Whilst it is admirable that gender equality is such an issue in Sweden, it often feels to me like things have been pushed too far in the opposite direction, to the detriment of women's choices rather than their advancement. Childcare provision is excellent and affordable, which gives women the ability to return to work after having children without too much difficulty - unlike in the UK where childcare is sometimes prohibitively expensive. However, instead of encouraging women to return to work if they wish, rather they are actively discouraged from staying at home to the point where it is almost socially unacceptable to do so. Frequently on official forms the only options are for working/studying/jobseeker/parental leave; there is no tick box that a full-time stay-at-home parent fits in. It may be that a mother staying at home to care for her children is a traditional gender stereotype, but that does not automatically make it wrong. And there is no reason why a man cannot be a stay at home parent either - if they decide that is how they wish to raise their children. But this choice has been virtually taken out of the equation, and that to me is not progress. Birgitta Ohlsson does not want women to be forced into staying at home, she apparently just wants them to be forced into employment instead so they can pay tax, regardless of their wishes.
The main issue of the article deals with compulsory maternity leave for the first 6 weeks after a baby is born. The maternity/paternity leave system here in Sweden is a vast improvement over that in the UK, with it being longer and also allowed to be shared between the parents as suits them, giving the fathers just as much opportunity to spend time with their child as the mother. But whatever you like to think, men do not actually suffer any physical side effects from the birth of a child, and the first few weeks are much less important for them than they are for the mother. Ohlsson has stated that she intends to return to work within a month of giving birth. When the time comes, if she feels like she can then that's great. Unfortunately right now she obviously has absolutely no idea of what is in store. Any new mother will tell you that the first few weeks are difficult. Your hormones are reeling, and unless you are very lucky, you will also most likely be suffering from sleep deprivation. And that's assuming that the birth itself is straightforward with no lasting physical effects, and not even taking breastfeeding and the possibility of PND into consideration.
I don't think the issue should be of the women who are going to 'suffer' from not being allowed to return to work in the first 6 weeks, rather it should be about the women who will be protected from being compelled perhaps by an uncaring employer or spouse to return to work immediately if they are not ready to. One situation will not likely cause harm, the other could prove to be extremely harmful. Whether 6 weeks is an appropriate length of time I don't know, but I believe there should definitely be a set period of 'compulsory' maternity leave for just these reasons. And let's not forget that this is not just an issue affecting Sweden, it is an EU law that is under discussion and not all other countries in the EU necessarily have such an 'enlightened' view on gender equality as Sweden.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that all women should stay at home with their children, rather that either parent should have the choice if the opportunity is there. Not everybody can afford to live on one salary, but people should not be stigmatised by the choices that they make. Isn't that what liberation is about? Giving people the freedom of choice.
All true. Great post. Except for one thing: "men do not actually suffer any physical side effects from the birth of a child" I disagree.
ReplyDeleteAs a father myself, and being there from conception til the birth, there are physical side effects in men, albeit less intrusive and more well hidden than those in women.
I am not trying to compare, women have it the worst, and I applaud every woman who even considers the equivalent of pushing a wet St. Bernard through a cat door. I can't do it. Not physically, mentally, or emotionally.
However, our part as a father is physical as well. Stress causes weight gain and loss, eating habits change, other habits change (smoking, drinking, etc) which cause reactions physically in our bodies. Sympathy pains are real and happen to about 90% of men. Most just don't realize what they are.
During and after the birth we go through the same ups and downs the mother does. Only ours is two-fold, stress over the new baby and the mother's (our wife, GF, whatever) well being, health, happiness, diet, etc.
Lack of sleep, added stress, and all the other factors the mother has (minus the actual birth, of course) are shared (or horded, even) by the fathers.
Whether a man chooses to share these stresses with his wife, Gf, whatever, is dependent upon the type of man he is. Personally I hide them all and deal with them until it is over. Other men sit there and "complain" right along with the mother.
As stated a man can't compare with a woman in terms of child birth. But I ask you one simple question to ponder over.
While a woman is going through the labor pains, and the actual delivery, the doctor pulls the man aside and asks: "It is your choice, of course we will try everything in our power, but if we can only save one of them, which will it be, the baby or the mother?"
Who, then, the mother or the father, has a tougher road to hoe?
Fair point and well made. But I stand by the fact that the mother needs the physical recuperation of being at home in the first few weeks more than the father.
ReplyDeleteI think it's neither a fair point nor well made, but fortunately this isn't my blog!
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I'm lucky that my mum was honest about what pregnancy and labour are actually like to live through. Maybe that's why I never had kids! Does raise a wry smirk from me, though, when I see first time mothers proudly declare how their birth is going to go and what they'll do afterwards.
Enforced maternity leave actually sounds like an excellent and healthy idea to me.
I completely disagree with the last comment: enforced maternity is not healthy at all... Are we still in a world where women's choices related to their own health have to be decided by others? Women and men should have the choice to deal with how they will cope with the newborn and how they feel, not being forced... I think that the article on The Local was completely right in itself and it's worth being spread even here in Québec. I'm really fed up of people trying to decide what's good for us, women...
ReplyDeleteSo it's fine to leave open the possibility of women being coerced into returning to work after giving birth before they are physically and emotionally ready? As I said, it's not necessarily about making choices for women, as much as protecting those who are not necessarily given the opportunity to make those choices.
ReplyDeletePresumably then, you also agree with the article that everyone should work, and women should not stay at home to raise their family?
Obviously you are approaching this from a completely different standpoint to me and we will have to agree to disagree.
"(to) have the choice if the opportunity is there." is not choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a womb needs time to heal, but compulsury anything, when it has to do with physical choice, is a harbinger of dooooom!
The UK already has (and has had for a long time) a 2 week 'compulsory' period of maternity leave following birth and I don't think you can pinpoint that as a significant contributor to any kind of doom.... I've never heard anyone complain about it either.
ReplyDeleteNot women anyway. My boss did moan about being forbidden to telephone me on any work related matters during that period though.