Ivanka Has it Wrong: Don’t Expand Maternity Leave, Get Fathers Involved
Donald Trump’s formal recognition of his daughter Ivanka as a White House employee and official adviser to the president holds significantly more implications than just another example of his willingness to involve his family in political matters. Ivanka Trump stands as much more than a familiar name who happens to hold an office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Rather, she and her new job represent the first concerted effort of Mr. Trump’s administration to work for women, a demographic he struggled to appeal to throughout the campaign. Carrying only 42% of women’s votes in the election, there was clearly some work to be done.
Ivanka Trump, who has made numerous attempts recently to become the figurehead of working women (she is set to publish a book “Women Who Work” in May), is in position to give much needed symbolic representation to women around the US. After drawing criticism for, while surrounded by only men, signing an executive order limiting funding to foreign healthcare organizations that provide abortions, Mr. Trump’s daughter now provides a supposedly more diverse perspective on women’s issues.
The effects of symbolic representation for women have been shown to be profound. The sight of more women in public office sends two primary messages to other women. First, it demonstrates that political space is not one reserved solely for men. Recognition of this openness both weakens gender stereotypes, and eliminates negative and unfounded biases towards women. Second, the presence of women in government encourages participation in political processes. A higher representation of women in public offices also has been shown to lead more women to the polls, thus demonstrating the hindrance of civic duty as a result of a psychological barrier. The simple fact is that more women involved in politics will lead to… more women involved in politics.
So, what could be the downside of Ivanka Trump’s new role? The main issue lies in the actual policy recommendations she will be making to her father. Of her two primary policy initiatives, increased maternity leave and childcare reforms, neither would realistically protect the working woman in practice. In fact, the effect would be quite the opposite, perpetuating systemic sexism and excluding women from the workforce.
The new maternity leave plan proposed by Ivanka Trump and lauded by Donald would institute six weeks of paid leave for new mothers, a policy similar to those already adopted in almost every other developed country. However, while again bearing the appearance of social progress, the reality is not as pretty. By mandating maternity leave for only mothers having a child, the policy assumes the stereotypical gender role of a woman’s role in the home. The exclusion of paid time off for fathers (and parents of newly adopted children), discourages employers from hiring women within the age range of motherhood. Seen as a risk of decreased productivity, companies would have no incentive for hiring anyone besides men. Compared to countries with similar levels of development, the US is already falling behind the status quo of progress.
The right thing to do, if Ivanka really were the champion of working women, would be to establish gender neutral maternity leave policy. Under this policy- which was recently adopted by California- the benefits are twofold: men are able to spend more time with their children, and the number of women working and their average salary increases. Additionally, it has been shown that increasing the female workforce is good for business and the economy. Companies with more employed women have been shown to rank higher in all categories of organizational effectiveness. There is a strong positive correlation between women in leadership positions and a company’s ability to function effectively.
The second initiative at the forefront of Ivanka’s new role is her position on child care. One of Mr. Trump’s new plans creates new tax deductions for families paying for child care. This is a step in the right direction, except that it leaves out working families whose income excludes them from any income tax in the first place. Thus, the advantages go right to the wealthier families, the demographic generally already with the least social inequalities towards women. Trump’s second proposal would allow families to create a Dependent Care Savings Account (DCSA), in which they could put aside, tax free, up to $2000 to be used on child care. Again, this sounds great, but realistically the families which cannot afford childcare in the first place don’t have money to put aside or save in bank accounts. Here too Ivanka has fallen flat on furthering women’s rights and progress.
The value of symbolic representation can only go so far when those in the representative position are enacting policies which go against the interests of their own group. Ivanka’s advice on her father’s plan further demonstrate the lack of support for and understanding of class and gender inequalities in our nation within the entire Trump administration. The policies not only would hurt working class women, but also perpetuate wider stereotypes about gender roles, the place of women in the home, and to whom the burdens of childcare fall upon. If Ivanka Trump wishes to call herself a feminist or to stand for working and middle class women, she must find policies that work for the good of all women, and are representative of the societal progress we have otherwise made towards equalizing the role of parents in raising a child. Until then, her policies will speak louder than her words.
