FEMINIST LETTER NO 19
To all feminists
A few days ago the opening of Parliament took place. The Prime Minister read his policy speech, which last year was a 11-page document consisting of about 365 lines, 8 of which touched on equal rights policies. This year the document again ran to 11 pages, the script a little more compressed, and this time it contained a separate paragraph devoted to gender equality.“Women and men must share equally the power to form society and their own lives” formed the opening sentence. “A life based on gender equality presupposes a gender equal labour market” was sentence number two.
Two days later the official in charge of the government enquiry on parental national insurance presented his proposal of a three-partite model for parental leave, 5 months reserved for the mother, 5 for the father and five to be negotiated between the two. The practical result of this proposal would presumably be 10 months for the mother and 5 for the father, in other words, the main responsibility would still rest with the mother. The party in power, which says that it strives to achieve a gender equal labour market, then immediately rejected this proposal. The old pattern is to remain the order of the day. The Social Democratic executive suggested that equal rights in the labour market can be achieved by other means. By what means is not at all clear and was not made any clearer by the governments opening speech.
Women have fewer career opportunities and lower wages than men. Women are not offered the same career prospects in the work place since employers know that we assume greater responsibility in running the home and caring for the children. This is not the whole truth behind the low salaries for women but is nevertheless a significant part in understanding wage structures. Old fashioned ideas about what are women’s and men’s respective roles keep women away from gainful employment and men away from the children. At the same time we know that children are happiest growing up in gender equal homes and in a society where the sex of the individual does not decide his or her opportunities in life. The fact that gender equality in the home is a necessary requirement for gender equality at work is something that has not yet come to bear on politics, at least not the policies put forward by the government. If this had been the case, the obvious reform proposed in the government’s opening speech in Parliament would have been a parental insurance model based on individual rights and responsibilities.
An understanding of this issue was happily in evidence at the first annual meeting/congress of the Feminist Initiative held in Örebro last weekend Sept 9-11. Parental insurance on an individual basis, a 6 hour working day without loss of pay, full time and secure employment, more staff in schools and in medical services, free nursery schools, improved health services in schools with qualified staff to deal with children and teenagers´ psychological problems, greater insight into women’s health problems in the health service, also including natal care, extended parental education, the abolishing of the regional level of authority over health care, a gender perspective in education at all levels (from nursery schools to universities and vocational training etc)and in all research, strong measures in dealing with men’s violence against women, more stringent legislation in the field of sex-related crime, a gender perspective in building and urban planning, working groups to encourage women as entrepreneurs, a feminist economy, new security policies, these are other decisions taken with a large measure of consensus, with very little discussion in the plenary session.
All political issues were first discussed in groups. Only those issues where majority support was in doubt were discussed in the plenary, that is the forum attended by journalists. The fact that hbt issues were focused on in the media is partly a result of this procedure. It can also be a consequence of the fact that people do not generally expect such issues to be part of the feminist agenda. However, if we are to base our policies on women’s lives and experience, then this is a natural ingredient. Lesbians are women who are discriminated against as women, and again as homosexuals, a double discrimination, in the same way as immigrant women are discriminated against both as women and as immigrants. Handicapped women experience discrimination both on account of their sex and their disability. Poor women are at a disadvantage because they are women and also living in poverty. Different power and discrimination structures synchronize and reinforce each other in a sophisticated manner. Of this we are well aware.
Underlying all discrimination are patriarchal power structures. They have so far survived every revolution and every economic and political system – all over the world. For women, (which does not mean that men do not also understand the issue), the dissolution of patriarchal power is the main issue at stake. When we say that we wish to shape policies that have as their starting point women’s lives, experience and economic situation, then we include all women, irrespective of sexual preference or identity.
What upsets me the most in the aftermath of FI:s first annual meeting is not so much that certain media(there are after all exceptions) love to revel in speculations and personal conflicts. I believe many people understand that one cannot start a new movement without discussions. It is of course possible to go down the path chosen by the June list before the last EU parliamentary elections, that is establish a list and let two or three individuals make all the decisions. We have chosen a completely different path. We want the members to make decisions. Policies will grow out of dialogue, exchange and fresh understanding. Naturally there will be discussion and debate. Some will leave, while others are drawn in. It takes time for firm structures to emerge. Hopefully they will never be fixed for good.
So what has upset me the most is not the debate. What frightens me more is the hatred of women and the homophobia which we see emerging together with fear and cowardice shown by institutions and employers. Several women have been obliged to take calculated risks, as was the case when FI went public in April. Some chose then to remain anonymous and this became an issue once again before the annual meeting.
To carefully calculate the risks appears to have been a justified procedure far from hysterical or conspiratorial thinking. Several persons have experienced just how controversial feminism still is, at least when it takes the form of organised political activity. Anonymous reports to the social insurance office, leading in turn to humiliating investigations, promises of employment suddenly withdrawn, threats and harassment which have required protective arrangements have occurred.
That political opposition, such as can be confronted in open debate, would be strong, this we were all expecting. But the fear, the loathing, sometimes even expressed in terms of hate, what simmers under the surface, was greater than I at least had imagined.
The opposition will be strong, but our desire for change is greater, is what we wrote when FI was launched. And that is, of course, the way it is. When half of the population is subordinated and discriminated against, the only way forward is to bring about change. When the political structures treat women as if we were a minority group that one can be kind towards if there is money to spare, then the only way forward is to bring about change.
Over 300 women(including the odd man) paid their own fare, board and lodgings in order to come to Örebro. During these days we had intense, informative, creative and stimulating meetings and conversations. Probably 80% were attending their first political meeting. We bridged the generation gap between women activists and between the various brands of feminism. I was deeply impressed. What vigour and energy! Yes, we have issued a challenge, but we are far from being exhausted(play on words in Swedish). On the contrary – we are ready to carry on the work we have started. And I can only state that that the political movement that this year expanded the section on equal rights in the government’s policy speech at the opening of parliament from 8 lines to 12, according it a paragraph of its own, has the potential for radically changing the domestic political scene. In time for the speech at the next opening of Parliament.
Tillbaka till Tidigare Feministbrev
