Réformer les congés parentaux: Un choix décisif pour une société plus égalitaire by Y. Knibiehler (review)

‘Motherhood is a thread that runs through all of her thinking’, Geneviève Fraisse writes in the preface to this work by feminist historian Yvonne Knibiehler, presented as the fruit of a lifetime of research. Now 98 years old, Knibiehler is a pioneer in the analysis of motherhood as a social fact. The defence of the social dimension of both motherhood and fatherhood lies at the heart of her thinking. In La révolution maternelle [The maternal revolution] (1998), she called for motherhood—and fatherhood—to be lived as a component of citizenship because parents are responsible for having given life and thus for the child’s future. ⁽¹⁾ Her ambition here is more political than academic. Through reflections that draw on several decades of historical and empirical work, she creates a veritable manifesto for the reform of parental leave in France. She presents it as an ‘opportunity to rethink the relationship between mother and father, between parents and children, between private life and society’ (p. 10). She is, of course, not the first to call for a reform of parental leave. A report published in February 2019 by the Haut Conseil de la famille criticizes the current system, deeming it ‘flawed, and proposes measures to remedy this’. ⁽²⁾ But the overview presented in Knibiehler’s book makes it of particular interest.

The work is divided into three parts. The first concerns previous policy gains on parental leave, presenting a summary of the history of maternity, paternity, and parental leave in France. The creation of maternity leave in 1909 was a ‘fait social global’ [general social fact], affecting all areas of private and public life. Knibiehler argues that this leave ratified the idea of female employment in the context of developing productivism, while a century later, paternity leave would emphasize the importance of private life and family values. An objective of parental leave, which emerged in the 1970s and which has been shared between mother and father since the reform of the Shared Child Rearing Benefit in 2014, is to show concern for equality. In reality, however, this leave is far from fairly shared between parents, a fact Knibiehler fails to mention. Moreover, it is small and not proportional to the parents’ wages, which she also omits. Furthermore, the book scarcely mentions the many studies that have demonstrated the negative effects of such leave—whether taken full-time or part-time—on distancing women from the job market or hindering their career progression. Finally, while those taking this leave are overwhelmingly women (almost 96% of all beneficiaries), those who take it full-time are mainly women in the lowest income groups, whereas those who take it part-time tend to be in the middle classes (more in the public sector). In sum, Knibiehler’s presentation of the reform would have been clearer if the ambiguities surrounding this mechanism had been better explained.

In the second part, Knibiehler focuses on four ‘feminist demands’: the condemnation of violence against women, sparked notably by the Weinstein affair; the general reduction of working time; the demand for equality between women and men; and improving systems of childcare for young children. In this part, she returns to the core theme of her thought, namely the need for feminism to integrate the issue of motherhood and take into account ‘domestic health work’. She addresses the recently recognized problem of obstetric violence and the right of women to give birth at home or to breastfeed beyond the end of maternity leave. Finally, according to Knibiehler, women must be able to choose to be mothers, but also to live their motherhood as they see fit. They are still the ones tasked with raising children, as while fathers may demand certain rights (shared custody in the event of separation, for example...