1. Objectifs

Intentions :
In this article, authors «give voice to maternal subjects, who share their stories of the transition to motherhood and the role of maternity/parental and paternity leave in shaping these experiences.» (p. 402)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
The sample is constitute of «five women from Toronto and four women from Montreal. […] Twenty‐seven interviews were conducted over a period of approximately 3 months (each participant engaged in three in‐person interviews).» (p. 406)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

Results show that parental «leave policy configures the maternal subject in complex and, sometimes, contradictory ways. In addressing work–family conflict, leave policy offers ways to navigate the transition to motherhood and flexibilizes the return to paid work. It privileges paid work by effectively cushioning (some) maternal subjects as they exit and return to the labor market and in tying benefit eligibility and amount to paid work. It thus creates a socioeconomic hierarchy in which only some parents are deserving of assistance with care work. [Moreover,], reliance on experts and street‐level bureaucrats in deciding when and under what conditions supplemental programs can be accessed remains a central factor for some parents in experiencing a smooth leave period. Interestingly, these findings traverse Ontario and Quebec, suggesting that despite a potentially more generous and flexible leave program, first time mothers in Quebec share similar struggles to their Ontario counterparts. This suggests that policies attending to caregiving and/or to work–family balance are falling short in both jurisdictions. In short, and as noted above, leave policy in both Canada and Quebec does not solve the gendered division of work and care in heterosexual relationships; it reinforces it. This is exacerbated by the incoherent policy framework that governs family policy, in which programs covering parental leave programs, childcare initiatives, and child benefits do not necessarily align […].» (p. 412-413)