"They may be forced back without wanting to but sometimes nasty medicine is for your own good..."
Xenia, this is quite a paternalistic argument, don't you think? Wee women don't know what's good for 'em but they'll soon learn?
A friend was telling me recently how, in Australia, some companies will hold a woman's post open for seven years. The woman doesn't receive pay during this time, of course, but as on maternity here, "continuous service" accrues with related benefits.
In my job, many of our senior managers have taken a number of years out in their children's early years with no glass ceiling effect. The reason is simple: my job is almost 100% female dominated, so supply-and-demand dictates that appropriately qualified people are not disadvantaged by a few years out of the workforce.
It is not impossible for a society to allow for children to be cared for by a parent in their early years. The answer to women's loss of pay, progression and longer term financial security as a result of time out of the workplace to have and raise children includes addressing the lack of value that is placed on raising our children at a societal level, not merely assuming that if women work all will be well. At a material level? Perhaps, yes. However, there are a great many women and men who would rather not be in a position where they see their children for between a half an hour and an hour a day.
In Ireland, where the majority of women return to work six months post-partum and return full-time, I know a number of families where both partners feel trapped in the earn-to-spend cycle. Spending the majority of your life at work and very little of it with your children in order to pay for a mortgage you should never have been granted is cold comfort because you have retained your 'position' at work. At least part of the crisis in Ireland stems from the overinflated wages of "dinkies" having secured massive mortgages which drove up house prices exponentially.
Domestic economics is a complex area when it comes to women's rights and quality of life. Men's, too, come to think of it. It is inevitably shaped by the larger economic and social forces of its time, of course. However, let's be honest: any drive to push women into the workforce will not be about protecting or salvaging women's rights and positions: it will be about increasing inland revenue. And the men who were lazy will be ever so, which will simply increase the second shift for working women who cannot afford the "shitworkers" e.g. handymen, decorators, cleaners, gardeners etc.