"In Germany, quotas for women in business only mask the real obstacles"

Antoine de Gabrielli is the founder and director of Companieros, a member of the Club XXIe siècle and the Laboratoire de l'Égalité.

When it comes to women in Germany, family policies are rarely far off.

The history of the last century has however learned to be wary of this link, the Germans know it better than anyone.

We know the famous reproach made to German working mothers of being "

Rabbenmutter

", "

crow

"

mothers

, who prefer their work to their children.

We also know the low number of Kindergarten: the compulsory schooling age is set in Germany at 6 years old (against 3 in France).

"

Mothers do not work, so there is no need for nurseries

" say some.

"

If no nursery, then no work for mothers,

" say others.

In any case, the result is there: 45% of German women graduating from higher education have no children, against less than 10% in France * and the German birth rate, if it has recently risen to 1.55, has long been closer to 1.3.

Read also:

Germany introduces quotas for women directors

In 2005, Ursula von der Leyen, Minister for the Family of Angela Merkel, developed nurseries and instituted a parental salary.

In fact, this salary, the amount of which could go up to € 1,800 / month at the time, turned out to be a maternal salary, since 90% of it was received by women.

It is always a question here of helping mothers to stay at home, by economically enhancing domestic work.

It is now clearly a question of directing as many German women as possible to work.

2012 is the year of the Betreuungsgeld controversy, described as a “

stove bonus

” by its detractors.

Intended for parents raising their children at home, this bonus is accused of discouraging women's access to the labor market.

The German employers then oppose it head-on and obtain its abandonment.

This is a historic shift in which the economic issue of women's work takes precedence over policies in favor of mothers: it is now clearly a question of directing as many German women as possible to work.

In 2013, Manuela Schwesig, the new Minister of Families, proposed that the working time of parents of young children be reduced to 32 hours per week in order to better reconcile professional and family life.

This measure is not adopted, because it would have reduced the working time of fathers, that is to say the productivity of German employees.

In 2015, the question of quotas for women leaders was asked for the first time in Germany.

Remember that in France, it was five years before, in 2010, under the leadership of Jean-François Copé and Marie-Jo Zimmermann, during Nicolas Sarkozy's five-year term, that the obligation of a minimum of 40% of women on boards of directors.

Angela Merkel has never been neither really against nor really for quotas.

In March 2015, the Bundestag voted for the first time a law obliging, on January 1, 2016, the supervisory boards of DAX companies and large co-managed companies (German specificity) to accommodate at least 30% of women.

The arrival of women on boards of directors has not generated a feminization of positions of responsibility.

A new bill on the imposition of quotas for women in company management is approved on January 6, 2021 by the Council of Ministers.

Large companies listed on the stock exchange, co-managed or controlled by the State will now have to have at least 30% of women at their head, from a management of three members.

Germany has therefore undoubtedly taken the lead in Europe in policies of quotas for women at the main levels of economic power.

Should we rejoice?

Read also:

Bruno Le Maire in favor of quotas to promote gender equality

We are well aware of the arguments of those who are in favor of or against quotas.

In one case, it is thought to restore an impeded equality.

In the other, it is believed to be a breach of equality between men and women.

In truth, what is most criticized about quotas is that they undoubtedly constitute a facility.

Wherever they have been instituted, particularly in Norway and then in France, they have not produced a "

cascade effect

": the arrival of women on boards of directors has not generated a feminization of positions of responsibility.

We must clearly agree: the system which prevented women from accessing these positions, and which justified the quotas, remains intact.

Germany, no more than France, has not yet been able to build a world of work that makes it possible to meet the challenges of couples.

This system continues unabated, because no one has yet really tried to globally transform the conditions of articulation between professional and private life for couples.

A woman, when she is a mother, assumes on average 70% of family responsibilities.

With some exceptions, this private investment blocks its path to most positions of power.

Women are asked to assume the same professional responsibilities as men, without wanting to see that fathers' commitment to work is only possible because, alongside them, mothers most often provide family stewardship. .

"READ ALSO -"

With quotas, suspicion would be cast on all the promoted women

"

Germany, no more than France, has not yet been able to build a world of work that makes it possible to meet the challenges of couples.

Like France, she thinks of family, or women, but never couples.

By artificially improving the number of women in power, female quotas actually only contribute to major social stagnation, by masking their resistance.

Quotas are communications aimed at women, not transformations of reality experienced by couples.

They place a glittering cherry, a few women of power, at the top of a pyramid of alienations experienced just as much, but in contrast, by men and women.

It's makeup.

Each member of a couple must be able to be involved in their professional life as well as in their private life.

The professional investment of one must not come at the expense of the other.

The challenge is to put work back into the service of couples, that is to say women and men.