FEMINIST LETTER NO 15
To all feminists
Rumours and speculations have abounded as to whether a feminist party is to be established or not. The media do their very best to obtain information about possible decisions taken, plans drawn up and dates fixed. In the absence of explicit information wild guessing takes over. The result is a rise in tension with unrealistic expectations and one is left with the rather ridiculous impression that some kind of game of cat- and mouse is going on where the issue is –who will be the first to break the code.The feminist movement manifests itself in many different ways. It can take the shape of anything from hundreds of small discussion and action groups to mail lists on a national scale between female politicians at different levels. The fact that these discussions are not accounted for in detail is interpreted in certain quarters as an expression of elitist media tactics, whereas, in effect, it is an expression of respect for the fact that democracy takes time.
Another more significant reason for not carrying on discussion openly is that many women participating feel that they there is a risk involved if they are openly to account for their views. To challenge male power is clearly to threaten strong invested interests. I have met many women in all walks of life, from left to right, who at this very moment are thinking in terms of what price do they have to pay if they openly declared their support for a feminist alternative. Political positions, careers, contacts and research funds appear to be at risk. No one would experience similar hesitation if the issue were to join the executive committee of the Liberal party or the social democratic women’s association.
It is a measure of the weakness of democracy that people are obliged to calculate the personal risk involved before publicly declaring where they stand. The situation can reasonably be compared to the circumstances in which women avoid being alone in dark places. Fear gives rise to self-censorship, both in mental and physical terms.
Personally I have become increasingly convinced that there must be an alternative open for all those who wish to see feminist issues at the top of the agenda. When Göran Persson warns against of a feminist party using the argument that it would pose ”a serious threat” to the social democratic holding of office and would bring about a right wing government, this illustrates the lack of insight that feminism must tackle. He demands once again, just as men in the labour movement have done since the 19th century, that women should put aside the gender struggle and give precedence to the constantly prioritised lass struggle.
Women’s demands for justice are similarly met with in all sections of society. When it comes to the point there always seems to be something else and supposedly of greater value that is at issue, a value by all accounts threatened by feminism. The family, competition, growth potential or democracy itself. And now , evidently, social democratic office! The other day I took part in a debate with Göran Hägglund, the Christian democratic party leader. He argued that feminism “poses a threat to the family” and that “we entrench hostility between men and women”. He does not understand that feminism in actual fact can come to the rescue of love!
The feminist discourse is sometimes described as being the invention of a handful of media-exposed women. “Elite feminism” has even become an accepted media term, in spite of the fact that it was coined as a polemic attack on the feminist movement. The image the phrase conveys rests on considerable ignorance of important historical and political contexts. The movement we see today is the logical consequence of the struggle women have carried on for a great number of years. A hundred years ago women fought for women’s suffrage and the right to education. In the 1070s women demanded day nurseries and the last decade they demanded shared power in the political sphere. Success was in no way assured. These demands were opposed, then as they are today.
The past ten years have given us valuable experience. Having 50% women in parliament and in government is not sufficient to break male structures. The fact that nearly all parties call themselves feminist does not mean that they pursue policies that challenge men’s dominating position in society. When key issues are to be decided in the field of economics or in legislation, feminist demands are still low on the agenda, at least if they afford the slightest challenge to the values and interests defined as important by men in power. As a result of patriarchal structures within the political parties, issues touching on equal rights are far down the list when decisions are made as to what issues come first and where money is to be spent. The wage gap between women and men is not narrowed down one single percent even though party leaderships declare it must be abolished.
We see, therefore, a discrepancy between the real world on the one hand where male society stands firm and the situation on the other hand where women demand political change and political parties promise feminism. The result is impatience and a measure of anger not to be underestimated.
It is this impatience and resentment that I, and many with me, encounter at meetings and in debates throughout the country. My conclusion is that a more systematic feminist perspective must impact on politics to a greater degree than has hitherto been the case. To focus at this point on the power issue, on patriarchal power structures, seems to be the most logical and consistent way for a feminist movement to move forward. At least for those of us who believe that gender equality in our time is perfectly reasonable objective.
Finally, those who now are trying to describe the debate in terms of “Gudrun’s struggle for the female vote” turn a blind eye to the strength and vigour that is manifest in thousands of meetings throughout the country. A dynamic women’s movement is diminished to the level of being the mere object of canvassing for votes, in a paltry power game for personal gain. It is an insult – not first of all against me, but against all the women who demand action and change. NOW!!!
Tillbaka till Tidigare Feministbrev
