I think it is sad to see that almost no video on this topic brings up blocking mothers. I have talked to so many mothers that have not allowed the father to take more of the days. You might ask during a coffee break at work. So how are you splitting the parental leave. They say well he will have 90 days and I will have the rest. I would ask how come, does he not want more? And they will answer that I have a motherly connection to the kid, and I have the "right" to have most days. I don't believe that the father will do a good job or some other misogynic reason. I think this reason is at least as large if not larger than money and the fathers drive for a career. It is sad to see.
One triggered gender essentialist/anti Sweden/anti feminist by Sweden's progressive paternal leave. While there is work to be done & Sweden's model isn't perfect, it's still by far the best system here. Yes, traditional gender roles to some extent are in play in Sweden. But, they're far lower in comparison to other nations & it's not due to it being natural like biological determinists believe. It's not enough for people to state "b/c girls don't want to," it's much more nuanced than that.
Sweden's system is undeniably the best and fairest, but families should be allowed to exercise their own free will. The use it or lose it proposal for men is ridiculous. Of course, it could also be the other way around. Denying there isn't a biological difference between men and women is to deny a vast amount of evidence. Those differences should be celebrated, not crushed. Equality of opportunity is how it should be.
@@travellingtom6091, nobody is denying that men & women have differences but to a.) enforce traditional gender roles & b.) state that men & women are psychologically different when it's a rather pseudoscientific proposal similar to scientific racism to justify traditional gender roles.
@@Lionfish5656 I certainly didn't suggest we should be enforcing gender roles. Men and women should have free choice, and if that does not lead to equality of outcome, then it shouldn't be forced. You have said yourself that males and females show differences, so how can you expect the same output? Given you seem to think gender roles are enforced, maybe you could explain why there is not correlation between how egalitarian a country is and equality of outcome. I'd also be interested in how you are measuring equality.
@@travellingtom6091 Not getting all the available funds is not the same as taking away free choice. Choice is one thing, benefits are another. Benefits can be used to make one choice more worth it, e.g. when fighting status quoue, but you can still choose to not take the funds if it does not suit your living style. The looked 90 days can be seen as an equality fund or insurance of the kids right to connect to both parents rather than the parents right to get the most money.
I think it is sad to see that almost no video on this topic brings up blocking mothers. I have talked to so many mothers that have not allowed the father to take more of the days. You might ask during a coffee break at work. So how are you splitting the parental leave. They say well he will have 90 days and I will have the rest. I would ask how come, does he not want more? And they will answer that I have a motherly connection to the kid, and I have the "right" to have most days. I don't believe that the father will do a good job or some other misogynic reason. I think this reason is at least as large if not larger than money and the fathers drive for a career. It is sad to see.
One triggered gender essentialist/anti Sweden/anti feminist by Sweden's progressive paternal leave. While there is work to be done & Sweden's model isn't perfect, it's still by far the best system here. Yes, traditional gender roles to some extent are in play in Sweden. But, they're far lower in comparison to other nations & it's not due to it being natural like biological determinists believe. It's not enough for people to state "b/c girls don't want to," it's much more nuanced than that.
Sweden's system is undeniably the best and fairest, but families should be allowed to exercise their own free will. The use it or lose it proposal for men is ridiculous. Of course, it could also be the other way around.
Denying there isn't a biological difference between men and women is to deny a vast amount of evidence. Those differences should be celebrated, not crushed. Equality of opportunity is how it should be.
@@travellingtom6091, nobody is denying that men & women have differences but to a.) enforce traditional gender roles & b.) state that men & women are psychologically different when it's a rather pseudoscientific proposal similar to scientific racism to justify traditional gender roles.
@@Lionfish5656 I certainly didn't suggest we should be enforcing gender roles. Men and women should have free choice, and if that does not lead to equality of outcome, then it shouldn't be forced.
You have said yourself that males and females show differences, so how can you expect the same output?
Given you seem to think gender roles are enforced, maybe you could explain why there is not correlation between how egalitarian a country is and equality of outcome.
I'd also be interested in how you are measuring equality.
@@travellingtom6091 Not getting all the available funds is not the same as taking away free choice. Choice is one thing, benefits are another. Benefits can be used to make one choice more worth it, e.g. when fighting status quoue, but you can still choose to not take the funds if it does not suit your living style. The looked 90 days can be seen as an equality fund or insurance of the kids right to connect to both parents rather than the parents right to get the most money.