It is not a person as such. The Swedish welfare system is pretty awesome and provides us (the parents) with 480 ma- and paternity days with 80% of our salary (of course there is a maximum sum of money, but EVERYONE gets this). However, many men do not use these paternity days as they (generally speaking) have the larger income and the family will therefore loose money if the father stays at home with his offspring. Hence money are more import then their children.
Personally, I think very often of my coming deathbed, when I take decisions. And am usually very conscious of the choices I make. What is more important in my life.
Ah, I see. In Ontario (Canada) we get a year of mat/pat leave at a rate that is about 40-45% of salary (with job protection). Some employers (eg: the federal government) will top up the pay so that it’s closer to 100%. I took a year with my son, then opted to stay home permanently (so didn’t get any pay during my “maternity year” with my daughter). We couldn’t afford to have P stay home at all as he is the only income earner (I make a little from writing, but not much). It’s hard to believe more people don’t take advantage of the Swedish program!
Well, in Sweden many people like the fine life with glossy surfaces and to keep that up one have to work, meaning time with the kids comes second. 😦
Wow. That’s crazy. We don’t have any sort of mat/pat benefits like that here (that I’ve heard of). I can’t imagine anyone turning them down if they did! I ran a childcare center for almost 7 years, and I ran a good one–but I still tell my kids that I would rather sell a kidney than see any of my future grandchildren end up in a daycare. I just know too much now, about what can and does go in on so many places, and I have seen how even the best of care doesn’t come anywhere close to measuring up to what a loving parent can provide.
Naturally I am all for daycares. Ours gave been there fom approx. 1.5 years (and we couldn’ manage witout them).
But when we have a system like ours and families prioritize superfical things (read managing there too big mortages and loans) to their kids (for this short time we are talking about) I just get sad. 😦
I probably should clarify that that’s exactly the time frame I’m talking about–that first year of life is so fragile and so formative–it shouldn’t be spent in an institution of any variety when other options are available, like they are in your country.
I guess that the core of my opinion and reasoning is why people choose and prioritize their economical standard instead of their relationship with their children.the The money argument is just a cover-up for men who feel very uncomfortable of being alone with their babies combined with a fear of making the necessary income to survive a lifestyle they really cannot afford.
It is closely connected to the gender equality discussion going on in Sweden. How to get more men to take out their parental rights, which still is very low, half of the 480 days are theirs, but still very few use them. And that is when “we couldn’t afford it” come in. Not all, there are so many reasons to why, but many of these have incredibly high loans on their perfect houses, cars, brand clothes etc. They simply do not have the income for the life they want to lead. Which leads to more women staying home all the 420 days (60 days are only for fathers to use) which of course takes us further from a equal society.
Louise Dock 
It isn’t. Hopefully the person in question realizes it soon, because they will on their deathbed, and that’s a heck of a thought to go out on.
It is not a person as such. The Swedish welfare system is pretty awesome and provides us (the parents) with 480 ma- and paternity days with 80% of our salary (of course there is a maximum sum of money, but EVERYONE gets this). However, many men do not use these paternity days as they (generally speaking) have the larger income and the family will therefore loose money if the father stays at home with his offspring. Hence money are more import then their children.
Personally, I think very often of my coming deathbed, when I take decisions. And am usually very conscious of the choices I make. What is more important in my life.
Ah, I see. In Ontario (Canada) we get a year of mat/pat leave at a rate that is about 40-45% of salary (with job protection). Some employers (eg: the federal government) will top up the pay so that it’s closer to 100%. I took a year with my son, then opted to stay home permanently (so didn’t get any pay during my “maternity year” with my daughter). We couldn’t afford to have P stay home at all as he is the only income earner (I make a little from writing, but not much). It’s hard to believe more people don’t take advantage of the Swedish program!
Well, in Sweden many people like the fine life with glossy surfaces and to keep that up one have to work, meaning time with the kids comes second. 😦
Wow. That’s crazy. We don’t have any sort of mat/pat benefits like that here (that I’ve heard of). I can’t imagine anyone turning them down if they did! I ran a childcare center for almost 7 years, and I ran a good one–but I still tell my kids that I would rather sell a kidney than see any of my future grandchildren end up in a daycare. I just know too much now, about what can and does go in on so many places, and I have seen how even the best of care doesn’t come anywhere close to measuring up to what a loving parent can provide.
Naturally I am all for daycares. Ours gave been there fom approx. 1.5 years (and we couldn’ manage witout them).
But when we have a system like ours and families prioritize superfical things (read managing there too big mortages and loans) to their kids (for this short time we are talking about) I just get sad. 😦
I probably should clarify that that’s exactly the time frame I’m talking about–that first year of life is so fragile and so formative–it shouldn’t be spent in an institution of any variety when other options are available, like they are in your country.
I guess that the core of my opinion and reasoning is why people choose and prioritize their economical standard instead of their relationship with their children.the The money argument is just a cover-up for men who feel very uncomfortable of being alone with their babies combined with a fear of making the necessary income to survive a lifestyle they really cannot afford.
It is closely connected to the gender equality discussion going on in Sweden. How to get more men to take out their parental rights, which still is very low, half of the 480 days are theirs, but still very few use them. And that is when “we couldn’t afford it” come in. Not all, there are so many reasons to why, but many of these have incredibly high loans on their perfect houses, cars, brand clothes etc. They simply do not have the income for the life they want to lead. Which leads to more women staying home all the 420 days (60 days are only for fathers to use) which of course takes us further from a equal society.