The term
"woman-friendly policy” was introduced by the academic Helga M. Hernes to
describe state-led welfare initiatives that enable women's self-development,
such as labour market participation, without needing women to sacrifice
familial responsibilities. We now know some of them to be maternity leave,
parental leave, and flexible working hours. In fact, the "woman-friendly
policies" do seem amiable with feminists: they facilitate women's economic
independence, their presence in the public sphere and gender equality. Or do
they? I argue that "woman-friendly policies", unlike what their name
suggests, are discretely hampering the progress of women and Feminism; it's
high time that the false friendship is exposed.
To begin with,
their efforts to promote gender equality appear merely sluggish. Undoubtedly,
provisions like rights to re-join
employment after maternity leave permit women to reconcile long-term
professions with family commitments and enjoy career progression alongside
their male counterparts. By doing both breadwinning and care-giving, women
become the multi-tasking, all-enduring heroines; they set an example to men who
are traditionally only assigned the former task. Yet, such gaps in one's career
could mean they take longer to gain sufficient expertise for the elite jobs
which, in this rapidly-developing age, could leave them behind others, and
hence, make them vulnerable to discrimination from employers on these grounds. Although
unpredicted circumstances can hinder employees of any gender, it should be
noted that women have the additional challenge of disproving negative
preconceptions about their capacities. If anything, calling these
family-orientated benefits "woman-friendly" seems to prolong the
stereotype of females as being the major care-givers in the home. Meanwhile,
embellishing public sector jobs with accommodating benefits could, as authors
have observed in the Swedish welfare state, lead to women preferring them and
leaving the perhaps better-paid private sector jobs to men. Where is the gender
equality?
Through focusing
on women's roles in the public sphere, the "woman-friendly policies"
risk diverting attention from other equally-important feminist concerns in the
private sphere. As mentioned above, they barely endeavour to correct
preconceptions about women: our screens and pages are cheerful with feisty,
working women but the free choice has still not earned them security, what with
domestic violence and similar forms of oppression. Though women in employment
may have uprooted some stereotypes, the more tenacious ones cannot be
eradicated without establishing equality behind closed doors, such as with
fairly-divided domestic labour. Therefore, whilst "woman-friendly
policies" may give many feminists the impression that the battle has been
won, a battle, on a less conspicuous front, is still raging on that Feminism
must address.
Finally, let's
not forget that any attempt to be "woman-friendly" is labelling all
women with the same interests despite social and cultural differences. Rather
than recognising them as individuals, we are made to think of women as
occupying one camp against men. Just like men, working class women may have
some different needs to upper class women; female immigrants may seek some different
opportunities to female citizens. Feminism then, if supporting these policies,
may overlook the values of certain women in society, and hence, deny them the
representation they deserve.
As some writers
note, "woman-friendly policies" aid the economy and lower the average
age of the active population through introducing more workers, as well as permitting
the work-family balance necessary for a higher fertility rate. However, I argue
that all these benefits to the state could be at the expense of women and
Feminism. This post may not offer solutions but I suggest that, at a time when
Feminism is doing
some
soul-searching, it is worth differentiating between its friends and false
friends.
