The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.

Nevyn

http://www.slate.com/id/2265563

Snack Bags and a Regular Paycheck: The Happy Life of a Swedish DadThe bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.
By Nathan HegedusPosted Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010, at 10:20 AM ET

Swedish dad. Click image to expand.The author with his daughterFor nearly 18 months, I woke up at 4 a.m. with my all-too-alert toddler son. Three hours later, when my Swedish wife left for the day, I would set out a second breakfast and then dress the boy and his 4-year-old sister and walk them to her state-subsidized preschool. Then my boy and I would go build sand castles in one of five nearby neighborhood parks. I packed snack bags, changed diapers, and pretended to be a grumpy old troll. I sang "Itsy Bitsy Spider" more times than I want to think about.

I am not unemployed, and I am not a stay-at-home dad. I've got a "real" job; I just haven't gone to the office since last December. In total, I've spent 18 of the past 36 months on paternity leave here in Sweden, my adopted country, "off" work to care for my two kids. And, yes, I still get paid.

Over the past 15 years, the streets of Stockholm have filled up with men pushing strollers. In 1995, dads took only 6 percent of Sweden's allotted 480 days of parental leave per child. Then the Swedish government set aside 30 leave days for fathers only. In 2002 the state doubled the "daddy only" days to 60 and later added an "equality bonus" for couples that split their leave. Now more than 80 percent of fathers take some leave, adding up to almost a quarter of all leave days. So in the middle of, say, a Monday afternoon in March, the daddies and their strollers come at you both singly and in waves, the men usually either striding fast and stone-faced or pushing the stroller nonchalantly with one hand, cell phone glued to their ear.

In my part of greater Stockholm, these dads are often on their way to the open preschools, especially through the dreary Swedish winter. These are municipal-run play-places, complete with cheap coffee, helpful teachers, and lots of balls and blocks. On some days, the open preschools are crammed with groups of too-cool dudes lounging on the floor in trucker hats, designer T-shirts, and capri-length pants. Then there are the mousey guys alone in the corner—the equivalent of shy moms, I suppose—and usually a tattooed man or two in the kitchen smushing a bit of banana onto a spoon for his baby.

But here is the funny part: The dads act exactly like the moms. They talk about poop, whether their babies sleep, how tired they are, when their kid started crawling or walking or throwing a ball or whatever.

"So how old is your child?"

"Nine months. She just started crawling yesterday."

"Yes, Oscar started at eight months. But now he is not sleeping well. His teeth are coming in. Oscar, you have to share that toy. Oscar, I said give the toy back."

"How long are you going to be on paternity leave?"

"Three more months. Isn't open preschool great? Now, Oscar …"

No sports. No politics. No cars. And no questions about your job. Think about that. When in America—outside of maybe a sports bar during a really huge game—will any group of men gather and never ask the question, "So, what do you do?"

I had expected great physical comedy in Daddyland—fathers covered with diaper leakage, babies covered with motor oil, men forcing resentful toddlers into soccer matches. I realize now how insensitive to my Swedish brothers this was. Swedish dads of my generation and younger have been raised to feel competent at child-rearing. They simply expect to do it, just as their wives and partners expect it of them (even though women still do far more child-related work in general). It's eye-opening in a really boring way.

The working world has adjusted accordingly. Most companies seem to fill parental-leave vacancies with short-term contracts, and these seem to function as good tryouts for permanent employment. It all feels pretty organic in a globalized world of flat organizations and gender equality, of employees who are not locked into one assignment or skill set.

But there are deeper societal processes at work here, a shift of the very notion of Swedish masculinity. In a 2008 article in the journal Fathering, Anna-Lena Almqvist wrote that Swedish men have developed a "child-oriented masculinity." Almqvist compared the attitudes of a selection of Swedish fathers with their French counterparts and found that, among couples with similar incomes, Swedish men emphasized the importance of parental leave and helping to raise their children. They also negotiated explicitly with their partners on child care issues. The French men did neither of these things.

This means that, according to Almqvist, the rise in Swedish paternity leave can be seen as a "modest change" to Sweden's "hegemonic masculinity," which is an overarching masculine ideal that most men once aspired to—think physical prowess, the big job, and lots of women. What this ideal has not traditionally encompassed is the concept of the nurturing, involved father. Or much flexibility for the role of women. But also think of the way women fit into this system. "In hegemonic masculinity, fathers do not have the capacity or the skill or the need to care for children, especially for babies and infants, while the relationship between female parents and young children is seen as crucial," wrote Mike Donaldson of the University of Wollongong in Australia in a 1993 article in Theory and Society. "Nurturant and care-giving behaviour is simply not manly." This kind of attitude seems to be melting away in Sweden 2010.


If you had asked me in, say, 2001, if I would ever take a long paternity leave, I would have answered, "Yeah, sure," because I was a liberal guy—but then ignored my own answer because I was also an ambitious, career-driven type. Then I married a Swede, and we moved to a small town outside New York City that was close to no family or friends. Out of necessity, and my wife's Swedish expectations, I got deeply involved in our upcoming baby's life, though probably still no more than many American dads-to-be. We had a rough ride. My wife had bad doctors and a bad back, and we lived in a house covered with lead paint and infested with bats, rats, and bedbugs. It all began to seem overwhelming. In the end, almost more than my wife, I pushed for the move to Sweden, to the promise of parental leave, shorter work days, five weeks of vacation, and unlimited paid sick days if your kid falls ill.

Still, the prospect of telling my boss I wanted to take paternity leave paralyzed me for weeks. Surely I would get fired for taking six months off. Or I would return to a job cleaning the bathrooms with pencil erasers. I think I chickened out completely and just sent an e-mail. But my supervisors took my leave as a matter of course. I have small children; hence, I was likely to take paternity leave of some sort.

Even deep into my leave, I am not always so confident in my "child-oriented masculinity." When I talk about my leave with non-Swedes, I often play up the midday naps and the freedom to blog. I don't really let on that I sometimes sit on the kitchen floor near tears feeding melting frozen blueberries to a grumpy baby—and ruining his clothes—in a last-ditch effort to get him to stop crying.

But that doesn't mean I consider myself a visitor to some mysterious feminine domain. My first rush of empowerment came on my very first day of my leave. We all got up, ate breakfast and my wife left for her first day of work. Then I sat there facing a 10-hour day alone in a still foreign country with my then-19-month-old daughter. And I felt, well, normal. It was almost a letdown.

But I truly owned my masculine parenting skills only after I had mastered the snack bag. Before my paternity leave, I had fed, co-slept, and worn slings, but never packed the snack bag. It turns out, though, that I have a knack for it. The bag might be a jumble. There might be crumbs littered on the bottom. But I can always pull out just the right snack to keep a kid's blood sugar up—whether it's hummus, an apple, or sunflower seeds. And I'm not ashamed to brag about it.

In fact, I have come to the conclusion that there is not enough macho bragging done by moms and dads alike. Now when I want to impress, I hold forth about pushing a three-wheeled stroller through a slushy snowstorm with one arm, with a screaming baby in the other arm and a crying toddler trying to climb out of the stroller. In fact, I now challenge all comers in the ultimate tests of parenting skill—the cross-town two-child bus trip after an all-day outing, the negotiations with a tired toddler who does not want to wear shoes in a snowstorm, and the race to soothe a crying baby to sleep in a crowded mall before the drowsiness disappears.

But it is precisely those moments that make my paternity leave so meaningful. Or, more precisely, it is the accumulation of those moments. This seems obvious when I type it—and it must be obvious to most mothers—but the chance to build that bond with my children is revolutionary to me as a working dad. I can't quantify how I am closer to my children—and I would never claim that I'm closer to my kids than men who work. But there is a different quality to it—a nurturing one, perhaps. I can feel it when my son gets shy in public, and he climbs in my arms and molds his body around mine. And I can really feel it now that I have to send him to daycare.

Daddyland is not forever, and I must now return to the office just like so many American moms do. The thought of leaving my baby at daycare is sapping my spirit, even as I happily anticipate the challenges of my new position at work. I find myself thinking exactly what the moms think: My 18 months in Daddyland have simply not been all that long. Hopefully, this time will echo through my kids' childhoods, as studies show that dads that take paternity leave stay more connected to their children. And I am not going to work full time, in order to cut the kids' daycare time short. But right now I can only mourn the last days of naps and sandboxes, of crying over chewed crayons and bouncing to the Delta blues—and thank the Swedish welfare state for this chance to visit Daddyland.

It certainly seems like a dream, wonder how long before we have equal leave for parents here, 20, 30 years?

Das Kitty

My lucky friend has moved over there with her Swedish fiancé. It sounds like a dream come true for parents and children.

stovelid

Thaedydal wrote: »

It certainly seems like a dream, wonder how long before we have equal leave for parents here, 200, 300 years?

....

professore

We prefer the American system of failing to plan properly and then expecting employees to work 80 hour weeks to make up for it.

January

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://www.slate.com/id/2265563



It certainly seems like a dream, wonder how long before we have equal leave for parents here, 20, 30 years?

If we're lucky, to be honest I don't think I'll see it in my life time anyway!

Kimono-Girl

adrieanne__x wrote: »

If we're lucky, to be honest I don't think I'll see it in my life time anyway!

unfortunately i have to agree with you i know Emma's daddy would have LOVED to be paid to stay home with her, as it is he only manages 2 hours in the evening and weekends and like he says himself sometimes feels like a part time parent.

It's ridiculous Ireland is so busy 'modernising' in other area's and Parents and daddies esp are being ignored constantly! :mad:

Sleepy

I actually can't bring myself to read the article. It'll just get my blood boiling that I'm treated as a second class parent.

stereo_steve

Nothing is free Guys. The Swedes pay a humongous amount of tax. We don't. Either we pay more tax and have a society like that or remain as we are.

Personally I am happy with the curernt situation! Less Government involvement is always better.

loyatemu

stereo_steve wrote: »

Nothing is free Guys. The Swedes pay a humongous amount of tax.

also this sort of thing would also represent a major transfer of wealth from childless taxpayers to parents. I am a parent and I think there are undoubtedly benefits to society from subsidising parents to a certain extent, but there are limits. I'd be happy to see 2/3 weeks paid paternity leave and the option of transferring some of the maternity leave to the father... not likely to happen in bankrupt Ireland though.

stovelid

loyatemu wrote: »

also this sort of thing would also represent a major transfer of wealth from childless taxpayers to parents. .

If you took this approach to taxation across the board, you may as well object to your tax being used for anything that doesn't directly benefit you?

As for tax levels, I'd gladly pay high taxes if I thought we would get genuinely good services. including paternity leave.

Squiggler

loyatemu wrote: »

also this sort of thing would also represent a major transfer of wealth from childless taxpayers to parents.

Who's children are going to be necessary if the childless are to get their pension, free travel, medical card etc in old age - all the more important to them since they have no children to help them out in their old age

The Highwayman

Squiggler wrote: »

Who's children are going to be necessary if the childless are to get their pension, free travel, medical card etc in old age - all the more important to them since they have no children to help them out in their old age

I have private health insuanance pay all my taxes so by the time I get to 67-68-69-70 or whatever age I get my penson and bus pass I will have well payed for it.


I choose not to have children because I love my life and the lifestyle that affords. You have made the choice to have kids good for you. You want me to pay for a 18 month holiday as you bond with your child on top of the tax breaks and childrens allowence you already get?

If you cant afford to give up your job and be a stay at home parent dont moan about not not seeing your child this is because of the choices you made in life.

We all make choices in life, kids, houses, cars, holidays, clothing and lifestyle. All these things have to be payed for. You expect the tax payer to fund your life because you want it all but cant afford it?

I'd love an Aston Martin DB9 would you pay more tax for me to have one?

mariaf24

18 months? :eek: My OH and I would go mad, I'd prefer him to be back at work 3-4 weeks after a baby is born! And we are a very happy couple but my god 18 months? :eek:

stovelid

The Highwayman wrote: »

I have private health insuanance pay all my taxes so by the time I get to 67-68-69-70 or whatever age I get my penson and bus pass I will have well payed for it.


I choose not to have children because I love my life and the lifestyle that affords. You have made the choice to have kids good for you. You want me to pay for a 18 month holiday as you bond with your child on top of the tax breaks and childrens allowence you already get?

If you cant afford to give up your job and be a stay at home parent dont moan about not not seeing your child this is because of the choices you made in life.

We all make choices in life, kids, houses, cars, holidays, clothing and lifestyle. All these things have to be payed for. You expect the tax payer to fund your life because you want it all but cant afford it?

I'd love an Aston Martin DB9 would you pay more tax for me to have one?

If only we could all divert our taxes away from things that don't directly benefit us or that we don;t agree with.

Income tax isn't a benevolent donation to society with a personal wish-list attached.

Congratulations on having health insurance and paying your taxes. Me too. Do you want a pat on the back for that or something?

Nevyn

Please note civil posting is expecting in this forum.

The Highwayman

stovelid wrote: »

If only we could all divert our taxes away from things that don't directly benefit us or that we don;t agree with.


You made the same point already. Please read my post again it was in response to squiggler and the fact that I will have made my contrabutions I feel I would have paid for my penson, bus pass, medical card etc

Congratulations on having health insurance and paying your taxes. Me too. Do you want a pat on the back for that or something?

Sure why not, can you ruffle my hair as well?


Sweden has paternity leave good for them. In Saudi Arabia the can stone you to death for adultery, in China the death penalty for many less serious crimes should we introduce these as well?

Or do you only get outraged by not having the things that other countries have that make just your life better...... like.... like if you could decide where tax monies are spent? Hmmmm bit ironic that

Humans have being having children for hundreds of thousands of years, I wonder how many hunter gatherers took 18 month off to be a daddy?

Nevyn

We are far away from 18 months but as it is were is no statutory paternity leave, what so ever. Even 1 week would be a good start, 1 month would be even better or even 6 weeks which is the minimum amount of time before the mother has her post natal health check up.

Squiggler

The Highwayman wrote: »

I have private health insuanance pay all my taxes so by the time I get to 67-68-69-70 or whatever age I get my penson and bus pass I will have well payed for it.


I choose not to have children because I love my life and the lifestyle that affords. You have made the choice to have kids good for you. You want me to pay for a 18 month holiday as you bond with your child on top of the tax breaks and childrens allowence you already get?

If you cant afford to give up your job and be a stay at home parent dont moan about not not seeing your child this is because of the choices you made in life.

We all make choices in life, kids, houses, cars, holidays, clothing and lifestyle. All these things have to be payed for. You expect the tax payer to fund your life because you want it all but cant afford it?

I'd love an Aston Martin DB9 would you pay more tax for me to have one?

Actually, your taxes are barely paying for your parents' and grandparents' benefits and care. If people don't have children, and/or those children they do have don't work and pay their taxes, benefits and care will have to be cut (further) by the time we retire. That was the point I was trying to make.

It would be lovely to think that the taxes we pay will be there for us when we retire, but sadly they're not even paying our national debt.

I wasn't being personal so I don't know why you have to. 18 months combined maternity/paternity would be wonderful. Even a year would be great. The more time children spend with both parents in their early years the more balanced they are as adults and the more they are able to contribute (positively) to society and their community, that can only be a good thing.

jaykay74

stereo_steve wrote: »

Nothing is free Guys. The Swedes pay a humongous amount of tax. We don't. Either we pay more tax and have a society like that or remain as we are.

Not true. I paid almost as much tax in Ireland as I do now in Sweden. I pay roughly 1/3 of my salary in tax now in Sweden. Just checked my last payslip before I left Ireland and paid 29% of my salary in tax/prsi.

People choose to believe that the Swedes pay 50% or more in taxes. They don't unless they are extremely high earners. I am in the middle income bracket or perhaps slightly higher.

On the flipside the benefits here are amazing re childcare/healthcare etc

iguana

The Highwayman wrote: »

I have private health insuanance pay all my taxes so by the time I get to 67-68-69-70 or whatever age I get my penson and bus pass I will have well payed for it.

But who do you think will provide healthcare, drive your bus, grow, process and sell you food, manufacture and sell you clothing and detergents, collect your rubbish, produce and maintain your electricity and fuel needs if people don't have children now? Take a read of Children of Men for an idea of what would happen in childless society. It mightn't be the nicest way to think of it but in raw terms a ceaseless supply of new humans are a vital resource.

It's your right to choose not to have children but the fact is if you don't have them you need other people to. People who do have children provide a vital service to those who don't. It's only fair that the childless help support parents as they will rely on those children at a later point.

The Highwayman

iguana wrote: »

But who do you think will provide healthcare, drive your bus, grow, process and sell you food, manufacture and sell you clothing and detergents, collect your rubbish, produce and maintain your electricity and fuel needs if people don't have children now? Take a read of Children of Men for an idea of what would happen in childless society. It mightn't be the nicest way to think of it but in raw terms a ceaseless supply of new humans are a vital resource.

It's your right to choose not to have children but the fact is if you don't have them you need other people to. People who do have children provide a vital service to those who don't. It's only fair that the childless help support parents as they will rely on those children at a later point.

Healthcare like today south east asia and the middle east
Bus drivers like today people from eastern europe
Grow and process food as most of our food stuffs come from south america, the middle east and africa I think thats covered
Do you see where this is going?

There are 7 billion people on the planet now that is going to grow and grow, some forcasts say 20 billion by 2125. Look if you want to have kids fine have as many as you want AND CAN AFFORD thats all I'm saying. I think there is more than enough benefits for having children and a 18 month holiday is just a joke.

The Highwayman

Squiggler wrote: »

The more time children spend with both parents a parent in their early years the more balanced they are as adults and the more they are able to contribute (positively) to society and their community, that can only be a good thing.

I agree with you there.

I dont understand why both parents work to keep the kids in day care I think that is very wrong and one of the reasons myself and my girlfriend have decided not to have any.

But i dont see it as society job to give you 18 months off to bond with your kid and pay for it.

Nevyn

ok The Highwayman you have made your point and you have made you life choices according to what you think, other people have made thiers and choose to have kids.

This forum is a supportive place for parents, if you want a heated discussion on this then
I suggest you try humanities.

iguana

The Highwayman wrote: »

Healthcare like today south east asia and the middle east
Bus drivers like today people from eastern europe
Grow and process food as most of our food stuffs come from south america, the middle east and africa I think thats covered
Do you see where this is going?

I see that you are relying on other people's children and think that's ok because they are foreign. And are trying to pretend it's actually altruistic when in reality it's because you perceive it as "free."

When I have children I won't be getting maternity leave as I'm self-employed, and my husband's a contract worker so even if there was paternity leave we wouldn't be getting it. I don't like most state school systems so am saving a fund for my future children to have Montessori schooling from 3-12, which at present gets no state funding in this country. We pay tax in the higher bracket and are likely to be hiring people over the next few years which will contribute more to the economy again.

But just because something doesn't benefit me doesn't mean I resent paying for it. State supported paternity leave would be a huge boon to parents and more importantly their children. Even if mothers were allowed to allocate a number of days currently available as maternity leave to their partners it would make a huge difference and cost the tax-payer nothing extra.

Noffles

In this Catholic run country the amount of pregnancies that are gone through, be them intentional or accidental, you would never have enough men in work... they would all be off on their 18 month "bonding"... Which is ridiculous BTW... never heard anything like it... men work and bring home the money... as they have been hunter gatherers for hundreds of years.

iguana

Noffles wrote: »

as they have been hunter gatherers for hundreds of years.

You don't know much about much anthropology do you? Most humans haven't been hunter-gatherers for 1000s of years. And both males and females were responsible for hunting and gathering. Usually males hunted while females gathered. The fact that our ancestors did both is a very important factor as to why they survived while the other species of the homo genus did not. The fact that both genders contributed differently to "working and bringing home the money*" is partly why we exist today.

*Figurative money, obviously.

Noffles

iguana wrote: »

You don't know much about much anthropology do you? Most humans haven't been hunter-gatherers for 1000s of years. And both males and females were responsible for hunting and gathering. Usually males hunted while females gathered. The fact that our ancestors did both is a very important factor as to why they survived while the other species of the homo genus did not. The fact that both genders contributed differently to "working and bringing home the money*" is partly why we exist today.

*Figurative money, obviously.

Never said I did, 100's or 1000's... makes no difference, the male didn't stop doing anything for 18 months I'm sure...

iguana

Noffles wrote: »

Never said I did, 100's or 1000's... makes no difference, the male didn't stop doing anything for 18 months I'm sure...

I said they "haven't" been not "have" been. It's been 1000s of years since the majority of humans lived in hunter gatherer societies, not what we've been doing for 1000s. Our societal structure is much more complicated than it was and it becomes progressively more complicated. Human babies are born before they are fully developed because our development is at a point where we would kill our mothers were we to be born when we are slightly more capable.

Because of this we need very intensive rearing in our early life. And in the last few 100 years and especially the last few decades the amount we need to learn to fit into our extremely complicated society has grown exponentially. Males who take 18 months paternity leave don't stop doing anything for that time. They do an extremely tough and important job, preparing their young to live in the world and to contribute to it. If the parents don't do it other people have to be hired to do it. Proving that it is actually a job and not sitting and scratching in front of the tv.

Noffles

iguana wrote: »

I said they "haven't" been not "have" been. It's been 1000s of years since the majority of humans lived in hunter gatherer societies, not what we've been doing for 1000s. Our societal structure is much more complicated than it was and it becomes progressively more complicated. Human babies are born before they are fully developed because our development is at a point where we would kill our mothers were we to be born when we are slightly more capable.

Because of this we need very intensive rearing in our early life. And in the last few 100 years and especially the last few decades the amount we need to learn to fit into our extremely complicated society has grown exponentially. Males who take 18 months paternity leave don't stop doing anything for that time. They do an extremely tough and important job, preparing their young to live in the world and to contribute to it. If the parents don't do it other people have to be hired to do it. Proving that it is actually a job and not sitting and scratching in front of the tv.

PC ****.. **** sake lets start being men again for **** sake....

Khannie

Take it easy there noffles.

Cavehill Red

The Highwayman wrote: »

I'd love an Aston Martin DB9 would you pay more tax for me to have one?

Will your Aston Martin be working in 30 or 40 years time, paying taxes to fund state pensions?