BBC "soft girl" trend article

[LucieChardon]

This came up on my BBC feed under Women's Rights... the irony.

BBC News - Sweden’s ‘soft girl’ trend that celebrates women quitting work
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1wwypygxo

Because it's too much to balance work and family - I know that we've been sold that myth for a few generations now, that women can "have it all" and therefore should do it all.

Am I reading this correctly? If life is too hard and stressful, then women should just go "soft"?

When do the men step up? Always women who have to give things up. Fuck the patriarchy.

Don't understand why it's a "major talking point" in Sweden. If she wants to do that, then let her. I wouldn't - it smacks of being controlled by a man. But feminism as far as I'm concerned Is about doing what you want - so let her be.

I think it's a talking point because it is not just one individual woman doing what she wants to do, it's perceived as a social trend, as the article states:
even becoming an aspiration among younger schoolgirls, with 14% of seven to 14-year-olds identifying as soft girls.

I don't agree that feminism is about doing anything you want - choices are never completely neutral, and in the case of 'soft girls' they are choosing total dependence on a male partner- easier than the daily grind of childcare+ commute+ challenging job + same in reverse every day, perhaps, but what if Mr Hard Man decides he doesn't want to support Ms Soft Girl any more? Where does that leave her, and her children?

You can live with work pressure, or you can live with insecurity. Neither is a neutral choice.

BTW does 'soft girl' have the same meaning in Liverpool, or is it just the female version of 'soft lad'?

It makes sense to me.

It's hardly news that people (but particularly women) are struggling to do it all- have a career, bring up kids, keep the house clean, maintain their romantic relationship, keep fit and healthy, have good friends they see regularly and look after elderly parents. Pretty much 80% of the threads on here, if not more, are about the struggle to do all of these things.

These (comparatively small percentage) of women have decided to drop the 'job' part of the list. Other women (as has also been in the news) have decided to not bother with kids, or even a romantic relationship but keep the job. Others have let the 'clean house' part go, either by lowering standards or by outsourcing to a cleaner. Others find the easiest thing to leave by the wayside is care for themselves - no time or money to buy themselves new clothes or go to the gym or follow their own hobbies and interests, because they're exhausted and all their time and money and effort goes on their kids. Others (again frequent on here) let friendships go and focus 'only on their own little family.'

'Soft girls' are highly unlikely to ever become a majority (and tbh the fact that even the 14% stat came from 7-14 year olds, who are hardly the most experienced focus group!) for the simple reason that even if most women WANTED to revert back to being "a housewife" there aren't enough men in well paying jobs that could afford (or would want to) support a family on one salary nowadays.

But if there are a small amount of families where the "traditional" (I say "traditional" because really, throughout history most women DID do some sort of other work as well as child rearing, those idealising 'history' have rose-tinted glasses about a comparatively very short period of primarily middle class lifestyles) set up works and all parties are happy with that, fair enough. Wouldn't be for me but we are all different.

Oh so they can discover social trends after all?!

14% of 7 year olds might identify as a cat, princess or Taylor Swift, I don't think that's necessarily indicative of a wider, long term social trend.

Probably too much exposure to Carl Larsson's artwork.

I object to the idea that staying home to look after your children is the "soft" or "easy" option. Yes, there has been a massive devaluation of the importance of mothers and how easy it is to raise children and work full time. But note how the movements that are supposedly going to recalibrate that still manage to reinforce the idea that its the big strong man doing the hard work outside the home and being a housewife is the easy option. I refuse to believe that framing isn't deliberate (even if individual women picking up on the trend are using it semi-ironically or as a softness aesthetic).

There's very much an underlying message of "women thought they wanted to do men's jobs and work outside the home but actually now they have found out its too difficult and actually men are just better." Rather than some honesty around the fact that as a society we want people to have children and that the work involved in bringing them up and nurturing them doesn't fit perfectly into the capitalist (a productive person is someone who generates capital) model.

Interestingly, this is more or less what we did when we decided to have children, but with some very important caveats:

• I didn’t want to have children unless one of us was going to give up work and look after them (no judgement of the majority of people who either don’t or can’t make that choice) We did have the benefit that we both had high-paying jobs

• Bringing up our precious children was an important (and hard) job which was worth paying for properly

• It ended up being me who gave up work (quelle surprise!) but that means dh transfers half his net income to me. In one way it doesn’t matter (it all belongs to both of us) but it means I have my own money in my own name, so provides me a level of financial security

• Oncethe kids were in school, I was able to keep up with developments in my industry with training and networking so I should find it easier to go back to work once they go to high school

in my opinion, anyone giving up work to look after children & the house should make sure their partner is paying them properly. If he won’t do that, he doesn’t sufficiently value what you do. That’s my version of feminism!

BTW does 'soft girl' have the same meaning in Liverpool, or is it just the female version of 'soft lad'?

I've not heard that in years. It captures affection behind the observation so well (can't think of a better way to express it right now). (NB: it's also reminded me of, "Act soft/daft and I'll buy you a coal 'ouse/yard".)

I doubt Swedes have adopted Liverpool vernacular although it would be delightful to think so.

Overall, the story is a good indicator that achieving shared responsibilities is proving fiendishly difficult, even for countries that wish to establish themselves as leaders in morality and equity.

Oh I agree. As I said, it wouldn't be for me - partly because of the things you point out. But if it's a trend, I hope some women at least have thought about the downsides.

There's a difference between deciding to be a SAHM, and the woman at the top of the article who it sounds like she just couldn't be arsed with work so quit work to be a "stay at home girlfriend".

I wouldn't want my children to be either part of that relationship tbh - not the woman who has quit work to do nothing and presumably could be left with nothing, nor the man who gives his girlfriend a monthly "salary". That situation isn't really about the issue of women working while taking on the majority of childcare, housework, parental care etc and struggling with no help from their partner.

Yes you’re right, I agree with this

I assume that's comment is meant to be amusing, but his wife wasn't exactly a soft girl.
pieceworkmagazine.com/karin-larsson/

lol

I wonder to what degree differences in Swedish culture play a role.

I have heard from a few people that it's very difficult for women or men to decide to give up work and care for kids, compared to North America or even the UK. Although there is good inexpensive childcare, it means the CoL is high, and there seems to be a lot of social pressure for women to work. I get the sense stepping out of the box isn't really encouraged in Sweden.

That is to say, those women aren't experiencing working at a paid job as a freedom but as a social obligation and economic pressure.

Sweden has also at various times been very open about the state using policy to try and create the social outcomes they think are best for people, and insisting all women work is an example of that.

So it's not surprising to me that some women would want to subvert that kind of paternalistic social engineering.

Yes, I agree w this. But these soft girls don't have kids AFAIK & are presenting it as a kind of 'lady of leisure' life. Hopefully they do some volunteering or such bc otherwise it just seems to be laziness. I get wanting a rest but I don't think doing only leisure activities is a feminist choice, or a good choice for a man either. All work & no play, w no challenge it will get boring & unfulfilled. I suspect they do something

I am also a bit skeptical bc like the tradwives, I think they are probs actually making their soft girl life a new career, ie monetising via social media.

TempestTost, from what I've read the Swedish 'Law of Jante', that everyone is no better than anyone else, & shouldn't get above themselves, is good in some ways but bad in others. I agree forcing all women (& men for that matter) to work is paternalistic, just as forcing all women to be SAHMs would be.

But I would argue the women aren't really a positive example of subversion. Surely neither conservatives or Liberals think it's positive for women to laze around all day while their bf works hard? I get the women in the article are probs just mentioning the glam bits & do housework, volunteering etc, but if they're just living the life of Riley 24/7 then I don't think that's a particularly laudable thing. Similarly, if some (as I suspect) are making money off it, I don't really think influencers should be encouraged either. I know you've always had lifestyle magazines etc, but I feel it can get quite negative once influences have kids & continue to monetise their family life, often to the detriment of the kids' privacy.

Most women (or men) do not have a challenging career, they have a boring job. In which case, running a home, bringing up children, making, mending, cooking, baking, preserving, running the social round and running the budget are much more attractive than split shifts on the till/shelf-filling at Tescoes, which is the reality for most. I don't like the idea of being dependent on a man, who I must therefore totally trust - because some are not trustworthy and also do not see 'homemaking' as either work or worthy of recognition because it doesn't bring in a wage.
Get qualified, keep your hand in, even if you take out ten years (as I did) and be prepared to spend some time re-training for your original job because one day DH/DP may turn round (as my ex did) and say they want tit-for-tat; that you stayed at home doing nothing (!) and now they want their turn - which means you will become the main bread-winner and also do all the things you do anyway, while they 'do their thing'. At which point they start being ex.

She doesn't have kids. She has a very, very wealthy boyfriend and chose to give up a series of dead end jobs to sponge on him, gain a fair few instagram followers and spend her winters in Cyprus. Not sure how widely applicable this 'trend' is beyond the wives and girlfriends of very wealthy men.

So she's made it aspirational for girls ? Like the good old Prince Charming

I don't understand how this is viewed as a new trend. This seems like a story that's existed forever: attractive woman decides to take up with wealthy man as his "trophy" girlfriend/wife 🤷‍♀️

What I don't understand is why feminists who like to talk about the problems of the systemic patriarchy see the solution for dangers of a scenario of a woman defending on the spousal income as something to be achieved individually?

If we are talking about a systemic problem, why not a systemic solution- like a stronger obligation for spousal support, for example? Or mother's allowance was created with this sort of thing in mind.

Exactly. It was why, in the UK, family allowance was introduced, so that a woman at home with children had a reliable source of income (though small) with which to feed her children. Trades Unions were against Family Allowance as it undermined the role of men as breadwinners - it also undermined their power as breadwinners, which I suspect was also a factor.
Family Allowance has now segued into some part of Child Benefit and is no longer paid to all mothers, but only those with a family income below (I think) 40k (which is not a lot in the UK, believe me!). It leaves vulnerable women who may earn less than 40k but whose joint income with partner exceeds it, who may be in coercive relationships or relationships where the man sees his income as his, for his expenditure, so is not spending on the children etc. Such men exist.

@Grammarnut just for the sake of pedantry, it was £50k where you started to lose your child benefit, last April it up to £60k where you start to lose it, £80k where you lose it completely.

Thanks for the pedantry, I could not remember. I do remember there was a knock-on effect for some families as they did not earn as much as some families that still received the benefit - something to do with how income was calculated. And 60k is still not a lot in the UK - esp London.