[ad_1]
Before the electoral movement, Christian Democrats raised an old stick: the quota stopped for parental insurance. Party leader Ebba Busch Thor criticized what she calls "the left" also among the Liberals. It is difficult to want to control the withdrawal of the parents' days, she believes, and wants to abolish the so-called daddy's months.
She is absolutely right. The opinion corridor, or rather the perspective of the liberal camp, is apparent in the field of parental insurance. The more one prefers the interference of the state, the more one is favorable to women and radical. This perception is typical of modern feminism. However, this is not synonymous with "good for women".
Those who want to split parental insurance and make it impossible to transfer days to the other partner have three main arguments.
The first is that maternity leave is a female trap – one, by the way, very depressing words. The starting point is that women have to make a decision that, by definition, is detrimental. In this case, there are lost opportunities to make a career.
The observation is certainly correct. Whoever is at home will probably not have the same chance of becoming a boss, a partner, a CEO or whatever the objective. The problem with the reasoning of the advocates of the quote is that everyone assumes the same goals with life: work and earn as much money as possible. But of course not. A liberal starting point should be that people decide what is the good life for them, even when the preferences are not typical.
Another common argument is that social insurance is the state's money and that the state is therefore entitled to parental leave should look like what people think them -Same. Even though the Riksdag can make decisions about parental insurance, that does not mean that less flexibility would be a good thing. If you do not consider the possibility of redistributing leave to your partner, those who do not want or can not adapt their lives according to the wishes of the state must pay twice: first by the Tax, then by their own pocket. Few liberal people would argue, for example, about the choice of school.
The third common reason for the quote is the strangest: we should all be "individuals" in the eyes of the state. It's wrong. Sambos have a duty to duty to one another, and the state recognizes collective things like business and leisure associations. In addition, one does not stop being willingly an individual in a group of other people. On the contrary, there are often other people who shape us as people. Whoever has chosen to have children with another person probably sees them together to form a family, not that they are two autonomous individuals who have a rational agreement between themselves and that their own parent does not have a family. does not have partner paternity to do.
Modern work life, where many people retrain, educate later in life, want to start their own business, or whatever, requires flexibility. Ebba Busch Thor is right that the paper months should be abolished
. This is an opinion published in Dagens Samhälle. The opinions expressed in the article are the author's.
[ad_2]
Source link
