By examining all speech in the 18th legislative period (2013–17) of the German Bundestag, including 6,598,831 words in 51,337 text segments, we compare women’s and men’s parliamentary speech. Our approach builds on the agnostic view on representation and follows a bottom-up approach, which avoids pre-set definitions of what is women’s or men’s language use. By analysing the frequencies of the most used words and keywords from semantic networks, we find four notable descriptive patterns. First, female members of parliament tended to talk more about stereotypical ‘feminine’ policy issues like, for instance, contraception. Second, female members of parliament put people more central in their language, while male members of parliament focused more on Germany as a country. Third, women focused more on procedures than men. Lastly, female members of parliament used a politer language style, for instance, by thanking others, more than male members of parliament.
Applying fixed-effects models using Waves 2 to 13 (2007–19) of the German Labour Market and Social Security panel study, we examine how unpaid caring changes labour supply and if monthly monetary transfers from the care recipient to the carer motivate a reduction in labour supply. We find that for both women and men, starting high-intensity caring increased the likelihood of becoming non-employed. Women were already likely to reduce working hours when starting non-intensive caring, whereas only intensive caring reduced working hours for men. Receiving low monetary transfers was a higher motivation to become non-employed for men, and receiving low monetary transfers only reduced working hours for women.