Why "Woman-Friendly Policies" Can Be a Feminist's False Friend

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.