https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/30/women-childcare-liz-truss
"E poiché il governo sembra privilegiare gli esempi europei, diamone alcuni. In Finlandia e Norvegia i genitori hanno diritto a un sussidio universale in denaro per l’assistenza se si prendono cura dei bambini piccoli a casa invece di utilizzare asili nido finanziati con fondi pubblici. In Norvegia, il 68% dei genitori con bambini sotto i tre anni ha accolto con favore questa libertà di scelta anche quando non si sono impegnati. In Finlandia, oltre il 50% delle madri con figli sotto i tre anni fanno richiesta per il beneficio."
Quindi, per il contesto: l’autrice Selma James è una sostenitrice "Salari per lavori domestici" in cui le donne vengono compensate per il lavoro domestico in una relazione. Sostiene che questo è preferibile all’asilo nido e ciò ridurrebbe lo squilibrio di potere tra l’uomo e la donna in una relazione. Tuttavia non cita le statistiche che menziona.
Tuttavia, uno studio che ho trovato chiamato: "Ascesa e calo dei contanti per l’assistenza in Norvegia: cambiamenti nell’uso delle politiche di assistenza all’infanzia" sostiene che questo rafforza i ruoli di genere e viene utilizzato principalmente dalle donne nonostante l’intenzione neutrale rispetto al genere.
https://www.scup.com/doi/10.7577/njsr.2065
Allora qual è la verità? Questo schema è ancora utilizzato?
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1rotaxf
di confusionandconflict
4 commenti
This is sort of correct. You can choose to receive money instead of using subsidized child care. However, this is not common and is only by approximately 12% and has been decreasing substantially.
There is such a scheme called “kontantstøtte” [https://www.nav.no/kontantstotte](https://www.nav.no/kontantstotte)
It seems to be limited to children between 13 and 19 months,
They have changed it several times, and it seems to have been much more favourable previously.
> So for context: the author Selma James is an advocate for “Wages For Housework” in which women are compensated for domestic labour in a relationship. She argues this is preferable to daycare, and this would lessen the power imbalance between the man and the woman in a relationship. She doesn’t cite the statistics she mentions though.
> However, a study I found called: “The rise and fall of cash for care in Norway: changes in the use of child-care policies” claims this reinforces gender roles and is used by women mostly despite the gender neutral intention.
Yes, terms of the debate in Norway, the provision of cash support is criticised on the grounds that encouraging women to be out of employment for longer periods exacerbates gender inequality (and presumably power imbalances in relationships). As you write, while the policy is in theory gender neutral in practice it’s very rarely used by men. The cash support tends to be advocated by conservative and Christian parties.
There is though wider support now for it to be used as a bridging benefit if the parents have to wait long periods for a kindergarten place to be available.
This anachronistic family scenario, the man as the breadwinner and the woman at home, is very outdated in both Norway and Finland.
All tasks are shared equally, shopping, cleaning, cooking, by two parents who both work.
It has to be this way, because a single income is no longer sufficient. Both have to bring home money.
The anachronistic family was brought back by two groups:
1. Norwegian Christian traditionalists who want to turn back time.
2. A large number of MENA immigrants who start out with a lot of help from the state, and also manage a more frugal lifestyle.