FEMINIST LETTER NO 3
To all feminists
First of all a practical matter.Those of you who have received this letter, just check whether it came directly from me or whether it arrived via somebody else. If you did receive it from some other source, but would like it to come from me directly in future, please write to med at gudrun.schyman@riksdagen.se and tell me so. To those of you for whom this the first letter I would like to inform you that this is letter nr 3, and I intend to be in touch about once a month.
Many of you are eager for change, that is perfectly clear. Many of you have contacted me over speculations in the media concerning a Feminist Party.
My own thoughts on this are as follows:
Change needs to come from below. Today the feminist dimension is passed over and subordinated to traditional politics. Party politics are organised and shaped by economic power structures, that is the conflict between rich and poor(class) and grouped according to a scale from left to right, which in itself is adapted to patriarchal structures. The feminist dimension often cuts right across class structures. Gender challenges power more deeply and more effectively since it penetrates our own identities. When it comes to gender, it is no use talking about “us and them”. We are all part of the present power structure and as soon as we recognize the fact that it is a question of structures, not individuals, then we must take sides, all of us, women and men. Do we want to take part, do we want to keep things the way they are and strengthen the patriarchal order or do we want to change it? Do we want to step out of the prison of our traditional gender rolls or do we wish our choices in life, even in future, to be decided by our sex? In short, what conclusions are we prepared to draw from the knowledge we have gained?
Several of you have pointed out various areas where things are not what they should be in our
society. Some of these frustrations I have translated into questions to responsible ministers. A few such examples are: “The law on purchase of sexual services and its relevance to violent pornography”, “Equal rights as a criterion of quality in third level education”, “Gender discrimination in the teaching of Swedish as a Foreign Language”. The responses have been relayed to the persons involved to be used in their continuing work for change. Do write if there is any other issue you would like to bring up!
In the parliamentary set-up issues to do with gender equality generally end up in the labour- market committee. The “annual” debate on gender equality was held on Nov. 26th(a good thing to know if one is interested in ordering the minutes) and the starting point was the government’s publication(written in cooperation with the Left Party and the Greens)Jämt och ständigt(a play on words which is difficult to translate – equal and for ever/also a phrase meaning constantly)2002/3:140. The publication contains an account of how the government looks upon gender equality issues and includes a plan of action for the future.
The basic theme is that gender equality policies must be integrated into all policy, economic, family, labour market, etc. Considering the growing body of knowledge around these issues, it should be possible to considerably strengthen the guidelines for equal rights policies. I quote from the introductory section that deals with increase in knowledge.
“Theories about the gender system contribute to our understanding of the lack of gender equality. The main characteristics of the gender system, as described by Yvonne Hirdman in the Parliamentary Report on Power Structures, are the following two principles, the separation of the sexes and the ascendancy of men and the subordinate position of women. The separation can be illustrated by the way we organise the labour market on gender lines or the unpaid tasks in the home. Male ascendancy is expressed in the level of pay being higher for men and their having more power to control their own lives. Men are the norm, women deviate from the norm.”
Women and men are confronted by these structures everywhere in society. The gender order follows us from birth and our first meeting with the world around us, through nursery school and school, through working life right up to the end of our lives. Sometimes it is distinct, but often it is hidden, a matter-of –course, generally accepted. Subordination is often obvious for women, while men have greater difficulty in perceiving their position of superior strength. The gender system restricts the opportunities both women and men have to develop as individuals, it confines the scope of democracy and is an impediment to growth since the full potential of both women and men is not exploited.”
If this insight were shared by all, our world would be a different place. This is not, however, the case. The reservation made by the Moderates says: “The gender equality ideal for the Moderates is freedom for all individuals. Women and men alike should be regarded as capable of making their own decisions as to what they want to do in life, and be respected for the choices they make even if they appear unconventional…. The Social Democratic government does not have faith in the individual’s capacity to make choices and know what is best for him or herself. The government has long been caught in the web of social engineering. It talks in terms of the distribution of power and resources, stressing the weakness of women, then going on to assert that the state alone can empower her by means of various projects and positive discrimination. Nowhere do we find the image of a strong and independent woman with control over her own life. This is the expression of a cynical view of mankind.”
And the Centre Party: ”Women and men must be perceived as individuals, not as a group. Women, just like anybody else, are not a homogenous group. It is time we came to grips with the idea that collective solutions can create a gender equal society. We need to focus on the individual and on individual solutions.”
The Liberal Party writes: “Liberal feminism identifies the structures that create men’s superiority and women’s subordination and is anxious to change them so that individuals can shape their lives as they wish whatever their sex. The gender equality policies of the Liberal Party therefore take as their starting point free choice and empowerment of the individual.”
The myth of free choice, that is to say the incapacity/reluctance to see that the choices made by individuals are constantly limited and governed by the existing gender power structures, this myth casts its shadow over the parliamentary debate. When we come to the issue of parental leave becoming an individual right, that every parent should exercise his or her parental responsibility, “free choice for the individual” has been substituted by “the good of the child”, also by the minister in charge Berit Andnor.
Several exchanges I have had in Parliament with the ministers for family affairs and the labour market have focused on paid/unpaid work as reflected in how this relates to our present rules for parental leave and wage discrimination. An employer will primarily choose to employ and to reward with higher pay a person who will be present at work as much as possible. That is the picture today. The minister for family affairs says that we have parental leave for the sake of the children, and we should not change the rules for the sake of correcting an unfair wage system. Well, this is easy to say. But if the rules for parental leave rest on, and perpetuate, patriarchal family patterns that the very same minister says are not good for children to grow up with, and on which employers base their discriminating low wages, well then shouldn’t we be doing something about it?
“It is a good thing for children to grow up in a family where the parents can share equally the responsibility for family and for work. This provides better chances of living an adult life based on equal opportunities”, says the minister. This means, as I see it, that it is not as good for children to grow up in families where the responsibility is not equally shared; since this does not provide a good base for living equally in adult life.
I want to give children good conditions to grow up in. That means removing obstacles. A key issue is here the balance between paid and unpaid work as reflected in how parental leave is shared.
As an answer to proposals for change the minister for family affairs says, however, that “Parental leave is for the sake of the children and to satisfy their needs.” Well sure, parental leave is a very good thing in very many ways, but how it is constructed, how it is handed over to the “family”, is an effective way of supporting the family concept that provides the basic framework for patriarchal power structures – with all its destructive consequences, from brutal violence behind closed doors to the profitable wage discrimination in the labour market!
The Government is now to start an enquiry to review the construction of parental leave and therefore it is important for the debate to continue, especially outside Parliament. Without a strong pressure of opinion nothing will happen.
Finally, a call for renewed struggle for power. There are many of us who both have experience of our own and bear with us other people’s knowledge of how power structures work. We may not always have the same experience, but we can see that various destructive tendencies result from these structures. What can unite us is opposition to patriarchy. We need a resistance movement! A broad anti-patriarchal movement for change – open to all who dare give priority to the feminist dimension without becoming victims of the popular prejudice that this would “reduce” us to being members of our sex. It is the very gender power structures of today which constantly reduce us to beings belonging to one sex! An anti-patriarchal movement does not rest on sex, but on people’s resistance to destructive power structures.
A motto for the new year, maybe? Make demands wherever you are!
(Kräv där du står! Again a play on words: the battle cry for grassroots “Gräv där du står “Dig wherever you are!” rhymes with this new motto)
A Merry Christmas and a happy New Feminist Year!
Gudrun
P.S.
At the beginning of this letter I wrote that those of you who would like this letter directly from me should let me know. Those of you who do not want it in future must of course also let me know at gudrun.schyman@riksdagen.se
Tillbaka till Tidigare Feministbrev
