Parental Leave and the Bias on Our Welfare System

As friends around me trickling into motherhood/fatherhood, the main topic of discussion continually arises; are you going to go back to work? How much time did you get off? How expensive is this all going to be?

The welfare of the system of any country can dictate how much support is given to either parent when having a child. Unfortunately, this could be an indicator when examining societal norms. Specifically focused on how much time is allocated to each parent, understandably the mother that gives birth to the child would need time to heal and rest, however, what of the father? A male friend that had their second child during COVID-19 mentioned how much they initially missed during the formative months of their first child. Is this the time to question our structure once again? Could the current structure fuel the continued biases growing up?

Interestingly, Sweden and many Nordic states have structured a far more flexible approach to parental leave. Providing 480 days/16 months to be split between the parents has provided insight into the desires of the individual. Not restricting any person to a role given to them by society with limited support in any way. The birthing parent could prefer to go back to work, whilst the other parent may want to spend more time with their child. The concept we all understand is that is it unique to every couple, and as a person, I cannot judge, so why should a state dictate? Do fathers or non-birthing parents must resign to the fact they may miss significant parts of the child’s development, only really seeing them on the weekends when they get more time.

Parental leave does not just focus on after the child is born. Sweden offers 210 days a year for compensation from the state if the child is sick, meaning the parent can take up to 210 days off when the child is between 8 months old up until the day before the child turns 12. Institute of Fiscal Studies found within the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 55% of mothers in the UK resigned from their jobs, due to childcare needs and work constraints. With the mothers that have continued to work in this time, have slowly trickled to resignation. Childcare versus government rulings with burst bubbles, meant mothers have been taking on the mental burden and strain of continued changes. Research conducted by TUC had over 50,000 responses to a survey distributed in January 2021 to working mums. The findings showed 70% of working mothers requested for furlough, 90% have experienced higher levels of mental strain, leading to stress and anxiety. With 7% of mothers opting into unpaid leave to manage. Research by Pregnant Then Screwed in July 2020 found that 80% of mothers needed childcare to be able to complete their daily work activities, yet half claimed they did not have this luxury during the pandemic.

So where are the fathers in all of this? In 2019, Office of National Statistics found that only 1.2% of all fathers are a ‘stay-at-home dad’. Whilst I am not advocating for any parent to be a complete stay at home parent, it is good to dissect why such a small amount of the UK population are opting in.

During the pandemic, like any other person, I binged some shows. One, which I did enjoy, was Motherland. This show which was released on BBC focused on the day-to-day life of current parents in London. This humorous display showed a spectrum of mothers, some working, some not. Like any show, it came with some humorous dramas with some sarcasm.  The only stay at home father, which statistically was accurate, to be one out of many mothers cast, was one called Kevin. The way Kevin or “Kev” was created, showed a moany, ‘weak’ display of what a man would be depicted by. Whilst understandably this is not the fault of the actor, which was brilliantly played, but the writing of such a character. Television, programmes, shows or film have limited display of empowered strong stay at home fathers, or even showing fathers that care or are included in the child’s life. This bias could lead to other people confirming their own biases or witnessing a character written, such as “Kev” proving they are not a desirable man. We must be aware of what we show the world, and it is the responsibility of every platform of influence to not allow these biases to be shown. Understanding that this is a soft funny show, it still can have a massive impact. The systemic bias of what a woman or man should do is displayed at every point of any society, and we are responsible for creating our culture, as well as encouraging a different image. The more aware we are of our impact on the world, and how people see us, even if this means a comedy, means ideas can progress a lot quicker than they currently are. This change in speeding up progressive thought that therefore encourage government initiatives or policy to change to benefit everyone in society. The pandemic has already push back gender equality by decades due to the poor structuring of governance, we need to be mindful with what we do, and the subtle messages we push out to not create any further unconscious bias.