I wonder what is your opinion on this problem and the proposed solution.

  1. Let's talk about a married couple - regular people, no millionaires or celebrities.
  2. Both studied, both have a job, both work equally hard.
  3. One of the couple is older than the other. This is almost always the case.
  4. The older partner usually has a longer work experience, thus earns more money.
  5. Once they have a child, it makes economical sense for the partner who earns less to stay at home with the child, at least for some time.
  6. This is ok because most married couples share their money.
  7. The partner who stayed at home is now even more behind with his/her career.
  8. When a child is sick, it makes economical sense for the partner who earns less to take care of the child while the partner who earns more continues providing money.
  9. The partner who takes care of a sick child is now even more behind with his/her career.
  10. This is ok because most married couples share their money.
  11. Repeat steps 5 to 10 for every child.
  12. One of the partners dies, or, what is way more probable, they get divorced.
  13. They no longer share money and the partner who stayed at home has a way less social benefits, including unemployment benefits, healthcare benefits and retirement benefits.

As you can see there were no gender stereotypes or sexism in play, the difference is solely because of the initial age difference and economical rationality.

This inequality can be partially fixed if married partners, for the duration of their marriage, shared their incomes for the purpose of calculating unemployment, healthcare and retirement social benefits.

Additional considerations:

  1. Should the benefits be shared only for the duration of parenthood, not the whole marriage?

  2. The working partner is exposed to more work related accidents. The stay at home partner is sheltered.

  3. The inequality continues after the divorce - the stay at home partner has much less career experience that the working partner.