Children in focus!

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has made a very interesting choice of laureates this year; Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai. The focus is thus on the child's right to a decent childhood and to education. It is also given to two persons who represent conflictual identities; Indian hindu and Pakistani muslim. Finally, it centres on girls and women's rights to education, in a world where girls and women are discriminated against generally, and particularly in Southern Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh). From a peace and conflict perspective, this year's choice of laureates attends to the central realisation that structural violence leads to direct violence—the exclusion of children, particularly girl children, from social development is obviously part of the conflict scenarios of our times, as well as times gone by.

Read-It!

I just read Glosswitch comment on "Sex-positive" feminism on New Statesman's website (http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it). Guess how Google ad's understood my clicking on that text. I had this ad popping at me: "9 Powerful Words You Can Say That Remind Him Why He Needs You." How ironic!


The article is very, very interesting and timely! The global gender equality project  is but a patriarchal reshuffling of androcentrist interests.

About strong women

As a teen and young adult I was told that strong women are rather unpopular with young men—a view expressed within a highly heteronormative sexual discourse of course. I have by others been defined as 'a strong woman' since before I was legally a woman. I am still unsure whether the comments I received were affirmative or of the more raised finger/warning kind. What I experienced seemed both to confirm and negate the idea of the scare strong women create in men. I tend to believe that the difference between me and those among my friends who were not defined as 'strong' was rather that I was picky. I wanted to decide for myself, not being gracefully chosen by someone. I'm still like that—these days even in my professional life, refusing to go with what the research funders want me to do, instead doing what I want to do. Freedom is essential to my very constitution as a person it seems.

However… I have lately come to think about 'strong women' in a more critical sense. Maybe because of the upsurge in feminist debates, maybe because of tomorrow's Afghan elections. What is, really, a 'strong woman'? Would I say that my friends mentioned above are not strong? Would I say that the women I have interviewed in my research were not strong, or the women reflected in feminist research over the last decades? No, I would not. They are  all, all, very strong individuals, making choices based in experiences and norms. The norm tells us—across the globe—that women who openly express a strong, personal will, refusing to be dictated what to do, say or think are dangerous. To men that is, and other (properly behaving) women. They cannot be controlled, or as my dear brother once defined it; 'tamed' (grinning as he decided that I had been 'tamed' by my husband). What's so interesting about this? Well, guys, male counterparts and dearest friends: you are fooled! No woman I have ever met, or heard about has not been strong. The difference is that some women choose to be open (honest?) about their views, wishes, passions, or have a spirited personality that cannot easily be hidden behind a screen of soft, likeable docility and compliance. In patriarchal societies, that is all the societies we actually know of, women playing the game according to the myth of female amenability are often more successful than those refusing to play according to the rules. But they are no less strong!

The world is populated by strong women. And men. Surviving your early childhood will leave you strong. Some are much more open about it than others. That's the diff!

A Feminist Crash Course on International Women’s Day

Confusion abound. What is feminism? Why do we celebrate a women’s day? Are there any limits to who may claim to be a feminist? The ‘regular Swede in the street’ seems basically to have a very limited idea of what feminism and feminist are. Maybe that’s not so strange though. Most political ideas are not well known or understood generally. How many know anything really about the differences between social liberalism and neo-liberalism? What separates Social Democticism from Socialism, or from National Socialism? How many know that there exists no such thing as a matriarchal society anywhere, that we know of, neither historically nor contemporarily, and that those societies, which are pointed out as matriarchal are actually matrilineal patriarchal societies? How many among those with tertiary education know that feminism is nothing new, or that it is not really one –ism but several?

I have just watched the Swedish Television series of 3 episodes called Fittstim—Min kamp (in translation Pussy Shoal—My Struggle) by a so-called media-feminist of some status in the Stockholm based cultural elite. Then I watched the debate, which was televised directly after the first episode. Now, I watched this on the net, since I don’t really watch tellie as others do (not structured enough to have week long pauses between shows!). It was weird—both the series and the debate. It was so full of no-nothing stuff. It left me with… nothing, really, apart from a very clear understanding that this woman really struggled to understand feminism. Which is really a bit strange since she is a proclaimed (self- and by others) elite feminist. It dawned on me that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. That’s why she needs to get on good terms with the Father figure (Ulf Lundell) she’s stalking with no result through the three episodes. That’s why she picks up on issues of limited importance, while surfing the central stuff. She’s got no idea, but apparently her mother-in-law does have a very clear idea! As has Gudrun Schyman whom she interviews in the first program, and who seems puzzled by the questions from this younger, un-educated and confused woman. She’s a sad figure really. She’s as un-educated when the series end and the debate starts, as she was when she started filming it. Unfortunately, she is not the only un-educated (self-?) proclaimed feminist, not among the general public, nor among the relatively well-educated elite, as became very, very clear during the debate. 

Therefore, a crash course:

1) The common denominator of feminisms is the normative strive for a society in which women and men are considered equally important, and equally respected. There it ends.
2) Thence, fascists can also be feminists. How? Mussolini and Hitler defined women as extremely important to the creation of their envisioned new societies: as mothers and homemakers, of the same importance as breadwinning men-cum-fathers. For the very same reason also religious extremists may consider themselves feminists—as long as women are perceived as equally important as men through filling different but equally important functions in society. If you’re not very right wing this may give you an uneasy feeling of discomfort. The theoretical underpinnings come from Difference Feminism, and Gender Complementarity Theory.
3) The idea of equality between men and women, in the sense of both sexes having the same (often defined as natural) rights and access to the same resources, be it economic, political, social, cultural etc. are basically located in the Liberal Feminist Tradition. The demand for women’s human rights is a long, liberal struggle—Mary Wollstonecraft (Frakenstein’s ‘granny’) was a Liberal Feminist outraged by the decision of throwing women out of the revolutionary French Parliament—while the Suffragette’s and other women’s movements finally won the fight for women’s right to the vote, also a typically Liberal cause. Many of the ‘classical’ or ‘oldies but goodies’ feminists will locate themselves in this category, and generally as researchers they will focus on women and the study of women’s life conditions, circumstances and experiences.
4) On the other end of the left-right political scale we find those who will define women’s struggle for their rights (i.e. liberal heritage) as intertwined with class (and to some extent race) struggles, locally as well as globally. These may be clustered together under the heading Radical Feminism and Socialist Feminism (they will not agree with me in this lumping together however). To clarify a point: if you find any proclaimed feminist stating that men are ‘the enemy’ or that men are by definition to be hated, they tend to be Radical Feminists, but this does not hold for all Radicals! Not at all!
5) Then we have those who may claim to be Gender Feminists, those who are interested in both femininity, masculinity, class, race, sexuality and who will often have Intersectionality as their point of departure, those who tend to focus on the relations of power, on that, which doesn’t fit the general understanding of sameness and difference within and between gendered categories. Those are labelled post-modernist or post-structuralist feminists.
6) And to round off: there are a number of other varieties in-between these very broad categorisations. However, as stated in the first point above: a feminist is someone who strives for a society in which women and men are considered equally important, and equally respected.

Having said this I might add that the Swedish party Feminist Initiative has presented an interesting list of candidates for the EU election (and also for the parliamentary this coming fall),  and a highly interesting political agenda! Check it out! (says a post-structural feminist…)

http://feministisktinitiativ.se