.png)
Future Forum's young research fellow, Mynea Yi, was published in Kiripost on December 2, 2024. Check out the original article HERE, and read it below!
Think about the types of regulations you might associate with policy that centres women and their experiences. For example, Cambodia’s labour laws state that pregnant women are entitled to things such as mandated maternity leave and restrictions on jobs that are seen to be too dangerous for them at this stage of life. Those who work in the gender equity sphere categorise these types of policy interventions as “protectionist”.
Protectionist policies generally aim to keep women safe from unfair treatment by attempting to address the unique challenges they face every day.
While it might seem at first glance that these types of policies are undeniably positive, in reality these types of protective measures can actually become double-edged swords for ordinary women. These measures can be crucial for ensuring women's safety and well-being, but we have to also recognise the ways in which protectionist frameworks can unintentionally reinforce gender stereotypes.
For instance, if we examine maternity protection policies, while these types of policies can get women the types of accommodations they need, these policies can also discourage employers from hiring women or promoting them to leadership positions due to concerns about the costs of abiding by the law.
While protectionism is certainly not the only factor at play, it does contribute to the overall environment in Cambodia in which women are more likely to be employed in lower-paying, less secure jobs, particularly in industries like garment manufacturing, or in the informal economy, where they get fewer opportunities for promotion or higher pay.
Instead of protectionist policies, Cambodia should aim to move towards policies that deliver substantive equality. In other words, we need to prioritise policies that focus on equality of results for all genders. This would mean choosing to uplift policy that is sensitive to the “actual condition of women’s lives as the true measure of whether equality has been achieved”.
How the Protectionist Approach Affected Substantive Equality in Cambodia
Substantive equality is a transformative approach to gender equity that goes beyond equal treatment under the law. It addresses systemic inequalities that hinder marginalised groups, especially women, from accessing equal opportunities and outcomes.
As a case study, let’s consider how the current framework for maternity leave is affecting women in Cambodia’s labour market. The 90-day maternity leave policy in Cambodia which guarantees at least half wages, though helpful, also serves to reinforce traditional gender roles. Instead of encouraging all parents and care-givers to share childcare responsibilities between the government or equally between men and women, the policy reinforces the idea that women are the ones who should handle childcare and household tasks. In Cambodia, most women are falling behind their partners in their career growth in part because of their unequal childcare and household responsibilities. According to an Oxfam survey, men in Cambodia only give 18 minutes a day on average to unpaid caregiving, compared to women's 188 minutes.
Maternity-related discrimination is also something that should not be overlooked. Although Cambodian labour law mandates maternity leave, some employers who don’t want to pay for this kind of leave may choose to avoid promoting women to higher paying positions or may even avoid hiring women altogether to avoid these obligations later on.
Employers in the garment sector, for instance, have worked around this obligation by putting women on short-term contracts as a way to deny them this leave. These short-term contracts may then be terminated when the women workers become pregnant. According to a Human Rights Watch, at least 30 factories have used these tactics to avoid paying for maternity leave. Additionally, Human Rights Watch has documented factories who have not provided reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, which makes it harder for these women to meet their production targets and ultimately leaves them no choice but to lose their jobs.
These impacts are particularly felt in this industry in part because it employs approximately 600,000 people and up to 85 percent of workers are women.
Overall, these unintended policy outcomes limit women's economic independence and reinforces gender inequality. These challenges underline how protectionist labor policies in Cambodia, while well-intentioned, can instead create inequities for women in the workforce.
If we take a step back and look at the corrective or substantive approach; we can see how we can go beyond equal treatment under the law to address the structural and systemic barriers that prevent women from achieving genuine equality.
Instead of perceiving women as a victim and turning to protectionist approaches, we should better align Cambodia’s policies with substantive equality by addressing the systemic and structural barriers that create gender inequality. It may sound counter-intuitive, one way to start would actually be by promoting gender-neutral policies. Once again, let’s take maternity leave as our example. What would happen in Cambodia, if instead of mandating paid maternity leave, our policies promoted equal opportunity parental leave.
Parental leave which is provided to mothers and fathers or other caregivers could not just help challenge traditional gender roles that have been valued a long time ago but also promote shared responsibilities among genders.
If we were to implement gender-neutral parental leave policies, it would decrease the burden on women as primary caregivers and promote greater equality in the workplace and at home. Currently, women are the ones who are responsible for childcare and household duties, which hinders them from working in higher-level jobs and reinforces traditional gender roles. Inclusive paternity leave helps break down traditional gender roles by encouraging fathers to take an active role in caregiving, thus promoting a more balanced sharing of family responsibilities. This would not only enable women to pursue professional opportunities more freely, but also foster greater equality in the workplace. Moreover, expanding paternity leave could help shift societal expectations, normalising the idea that both parents are equally responsible for caregiving.
Likewise, providing this benefit equally to all employees, not just to women, would mitigate employers’ biases and perceptions which otherwise see women employees as a liability due to this paid leave. Employers can no longer assume that men will be more consistently present at work than women because of parenting duties, and that could allow women to gain enough opportunity to succeed in their careers and attain higher levels.
In terms of a case study, Singapore will be a country to watch in the coming years to see how some of these changes play out on the ground. While Singapore isn’t an entirely apt comparison for Cambodia’s context, it will still be interesting to observe the outcomes of the city-state’s recent expansion of parental leave. As of April 1, 2025, Singapore’s fathers will experience extended mandatory paternity leave, and both parents will have an option to share a period of six weeks of paid leave as they see fit.
If Cambodia were to be open to such policies, it could help to improve family dynamics, higher job satisfaction, and increase productivity, benefitting both employees and employers. Our overall goal should be to move away from protectionist policies and move towards policy that promotes structural equality and is sensitive to end results. In this case, gender neutral parental leave has the potential to result in the increased commitment of parents to fully embrace more equal caregiving roles and more equality for employees in the eyes of their employers.
Comments