Unknown Speaker  00:00
And then I subsequently wrote about first of all, in social, as we know, in the public arena, divorce is seen as a major failure of family values. And as Martha Katha and others noted this morning, you know, one of the agendas of the right is to make divorce much harder. And unfortunately, it's not just the right of somebody quoted from Hillary Clinton's book this morning, and she wants curbs on divorce. So in the, in the public debate and discourse, divorce is definitely a failure of family values. Unfortunately, even in mainstream sociology, which is my field, these people go on and on droning on and on about how divorce, they just accept the fact that divorce is a sign of family decline. It's just almost a given, nobody's even bothered to challenge it. It's a sign of family decline, and a failure of Americans to make commitments. You know, there's this whole thing in social science about how the modern life fosters the break up of family commitments in particular. So we have decline, we have failure of commitments. And lastly, too much individualism that Americans, people genderless people can't make commitments anymore. So they divorce when they aren't quite satisfied and think they might get a better deal. Well, of course, I mean, that this view is so persistent astounds me, but it is persistent. And then And then, of course, it's the people like the communitarians, and so called middle of the road, Democrats can then pull on all this social science research, which they do to just create a more conservative agenda. Now, I'll just talk very briefly about two ways in which interviewing all these divorced women, this random sample completely blew apart. For me that view of divorce. First of all, I'm just going to briefly divide this up into social aspects of divorce and economic aspects of divorce. In terms of social aspects of divorce, one of I could talk about many ways in which the actual experiences of divorce women's Iceland did not correspond to this image, but I'll just pick one for today for right now. That is, women describe the circumstances of the ending of their marriages. And I categorize them into basically five categories. One category was other so this is an account that was basically a few women who weren't sure why their husbands had left and some women who just didn't want to discuss it. And then some miscellaneous things which I could talk about anyways. 20% of women were in each of these five categories, there was other, okay, the category that most resembles so called individualism, lack of commitment, I called Personal dissatisfaction. Those women said things like we just couldn't get along, we argued all the time we grew apart, we just didn't seem to have anything more in common. This wasn't good for the children. So finally, I left. Okay. But that category was also heavily gendered. That is, without our even asking, this wasn't a question. Many women volunteered that their ex husbands were to control and that that was affected in their leaving another very gendered. And that was all across the sample, rich women, for women, middle, middle income women, it was very striking. We never used that word we never said was there. Do you think your ex husband was controlling, kept coming up? And while I was in the middle of this, I thought, I really want to write about this. And I actually went to my my first and only Wellesley College reunion. And of course, a lot of my old classmates were divorced. And they said the same thing also. So reassured to your students rolling they say yes. Because it was confirming what I wanted to be able to say here. Another gendered reason was, as you might expect, women talking about different emotional needs and ways of operating from their ex husbands. And you can expect what that would be was, which was the women were saying, I just want I really wanted more of an emotional connection and just didn't have Okay, so it was personal dissatisfaction.

Unknown Speaker  04:46
Second, was close to 20% of women said they left their marriages because of domestic violence because their ex husbands had been violent towards them. As I'll talk about in just a minute there was actually a much higher rate than 21st 10 of women reporting violence in their marriages, about 20% said that was the reason they left the violence was so severe, they left for that reason. Third reason was what I call hard living. It's barring the word from other social scientists, it was drugs and alcohol, basically, more drugs than alcohol. And of course, either partner, but in this case is an ex husband or a husband at the Times drug use. Just as severely debilitating to a family, it's very hard to carry on family, like a lot of those men were on the street. So also, what I did put in the hard living category, small percentage of men who just on the street, a lot of the time one woman talked about white women talked about shortly after she got married and had a baby. Her husband was just never around, he was with his buddies down on the corner. So finally, just to see her husband, she drilled the baby carrots down to the corner at night. And she just one night, it just came to her. This is not a marriage, I mean, spending my evenings on the street corner. Okay, so there's personal dissatisfaction, domestic violence, hard living, and the last one was other women. That was to 20% of women reporting that marriage ended because their assessments left for another women, woman. Whereas when women did the leaving, the women's leaving was not connected. In hardly any cases to a new partner, the men, you know, the men may have had any number of reasons for leaving, but they left via having a woman. Okay, now, I said, this is one example of the social aspects, of course, that don't correspond to the pattern of these Americans ending their marriages because of individualism. I mean, for one thing, this was just women with children, women with children do not just leave divorces anyway, because they are dissatisfied. Without serious consideration, because as we all know, after divorce there, it's hard to live single mother. So in terms of this social category, I mean, it's the circumstances of divorce are highly gendered. First of all, because of the reasons I just gave you. Also 50% of the women in this random sample reported violence, either two or three times in their marriage. Now, when I tell people that everybody's surprised, everybody, except the activists, like I've been in crowds where they've been people like us. Oh, yeah. Right, of course, because we know there's all this domestic violence, of course, that would be tied to divorce, too. And the divorce, people are saying, Oh, that's such an interesting finding. Well, it's in the literature already. My data confirms what was there, but nobody foregrounds it. And it's only I've been encouraged to read, then the activist, domestic violence activists are sort of like, well, what's the news here? What do you want everybody else is. Of course, this 50% rate is higher than the violence rate among married couples, which is already much too high. But I mean, that's to be expected, because a higher percentage of what one would expect in the divorce population to find a higher percentage of women who reported being beaten or injured by husbands.

Unknown Speaker  08:43
And then, of course, in this social social category, it's not just some kind of de gendered phenomenon, but social class enters into this. That is hard living, especially but some of the other categories are related to people's social class. What some people don't know is that the divorce rate always has been and still is higher, the lower your income, the divorce rate has risen among all classes, with the poorer you are, the harder it is to sustain a marriage. And I think that goes counter to our image of divorce. I think we've created an image of divorce as this white middle class phenomenon. When you say to an American divorced woman, you get a white, an image of a white middle class woman, when you save single mother, you get a black poodle. And of course, this is a false image because first of all, the divorce rates always been higher among black women and white women. And secondly, single fastest rate of growth of single mothers has been among white women. So I think that this The way we bifurcate divorce women and single mothers is a way that it masks the kinds of structural inequality that contribute towards divorce. I'll say more about that in a minute. Okay, so looking at the social aspects of divorce, you're left with the question if it's about decline decline for whom? That's never specified by these family values, types. Okay. Secondly, briefly the, as we know, well, when I collected data about the economic conditions of women, it also really spoke against the image of the divorce woman as this, this white middle class woman. And again, just to reinforce, I make this point throughout my book, that that's the image that we have of divorced women. And then towards the end of writing my book, I thought, gosh, now I gotta prove this. I mean, I can't just say, Well, I think this is the image. So the day I sat there in front of my computer, and hooked into the library, into the reader's guide for periodical literature to try to make some case that the American perception that divorce is these white middle class, women. Both that white middle class women are the ones getting divorced, and also that after divorce, our image of the divorce say, as this woman who, even though we know, women's standard of living goes down after divorce, we still persist in this image of the white middle class woman, in fact, the movie, second First Wives Club, so it was called, How many people have seen that? Right? Well, I mean, it's funny, and there are positive aspects to it. For me, the one negative aspect is there are these three fabulously wealthy women having, you know, doing their revenge? Anyway, I'm sitting there in front of my computer thinking, what if I don't find this, you know, I'm just gonna have to spend hours getting all this stuff out of my draft. So I went into the readers guided periodical alert to periodical nurture which index is 250 publications, everything from cosmopolitan and Women's Wear Daily to the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Review of Books, etc, York Times Book Review, and I, you know, I got into subject of divorce and got up on the computer, all the possible called up everything that could have to do with divorce. And at first I went to every fifth article. And you know, my heart was just pounding with nervousness. I kept going, I kept going. And all that kept coming up was white middle class women, it was if they're the only ones getting divorced, so then my heart started pounding. Yes, yes. Again, not to, you know, I just wanted to be able to make this argument and, and then I read every abstract that was on there, and it was, it was overwhelmingly divorced women really have it, okay. Or for those that don't have it, okay, the laws about dividing property are getting better anyway. And of course, even people who should know better sometimes talk about divorce, as is the being all this property to divide. And of course, for some people there is and that is very complicated, and that should be given attention. But the vast majority of women who are getting divorced don't have access to much property. So

Unknown Speaker  13:41
also, the poverty rate in my sample was, I mean, white women and black women faced a lot of poverty and divorce, the only group that seemed to be very protected was women who had some kind of professional degrees, their standard of living still went down considerably, but at least they had that protection. And many of the other women in the sample didn't and of course, as you would expect, black women came out the worse off in the sample, even though their education level was the same as white women. Okay, now, I want to move on to what we do about all this briefly. As somebody as Martha it said this morning, one of the solutions that's proposed to solve the divorce problem is child support. Right now, as you probably know, an appallingly high rate of women get no child support at all, it's less than half of women deserve child support or getting it and one of the solutions that's been enacted, but not by law, but not implemented yet is what's called wage withholding. Supposedly fathers, incomes will have child support automatically deducted which is principal is a huge improvement from women having to beg from their ex husbands for their child support money or be nice to them or accommodate them in ways they don't really want. Experts say though, that even when we have that kind of wage withholding, anywhere between 23 and 35% of women will still never get child support. And one of the things I was able to do is look at why that is. First of all, there are ways men can evade paying child support, that will probably be difficult to completely get around, some men will always be able to evade paying in second. Some men are too poor to pay very much, although they still should pay something because they're their former wives or even poor. But third, one of the things that I found that I think is most important is that the violence the carried through the whole study that I did about women's experiences of divorce, 30% of the women in the sample said that they were fearful during negotiations for child support 30% and actually was 38% During negotiations for custody, and those mothers who were fearful if you were fearful, that was correlated with how much violence you experienced in your marriage, and fear and violence was also correlated with how much child support you got. So the data were all it was, like all statistically significant within the interviews. I'll never forget the first woman that I interviewed who said, I said, so what did you do to get child support? This was a woman who wasn't getting getting it interested? Nothing? And I said, Well, no one would do. And I thought, Oh, my God, write this up. So I said, Okay, let's back up, you separated such and such a time, let's just go through what happened to you. She said, he said he was going to kill me, if I tried to get child support, I wasn't going to try to get child support that that was very low in my list of priorities. And of course, you know, at least three women in United States are killed every day by husbands, or boyfriends or ex husbands or ex boyfriends. And so some of those may be doing exactly the right thing. So what we really need, of course, and you're not going to get I guess, in my lifetime is something like they haven't Sweden horse, which is not a perfect place, but has many better social welfare measures than we do. Sweden has a child support assurance system, where it's the responsibility of the state to pay the mother and child pay for the mother and child, the amount of child support is due. And then the government goes after the men and gets as much money back as they can. So the children are guaranteed this money. Such a radical idea would be for the United States, unfortunately. Secondly, no, I favorite course, all the things that Martha and others talked about this morning. guaranteed access to quality daycare, flexible working hours, guaranteed access to health care, jobs that pay a decent wage, basically, allowing women to live on their own independent of marriage and stopping the idea that resources should be distributed through marriage. I mean, it's just crazy, doesn't make sense, it's hurting. It's hurting families just doesn't make any sense to me.

Unknown Speaker  18:35
I mean, I can analyze why the situation exists. But when you think about it, it's it's a counter intuitive system to make welfare, not welfare and welfare programs with social welfare, dependent on a smart justice or romantic relationship. Now, I only want to make one more point, which is that I just want to leave you with with chapter seven, which is the women who have described, the women in my sample have described all these hardships nonetheless, the majority of them saying I'm very glad to be divorced. And there were a little over 60% of women who were out and out positive, glad to be divorced. And that was for two reasons. One, to be away from the hard living and the violence and things like that. The other reason was just a lot of women who are rich in between saying, I just never experienced living independently before, and I liked that it would be so anyway. That was very interesting to me. Although at the same time, the 66% of the women did want to remarry. They had sort of the rotten apple theory of marriage. You know, I got a bad guy, but there are good guys out there. 12 So 60% Did want to read married 12% were unsure and 22% said, the institution of marriage is not for me, as it is constructed in America right now is not for me, I, I don't think I could be in a relationship and have the kind of equality I want. So anyway, ending with the women's voices. And also I want on a more positive note, the wind from this random sample certainly don't want restriction. The women themselves certainly don't want restrictions on divorce. And, you know, all the things that I've mentioned, but certainly argue against any restrictions on divorce. And I was really sorry to hear this in Hillary Clinton's book, which I have not read, because I didn't hear it was such a fantastic read. But I hadn't realized that she actually said that she favored more restrictions on marriage. So sorry, she shouldn't write on divorce.

Unknown Speaker  21:05
I don't say a whole lot, because I already spoke. But I also started out my research with divorce many years ago, and have kind of moved beyond that to draw parallels between what I see happening in a divorce, never married mother, single mother context. And, of course, when you get divorced, who is really important in documenting what's referred to as the failure of the family, or something that's considered to be a failure of the family. And I certainly think the family has failed also, but not in the way that perhaps it's talked about in the social science literature, or certainly I don't view this as family declined, or today earlier in the session. So we have to question that as soon as that what we're experiencing is the breakdown. Because in fact, when I look at what's happening in both the divorce situation, and the never married situation, single mother situation, what I see is a family families are alive and thriving. That in fact, whether we think that families have broken down or depends on how we define families. Now, this led me to think about a lot of things the role of women in the role of families and relationships with family and state. And so this is kind of where my work. I work in our polishing marriage as a legal institution. what that project is really about is redefining the primary or basic core family connection. And I argue that we should move away from sexual affiliation, that that, in fact, is not the way to think about the core, core core into the connection. As we do now, we'll talk about marriage as the basic building blocks of society. But if what we're really interested in, is having our families perform the societal function has been set aside for them. And that is handling dependency kinds of dependencies. I talked about the repository dependency, then what we should really build our social policy around is the family relationship exemplified by the caretaker dependents, also known as the mother child. I really suffer for insisting that there are positive things about motherhood, this discussion like nurture, even though I know many women don't become mothers, and many men aren't that mothers. But all of this has led me to actually try and define for myself these various relationships. So I have developed these ideas that I spoke about a little bit earlier today. And relationship between social subsidy that is male provided to the sexual affiliation, exemplified by marriage, the social subsidy that's provided to that institution in theory, and the connection between dependency and the family as the repository of dependents. No. And in doing this, I want to expand the discussion or I do some discussion in my work beyond just marriage, because it seems to me that there are a lot of arguments for giving the same sorts of subsidies to other sexual affiliation like same sex relationships, or religion or heterosexual cohabitation. The arguments are all we're doing. We're performing the same function as a married couple in this society. So why not give us the same basic set of subsidies? And that's why I think a focus on marriage is actually not productive or difference in furniture, so whatever and we have to explain what marriage represents, and really focus on what you should be subsidizing, which is any kid now, government subsidy comes through dummy government subsidy comes through the government. I mentioned how that works through the private sector, through the provision of things like insurance and whatever. And through the uncompensated work of caretaking, which is mostly. And when you look at those three things, it seems to be clear why the family is a failure in Monterrey, not the family has broken down because men are no longer present in the same numbers that we say they were historically that's not the failure. But the family is a failure, because in fact, women start at the bottom with women's labor, except for

Unknown Speaker  25:55
women will no longer cooperate with the system that that that relegates them to the performance of uncompensated domestic labor, we can't go back, they can't make us barefoot and pregnant, I think that that's going to be very difficult to try and get. Alright, so that's one, some sort of move that kind of subsidy because we've changed our ideology, have changed our expectations and aspirations. And it's why we are the target of so much hostility and anger, not only from the right, but also from the second thing in terms of private subsidy. When you begin to look at the massive changes that have taken place in the workplace, you see why our system, which structures which which depends on the workplace, to deliver basic services like health care, pension, we deliver those through the workplace, but we live in it at a time when our workplace is being radically reconfigured and restructured. And the best way to think about this is the description on the AKG. Vice President who said, Well, you know, it's like I love to draw at&t executives who said, Well, you know, what, we used to have an 18 T, and I'm here, these places are places that used to foster the notion of a connection between employer and worker, and the atmc presence as well. You know, like, we used to have this eight, this corporation, we have our workers, a little family here, but it's no longer that. So we have to envision is that we now have a building, this is ATT. And we have outside all of these people who used to be inside the building, but they're now standing in the parking, what's left in the building or projects, working relationship of projects. And what happens is that these work, these people are then assigned projects. So that's what allows them to come back to the building. Now, are these people fired? No, they're just on. So are the people who are in the building hired? No, they're just a side project. So this so my David, this is a basic fundamental reconfiguration of understanding between capital and capital and work with between employer and employee basic reconfiguration. Now, the problem from our social welfare perspective is that this institution a TMT is what we've relied on, to provide pensions to provide for the elderly to provide health care to provide for dependency in all sorts of ways. And it's simply and this is the effects of globalization. Right? So women aren't, we're not willing to subsidize, the workplace is changing in a way, that means that private subsidies are not going to work for the family to consider it to New, and then only the third leg of this, which is government public subsidies, what we see is the erosion of the idea of complete eradication in some instances of collective responsibility. And we see that across the board to see it in the context of voters who will prefer education. You see this as the articulation of a public discourse about the government, which assumes a degree of hostility and evil. Anytime that we talk about the government as the provider of services, taxes become something that's being taken away from us, not something that we're using to provide collective Republic good. So that the whole discourse is what is really the fear. And I do think that a lot of people buy into this and I agree with CAP apology, which says the problem is not just the right. The problem is also all of us. It's the way we talk about things and the way that we think about it. against the way that taxes are defined the notion of government that we don't stand up to this rather comprehensive

Unknown Speaker  30:06
way of doing

Unknown Speaker  30:09
building notions of individual and family autonomy, self sufficiency, and independence, and say that this, in fact, is a myth. It's a cannot happen. I'm just trying to confirm the whole idea of dependency identifying this morning, so I guess that's all I want to say.

Unknown Speaker  30:32
Okay, now, yes,

Unknown Speaker  30:35
you can do the picture of divorce as largely unseen in a single middle class white one, isn't that because we are largely single platinum sector, but we are middle class white women, if I belong to the wealthy, or the underprivileged, and voice we're taking place in my group would not see it there. Or if you read about in the newspapers, you're not reading about the divorce of someone in the underclass, you're reading about the divorce or from the person or celebrity or wealthy for a professional person. And all of that is your white, middle or upper class. You're not gonna read about divorce happen, you're not going to read around the newspaper, it isn't news. Or it isn't news.

Unknown Speaker  31:22
Right. So So what's your question?

Unknown Speaker  31:27
The question is, is not that the reason? It's not that all people see it as white middle class and slept well, in that group that we see it that way?

Unknown Speaker  31:36
Uh Huh. Interesting. What are some other people think about that?

Unknown Speaker  31:44
Yeah, I think the one of the reasons we see it as a white middle class phenomenon has to do with the way that divorce law develops over issues like division property. And you mentioned just because they're the issues that it makes working system litigating. So you don't get litigation, about four families. They're not they're simply not only not in the public view, but they're not in the legislators who, where you get a lot of interesting information is around those who have resources in society, whether it's the marital home, or their education, or whatever. So that law reform tends to describe divorce as essentially a middle class, but not enough. I don't think that it describes it as a white middle class phenomenon. I think divorce law is concerned with assets and the distribution of assets. That's changing somewhat, as you see the merger of divorce discourse and a welfare discourse over the issue of convergence with child support. Child support being a way that we don't have to wait to link these two discourses, but but it seems to me inevitable that we're going to be talking about middle class families when we talk about divorce, because the divorce process itself is a way to allocate mostly economic results. When working relationships dissolve. And if you don't have economic material things to to distribute, then you're not going to you don't need the system, you don't need a set of rules.

Unknown Speaker  33:21
You read about it either, right?

Unknown Speaker  33:24
That's right. But the basic point is the structural aspects get masked. And then the discourse goes back to family values and individual choices and the masking of the distribution of resources in our society continuing on when

Unknown Speaker  33:42
did you when you said that? This course has involved white middle class, women, their divorces courses? Did it mention race specifically? Or is it is? I mean, I guess the question is, is whitening folded into the concept of middle class? Or was it just the

Unknown Speaker  34:00
notion of the way it seemed to be in the popular press and in the social science? Presentations of divorce? Yes. And we didn't even need to be explicit. It was just

Unknown Speaker  34:11
assumed, because I think there's a difference, that there may be a difference between saying that something is, you know, that we raised something white and just saying that the absence of race in the discussion of divorce means that we always assume, right that we're talking about a white woman and so I think that that's

Unknown Speaker  34:31
a good distinction.

Unknown Speaker  34:35
Comment on the corporate role. Changing social contracts as corporations were at one time they viewed themselves as family. And if you join a large corporation became part of this family and job for life. Whether you succeeded or didn't succeed. Have you sort of shifted in some sense, your social life revolves around it. And a whole series of benefits accrue to you and to your family, or lack of that social contract is explicitly changing. And the diversity issue really is not only people outside the building the intent is to have a very, very small number of permanent employees. Everyone else contract has contract employees, they neither deserve or get any kind of benefits. So that's an extra 30% of the cost.

Unknown Speaker  35:53
That's what I mean when they say there's just the assigned and unassigned work but the workers are unattached or they're they're detached from the corporations that used to provide all this social benefits. So where are the benefits and

Unknown Speaker  36:06
not only socially but also emotional emotional relationships into family a larger family relationship which has been severed in some senses

Unknown Speaker  36:19
one one side they can keep their emotional one

Unknown Speaker  36:27
yes sir social service position yeah is only for the equals distance was option one feel like in a

Unknown Speaker  37:41
suit suits case, and really Jeff, tell us a lot also resist that temptation of the social experiences because

Unknown Speaker  38:12
they have many friends. I've started off my, my class, the one on one classes by saying that I think that the two basic, important questions for feminists in the next century of feminists in the United States globally. But the two, two basic questions, it seems to me are going to be how we begin to articulate collective responsibility for dependency. That's number one. And the second question was far away. Your two questions on just the first question. And then the second question is, how is it that once we have a notion of collective responsibility articulated, we separate that from collective control? So that the implications or not, if it's collective responsibility, then the state begins to tell us who can reproduce, for example, under what circumstances begins to supervise, reproduction and mothering in ways that would be honest, inappropriate. So I think that they're the two most important questions, at least for my agenda for the next century. I, too, was encouraged by the Beijing conference. In the end, they came up with a notion that women's work should start to be counted, measured, measured. And and a lot of countries have now signed on to this, this notion that they're going to start to keep fingers that they do start to look at all this domestic labor and measure it. This is not the same as compensating and just measuring although, you know, we know that down the road with the arguments about compensation. Firstly, you have to measure it right? You have to know that it exists so it's not invisible as it is. In terms of my personal story, compensation, I think it is extremely unproductive to really to, to just reinvent the private family because this is what we've done. Because we say, this is the husband, wife and child, right, the union that's supposed to be autonomous and independent society, and to fill all of the needs for nurturing and caretaking and earning money in a wage earner. That it makes no sense to just replicate this by saying, what we're going to do is have husbands and wives, or in the case of divorce, that we're going to have child support substitute for his family unit. That's just reinstituting the notion of a private system. And instead, what we have to do is to figure out a collective responsibility. So I not only would abolish marriage, but I would also pull away people away from the idea of child support is the way to do it. I think we should tax everyone. Heidi Hartmann kind of fabulous idea. And I just saw it mentioned once and I haven't seen it since and it might be that it's so outrageous. But she said, why don't we have an agenda raishin tax because it's absolutely perfect. So be like every time it's like a huge every beauty of it is that it applies to heterosexual men, it applies to homosexual men, it applies to all your reporter Radek experience experiences as well as other things. But the idea is that, hey, we're in St. Louis. So we're going to tax something and then use the resources to support those situations where the jack Ulation AMS is in fertilization, I suppose but in one way or another, anyway, but just to say my system is I give me a more generalized response, again, private model, the notion of a couple of the sexually affiliated couples that they can handle the demands of dependency. At the turn of the century, it seems to me ridiculous that it's not happening, particularly in the workplace. So extensive social subsidies is the only way we can realistically go.

Unknown Speaker  42:23
I don't know if I heard this in your question. But I, myself have done like many others. Progressive or feminine social scientists over the years and have said, well, look at Europe, look at France, look at Sweden, etc. And they've been able to do it, so we should be able to do it. And furthermore, we have this huge, huge bloated military budget that nobody's talking about, which I find very upsetting. But, I mean, lately, I've been meaning to call some people up and think some more about this, because, you know, the the rejoinder. Now, if you say what I just said, which is, well, you're done it, why can't we use of course, you know, the unemployment rates are high in Europe now. So it's become a piece of ammunition for for the right now, you know, they can because there's high unemployment rates, they can discount all these social welfare measures. And so I'm gonna have to retool my I can't use that explanation anymore unless I've got through some more of the economics of this. Yeah. So right, that was misleading and misleading, right. That's right. That's right. That's one way

Unknown Speaker  44:02
That's right. And just also on that same argument maybe increasing in Europe, but the system we're dealing with That's right. I mean, you're right employed there you don't immediately drop into That's right. That's right. Child welfare subsidies in there decision making process you seen that and demographics. Move which is your one to two companies this tutorial we will do the same case this will be great a level but still the key also relates to the issue. And the third is to those women who have lost their job and the result is you will not get this money you're wanting to speak to a need to lift more weight

Unknown Speaker  46:39
it's interesting, right? And of course, many European countries are so progressive because for you know what we call pro needleless reasons there were gonna be fewer French people and fewer Germans or whatever. So, they provided all these kinds of subsidies. So 123

Unknown Speaker  46:59
analysis this sort of analysis of your ideas