I planned to return to work after my 16 weeks of maternity leave were up. For reasons related to my mother's schedule (she is the designated babysitter when I go back), I returned after 14 weeks and plan to take the remainder at the end of the month. My first week back at work filled me with mixed feelings.
I suppose thousands have written about how leaving their baby to return to work completely messed with their maternal instincts, leaving them feeling guilty and stressed, being torn between twin and clashing obligations. I totally get that. After all, women have only 24 hours to their day to use, just like men do. It's not like we can go to amazon and order an upgrade on our productivity capacity, although I can think of quite a few men (and even women with no children) who could use this.
So here I am, back at the grind, missing my kid, trying not to feel lousy that my boobs have all but shut down milk production and returned their original size (much to my delight since now I don't have to buy new bras plus I'm sure Daniel means it when he says he doesn't mind). I haven't had much trouble keeping to the original work schedule I'd kept before going on leave, i.e. I don't arrive at work any later than before and neither do I leave any earlier. I'm lucky that I do not have to compromise on my own productivity or committment to my work, simply because I trust the person bringing up my child while I work.
Now I must say I enjoy my work a lot more than I can say for other people, and for now at least, I'm not one of those mothers who think of nothing else but going home to be with their babies. Of course I was peeved I didn't get to see the first time Ju started grabbing his toes or that whenever he sees me at the end of the work day, the object of his interest is his mobile more than his mother.
When it comes to helping its female workforce have more babies, it applies logic that appeals more to chimpanzees than human beings who want and need to work and yet want and need to be mothers with some modicum of nurturing. And nurturing requires TIME, something that women -- no matter how much the men wish it -- do not have any more than men do.
What does a country like Sweden or Finland have that we do not? Let's see now, they have universal healthcare and affordable, high quality childcare that is available to all women in addition to the right to take over a year of maternity (and paternity leave from that entitlement) leave without fear of retrenchment. Would all that translate directly to more children in Singapore, I hear you scoffing.
What that translates directly to, I would go so far to humbly state, is a widespread societal acceptance, no, I would say EXPECTANCY that all women, regardless of ethnicity, class or age, would be given quality support in the care of their children if they wished to return to work. It means that as long as the woman deems it appropriate to be a full-time mother, the state and her employer supports her choice and retains her position in the company (within limits of course). It means that a woman from a middle-class background is given the same access to quality care and flexible work-options as the woman from an upper-class background. This results in an even "working field", if you will, in the Scandinavian workplace. No one is disadvantaged by the lack or inability to pay for the help and support required to allow them to return to work.
This means that a Scandinavian mother cannot possibly complain about unsupportive parents, inlaws or husbands or the State even, hampering them from being 100% committed to their work. The State has provided for the most important factor, I believe, which can contribute to a woman continuing to be productive in the marketplace as well as in the family: equality amongst females.
Yes, that's right. It isn't even about gender inequality anymore. In Singapore, men are pulling their weight in the household and they WANT to, and the government isn't even interested in letting them do it, by ":recommending" a paltry 3 days of paternity leave. The real injustice is that the women without family support do not trust the quality of childcare available, and well they shouldn't. There is very little of it that is affordable. This creates a schism between those with more resources and those who don't. In addition, the women who refuse to compromise on their children's health and intellectual/emotional development would rather sacrifice their jobs than subcontract such important work to sub-par professionals. And the worst news of all: everyone else who knows this and can't (or won't) become economically poorer for the sake of their children would rather not have any at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment