Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T03:14:32.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Care Experience Affect Policy Interests? Male Legislators, Parental Leave, and Political Priorities in Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2019

Helena Olofsdotter Stensota Open the ORCID record for Helena Olofsdotter Stensota [Opens in a new window]
Helena Olofsdotter Stensota*
Affiliation:
University of Gothenberg, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central argument in theories on women's political interests has been that the sexual division of labor, inter alia, gives women greater experience of responsibility for the care of others, especially children, which in turn influences their political attitudes. However, the specifics of this claim have not been sufficiently examined in prior literature. By applying unique data on Swedish legislators’ subjective policy preferences and use of their parental leave over time, this article explores empirically whether the personal roles of members of parliament (MPs) in reproduction affect their political preferences, regardless of their sex. The analysis reveals that men's interest in social policy tends to increase after being on parental leave while in office, whereas women's interest in social and family policy remains strong, regardless. This finding might indicate a care experience mechanism at work, pertinent also to men, but with a possibly shallower content. The analysis raises the question: are care issues, previously seen as women's issues, now becoming human issues? It further contributes to the discussion on ways to measure gender other than using sex as proxy.

Keywords

substantive representationlegislatorsgendercare experience mechanismspolitical preferencespolitics of presenceSwedensex
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 16 , Special Issue 1: Special Symposium on Women's Parties , March 2020 , pp. 123 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelöw, B. and Jonsson, T.. 2000. Introduktion till socialpsykologi [Introduction to Social Psychology]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Ray, Leonard P.. 2002. “Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 428–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björk Eydal, Gudny, and Rostgaard, Tine. 2016. Fatherhood in the Nordic Welfare States. Comparing Care Policies and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Celis, K. 2006. “Substantive Representation of Women: The Representation of Women's Interests and the Impact of Descriptive Representation in the Belgian Parliament (1900–1979).” Journal of Womens Political Policy 28: 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. “Analysing Women's Substantive Representation: From Critical Mass to Critical Actors.” Government & Opposition 44:25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodorow, N. 1978. The Reproduction of Motherhood: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Danish Parliament. 2016. Telephone communication with the Information Desk, Danish Parliament, Dansk Folketing, June 8.Google Scholar
Della Costa, Mariarosa, and James, Selma. 1972. Women and the Subversion of the Community. Bristol, UK: Falling Wall Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Irene, and Hartsock, Nancy. 1981. “Beyond Interests in Politics: A Comment on Virginia Sapiro's ‘When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.’” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 717–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union. FEMM Committee Report. 2015. Maternity, Paternity and Parental Leave: Data Related to Duration and Compensation Rates in the European Union. London: Policy Department, Citizen Rights and Constitutional Affairs.Google Scholar
Florin, Christina, and Nilsson, Bengt. 1999. ‘Something in the Nature of a Bloodless Revolution....’: How New Gender Relations Became Gender Equality Policy in Sweden in the Nineteen-sixties and Seventies. In State Policy and Gender System in the Two German States and Sweden 1945–1989, ed. Rolf Torstendahl, 11–77. Uppsala: Historiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Gillies, Val. 2009. “Understandings and Experiences of Involved Fathering in the United Kingdom: Exploring Classed Dimensions.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 624 (1): 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gornick, Janet C., and Meyers, Marcia K.. 2003. Families that Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Greenlee, Jill S. 2014. The Political Consequences of Motherhood. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Abigail, and Milner, Susan. 2011. “What is ‘New’ about Fatherhood? The Social Construction of Fatherhood in France and the UK.” Men and Masculinities 14 (5): 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardian. 2016. “Kensuke Miyazaki to Become First Ever Japanese MP to Take Paternity Leave.” January 7. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/kensuke-miyazaki-to-become-first-ever-japanese-mp-to-take-paternity-leave. Accessed October 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 864–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerber, K. Linda. 1976. Women of the Republic. Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva F. 1998. Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koven, Seth, and Michel, Sonya. 1990. “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States, 1880–1920.” American Historical Review 95 (4): 1076–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. “Westminster Women: The Politics of Presence.” Political Studies 51:84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narud, Hanne Marie, and Valen, Henry. 2000. “Does Social Background Matter?” In Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience, ed. Esaiasson, Peter and Heidar, Knut, 83–106. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Norwegian Parliament. 2016. Email communication with the Information Desk, Norwegian Parliament, Norsk Storting, June 13.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantin, Lars, Mansson, Sven-Axel, and Kearney, Jeremy. 2003. “Talking and Doing Fatherhood: On Fatherhood and Masculinity in Sweden and England.” Fathering 1 (1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostgaard, Tine, and Eydal, Guðný Björk, eds. 2016. Fatherhood in the Nordic Welfare States: Comparing Care Policies and Practice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 701–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCB. Statistics Sweden. 2016. “På tal om kvinnor och män.” https://www.scb.se/Statistik/_Publikationer/LE0201_2015B16_BR_X10BR1601.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Skjeie, Hege. 1992. “Den politiske betydningen av kjønn. En studie av norsk topp-politikk” [The political importance of gender. A study of Norwegian top politics]. Oslo: Institutt for Samfunnsforskning, Oslo University.Google Scholar
SSIA. 2018. “Innehållsförteckning.” https://www.forsakringskassan.se/wps/wcm/connect/923555f4-16e1-4697-a31a-0fc0a919c464/foraldrapenning_yrke1.xlsm?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed October 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Stensota, Helena. 2004. Den empatiska staten. Jämställdhetens inverkan på daghem och polis 1950–2000 [The empathetic state: The impact of gender equality on child care and law enforcement 1950–2000]. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Swers, Michelle. 2001. “Understanding the Policy Impact of Electing Women: Evidence from Research on Congress and State Legislatures.” Political Science & Politics 34:217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, Joan C. 1994. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wall, Glenda, and Arnold, Stephanie. 2007. “How Involved Is Involved Fathering? An Exploration of the Contemporry Culture of Fatherhood.” Gender & Society 21 (4): 508–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Klein, Marian, Plant, Rebecca Jo, Sanders, Nichole, and Weintrob, Lori R.. 2014. Maternalism Reconsidered. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Washington, Ebonya L. 2008. “Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect their Legislator Fathers.” American Economic Review 98 (1): 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2015. The Principles of Gender Sensitive Parliaments. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xydias, Christina. 2013. “Mapping the Language of Women's Interests: Sex and Party Affiliation in the Bundestag.” Political Studies 61 (2): 319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zaretsky, Eli. 1976. Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar