The maternal wall is defined as the discrimination against hiring or promoting mothers based on the assumption she will be less committed to her job based on their maternal responsibilities (Williams). More specifically, this wall is hit when women encounter workplace discrimination because of past, present, or future pregnancies, which in turn require maternity leave of absences. According to Joan Williams, professor at UC, "Studies have shown for over a decade that what is really killing women economically is motherhood. " Williams' central argument regarding the maternal wall is that employers should not be granted the right to discriminate in terms of hiring based on the assumption that she will be less committed to her job because she will have a new born child in her life.
Because of the nature of the maternal wall in employer-employee relationships, there is an overall negative effect of children on wages and thereafter, wage equality. When analyzing the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers in the daily workforce, there is an approximate 4% penalty for one child and a 12% penalty for two or more children (Waldfogel). All other variables such as education, work experience, and full-time versus part-time job status are kept constant. In direct correlation, by 1991, the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers exceeded the wage gap between women and men (Budig). The research done by Waldfogel and Budig suggests an overarching result: an outstanding two thirds of the motherhood penalty is due to the productivity and discrimination explained by the maternal wall. As a final result, the maternal wall may yield detrimental financial problems. Research suggests that "mothers are 35% more likely to lose their homes than childless homeowners ". Moreover, "mothers are 65% more likely to go bankrupt than child-less women " (Warren).
There are a few possible solutions to the maternal wall counter-argument which can discredit the sole argument towards wage inequality.
