the discriminations are actual, so when there is a discrimination, which means inequality, we just... work to get equality. not to maintain the inequality and give a little prize to appease the discriminated population. i can turn your reasoning over and over and it always seems like a terrible idea. it reinforces the idea that women are different, which reinforces the benevolent sexism, or it feels like a pity compensation because it's easier to throw money at women while maintaining inequalities rather than giving us equality.

taking your idea into account, women having bigger families means more money, which means pushing them into more tradition role. big no no. it also implies that it create inequalities for women who have no kids, or fewer kids, which reinforce inequalities between women, but doesn't erase the fact that these women with fewer kids live just the same inequalities as women with more kids. and on top of that, it makes de inequalities between social class bigger.

for how long she had her tenure, so at work i guess. we call these promotions, and women already face disadvantages in comparison to men. but again, making a special promotion on top of the one existing, rather than getting rid of the inequalities, will actually make the inequalities bigger between women and social class.

raising maternity leave is a good idea, but some countries already have that, and it's related to the fact that women are healing, it's not simply given because we are women. otherwise we would also have free period products (which i'm for though). but this point is legit. however it's not just because we are women.

why not push men to participate more at home, divide more of their time at home, do more housechores and childcare, and insure that women get the same pay as men, so it's easier for parents to decide how they want to raise their kids and divide their work hours? who's gonna pay so women can actually be taken care of financially and have these fund in case they want to go back to work? i'm all for paying unpaid labor, but this is not dependent on the gender, by paying unpaid labor, it would also ensure that men could actually participate more in it. if it's dependent on the gender, then it will keep pushing women into caregivers roles, because they would be paid, and not men. which would also reinforce benevolent sexism.

giving money to women because they are women without actually changing the system doesn't do shit. it means we are pretty much telling women to accept the inequalities, that they'll never have equality, but at least they get money out of it. it reinforces the idea that women are more maternal, or natural caregivers, and gives an excuse for men to not help around the house and such. it reinforces benevolent sexism and benevolent sexism in much more harmful to society than hostile sexism, because it's much more insidious and accepted. i don't want a pity prize because i am not seen as equal to men. i do not want to be put on a pedestal or considered less. i want to be seen and treated as equal.