Inclusive and Women-friendly in a time of Diversity? The Scandinavian citizenship regime – the ‘childcare lesson’

C. Thun
{"title":"Inclusive and Women-friendly in a time of Diversity? The Scandinavian citizenship regime – the ‘childcare lesson’","authors":"C. Thun","doi":"10.15845/NJSR.V6I0.516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I ask: Is the Scandinavian citizenship regime inclusive and women-friendly in a time of diversity? I approach this question by addressing the intersection of gender and ethnicity in relation to social citizenship with the main concern being childcare. I emphasize Norway as a case but also see Norway in comparison with Sweden and Denmark. In comparative studies, the Scandinavian citizenship regime is presented as being the most ‘women-friendly’. However, faced with an increasingly multicultural population, a pertinent question is whether this citizenship model is able to accommodate diversity. I explore two tensions that are basic to the inclusiveness and women-friendliness of the Scandinavian citizenship regime in diverse societies: 1) The tension between principles of gender equality and cultural diversity, and 2) the tension between liberating and controlling aspects of the welfare state. This article discusses the Norwegian family policy ‘hybrid’, which combines dual-earner support with traditional breadwinner elements. One might say that the Norwegian family ‘hybrid’ can be a solution to the tension between, on the one hand, a specific gender-equality family norm, and, on the other hand, the respect for other family norms. However, I argue that there is a double standard with regard to minority women, and it can be understood in light of a discourse about Norwegianness. Parental choice is considered a good thing – as long as the mother in question is considered ‘fully’ Norwegian. However, assumed cultural and ethnic differences – often based on stereotypical collective categories of difference – are used as boundary-markers between the majority and minorities. I conclude that, despite variations, all the Scandinavian countries grapple with the same tensions, and that there is a Scandinavian double standard regarding minority women.","PeriodicalId":207067,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Social Research","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Social Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15845/NJSR.V6I0.516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In this article, I ask: Is the Scandinavian citizenship regime inclusive and women-friendly in a time of diversity? I approach this question by addressing the intersection of gender and ethnicity in relation to social citizenship with the main concern being childcare. I emphasize Norway as a case but also see Norway in comparison with Sweden and Denmark. In comparative studies, the Scandinavian citizenship regime is presented as being the most ‘women-friendly’. However, faced with an increasingly multicultural population, a pertinent question is whether this citizenship model is able to accommodate diversity. I explore two tensions that are basic to the inclusiveness and women-friendliness of the Scandinavian citizenship regime in diverse societies: 1) The tension between principles of gender equality and cultural diversity, and 2) the tension between liberating and controlling aspects of the welfare state. This article discusses the Norwegian family policy ‘hybrid’, which combines dual-earner support with traditional breadwinner elements. One might say that the Norwegian family ‘hybrid’ can be a solution to the tension between, on the one hand, a specific gender-equality family norm, and, on the other hand, the respect for other family norms. However, I argue that there is a double standard with regard to minority women, and it can be understood in light of a discourse about Norwegianness. Parental choice is considered a good thing – as long as the mother in question is considered ‘fully’ Norwegian. However, assumed cultural and ethnic differences – often based on stereotypical collective categories of difference – are used as boundary-markers between the majority and minorities. I conclude that, despite variations, all the Scandinavian countries grapple with the same tensions, and that there is a Scandinavian double standard regarding minority women.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多元化时代的包容和女性友好?斯堪的纳维亚公民制度——“育儿课”
在这篇文章中,我的问题是:在一个多元化的时代,斯堪的纳维亚的公民制度是否具有包容性和女性友好性?我通过解决性别和种族与社会公民身份的交集来解决这个问题,主要关注的是儿童保育。我强调挪威是一个例子,但也将挪威与瑞典和丹麦进行比较。在比较研究中,斯堪的纳维亚的公民制度被认为是最“女性友好”的。然而,面对日益多元文化的人口,一个相关的问题是,这种公民模式是否能够适应多样性。我探讨了在多元化社会中斯堪的纳维亚公民制度的包容性和女性友好性的两种基本紧张关系:1)性别平等原则和文化多样性之间的紧张关系,以及2)福利国家的解放和控制方面的紧张关系。本文讨论了挪威的“混合”家庭政策,它将双职工支持与传统的养家要素相结合。有人可能会说,挪威家庭的“混合”可以解决一方面是特定的性别平等家庭规范,另一方面是对其他家庭规范的尊重之间的紧张关系。然而,我认为对少数民族妇女存在双重标准,这可以从关于挪威性的论述中理解。父母的选择被认为是一件好事——只要母亲被认为是“完全的”挪威人。然而,假定的文化和种族差异- -通常基于刻板的集体差异类别- -被用作多数人和少数人之间的界限标志。我的结论是,尽管有所不同,但所有斯堪的纳维亚国家都在努力应对同样的紧张局势,斯堪的纳维亚对少数民族妇女采取双重标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disembodied care: Articulations of care in municipal policy regarding welfare technologies in eldercare Disembodied care: Articulations of care in municipal policy regarding welfare technologies in eldercare Economic composition and income volatility of Norwegian low-income families – a mixed method study of its implications How children’s navigation on digital platforms challenges child welfare assessments The complexity of multiple trauma understandings across disciplines – the COVID-19 pandemic as a ‘case’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1