFH revolution and greater flexibility might be enough to catalyse gender parity in promotions.
Ultimately, it’s up to Canadians. I merely share this as a fascinating conundrum, helping us identify intersectional bottlenecks to gender equality.
Why isn’t Canada a feminist utopia?
I don't think Trudeau's cabinet is evidence enough to write off discrimination. Clearly, Canada is in a far better place than the US. And I suspect 64% male in top roles is a much better stat than we have in the US. But the underlying implicit bias is that tall white men look feel more like leaders than women or non-white men. There have been so many studies showing that all else being equal, the white man will be perceived as more competent. The higher you go in the organization, the more the promotion hinges on highly subjective factors. Top roles are not just predominantly male. They are predominantly tall white male. 58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6' tall, compared to 15% of the population.
Two ideas, come to mind. I'd e interested to see what you think. 😊
1- Give it more time, changes in daycare availability, work-hour laws, etc are recent. Some changes are generational, culture is slow to adapt
2- Most people prefer to not have top jobs. No matter how many hollywood movies we watch about entrepreneurs and top executives, most people prefer "middle" jobs. And the people who tend to prefer these top jobs, as well as the people who tend to prefer risky jobs are men. Might be cultural (then refer to point 1) or might not be. [Bear in mind I am not saying most men prefer top jobs (I don't thnk that's true), I'm saying that, in the margin, among the people who prefer higher risk, higher stress, higher demand jobs, there's a higher % of men.]