A very welcome guest post today from Lena Wångren and Dominic Hinde. Dominic is a Scots Green activist and doctoral student in Scandinavian Studies at the University of Edinburgh. Lena is a post-doctoral researcher at the department of English Literature at the University of Edinburgh. She is originally from Stockholm and has been active in feminist campaigning in both Sweden and Scotland.
Looking back at the Scottish local elections, it is appalling to see just how male-dominated Scottish politics (and public life) is. There was husting upon husting without a single female candidate from any of Scotland’s more established political parties, and the SNP in particular were frustratingly male. In hindsight this is hardly surprising given the macho personality politics upon which Alex Salmond has built the SNP.
Then, the week after the election, people in social media (women included) were casually tossing around phrases such as ‘unionist witch’ to describe Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran. Just imagine if those words hadn’t been aimed at women but at someone from an ethnic minority. South of the border, and in a different context, backbench Tory MP Louise Mensch suffered even more violent sexist abuse via Twitter because of her defence of Rupert Murdoch. She may support an enemy of a free press, but the people who ganged up on her from the safety of their smartphones should not be welcome in any political forum. Now we’re fans of neither the Scottish Labour Party nor the SNP, just before we get accused of being partisan, in part because neither party seem aware that Scotland needs a new and proactive feminism in order to break down barriers for women, increase opportunities in some areas for men, and to generally move on to create the ‘beacon of progressiveness’ which the First Minister claims it is our manifest destiny to become.
When was the last time anyone stood up in the chamber at Holyrood and declared that they were a feminist? Who is brave enough to say that feminism is not a historical phenomenon but more current than ever in its potential to change society for the better? Not big Eck for sure.
Domestic violence, shared maternity and paternity leave, sexual assault, academic and employment opportunities, sexual and family health and economic performance are all areas in which a robust and progressive feminist politics can help to make Scotland a better place. And implicitly grounded in all these issues is a potential destabilising of the rigid gender roles that restrict us as individuals. Politics is about policy, but it is also about creating the social debates which allow those policies to succeed. It is about changing the mindset of the establishment to the extent that feminism is seen as a public good and not just a fringe interest. In the same way that the growth of the Greens has brought environmentalism in from the fringes to the centre, we hope that they might do the same with gender politics.
The Greens would appear ready-made for taking a more central stage in discussions regarding gender equality in Scotland, with their policy of having a male and a female co-convenor. Something which we would like to see more of is both Patrick Harvie and Martha Wardrop appearing and debating together, as is the case with their counterparts in Sweden.
Likewise, if Cameronite Swedish conservative leader Fredrik Reinfeldt, along with many leaders of the other main parties, can stand up in Parliament and feel obliged to at least pay lip service to the movement, then so can Holyrood.
The Greens do however face a great challenge in bringing gender equality on top of the agenda as the situation here is rather different than in Sweden. Both countries have long histories of labour and women’s movements, but the focus on gender has been left behind in the UK. There is a significant difference in how the public discourse approaches feminism. In the UK, the term ‘feminist’ is often considered a derogatory label, falsely seen as implying an ideology in which women should be posited above men. (We have yet to meet one single feminist who identifies their politics in terms of women’s supposed superiority.) In Sweden however, the term feminist is taken for what it is – a struggle for gender equality, through which people of all genders will benefit.
Furthermore, while in the UK we sometimes see a biologically essentialist claim to feminism -the idea that ‘only women can be feminists’-, in Sweden there is no requirement to identifying as a feminist beyond a support for the aims of the same rights for all, male or female. And feminism is indeed for everyone. In Sweden, a robust feminist politics has created equal parental leave (one and a half years in total, to be divided between the parents irrespective of their sex), affordable and pedagogical nurseries with highly educated staff, political representation of women which has steadily increased since the early twentieth century (the ratio in the Swedish Parliament is currently 45 percent women and 55 percent men). Rather than having to defend your feminism, in Sweden you might have to defend why you do not identify as one.
There is major potential for a Green feminist politics in Scotland. Presently, there is not one single party in Holyrood that explicitly espouses feminist policies, or even has a particular section of their politics based around gender equality. There may exist a ‘Labour Women’ group, but the party itself has not lately been speaking up for gender equality. The progressive libertarians in the Lib Dems aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to take a stand either, and even though the Greens have ‘equality’ as one of their main focuses – gender equality seems to have gone missing of late.In the latest Green manifesto, the term ‘gender’ was used only once .The term ‘feminist’ was entirely absent.
We want to create a Scotland which is more equal, democratic and environmentally responsible. An innovative feminist agenda is an important component in this, and the Greens should be the party to take it forward. They have time and time again proven themselves to be capable of innovation and ideas far and above their resources and representation, and we sincerely hope that the growth of the Greens coincides with a sea change in our country’s appreciation of feminist politics.
#1 by Barbarian on May 19, 2012 - 7:11 pm
What exactly are you trying to promote? Equal numbers of politicians based on gender? That in itself is a form of discrimination.
The argument for equality should be debated on the merit of an individual, not their gender. Highlight cases of obvious inequality but don’t force quotas.
#2 by BM on May 20, 2012 - 7:49 pm
So why is it then that women are chronically under-represented? All things being equal, we should have meritorious man and women in roughly the same proportions as men/women in the general populace, but we don’t. Doesn’t that suggest that the meritorious women are being systematically over-looked with unworthy men being put into place in their stead?
If men are just naturally better at being politicians (or otherwise), then why don’t chambers with better equality (and indeed, businesses) lapse into spasms of ineffectualness?
Even if women were in general less meritorious than menfolk, it’s in the interest of the country that women’s voices are listened too. It’s in our interests to make sure that women get the training and experience necessary to represent the viewpoint and issues of importance to women.
Indeed, if the show was on the other foot, and it was men who were most likely to end up with a lower income, with worse job prospects, and greater chance of being sexually abused, I’d want quotas on male representatives to make damn sure that our issues aren’t over looked in favour of things a bunch of biased other-sexes deemed more meritorious.
#3 by Dominic Hinde on May 19, 2012 - 7:32 pm
We’re trying to promote a society in which we achieve real and long term cultural change. Political parties do quite obviously need to take issues of gender more seriously. They are free to do it as they wish, and having gender balanced lists is simply one option.
#4 by Observer on May 19, 2012 - 11:26 pm
OK I agree that more women should get involved in politics. As a woman I find it very frustrating that so many other women I know are politically illiterate & spend more time on reality TV than reality politics. But you know I can’t blame the patriarchy for that I blame the women.
#5 by Hrmmm on May 20, 2012 - 12:03 pm
I wouldn’t identify myself as a feminist. The term, by definition, is biased. I’d consider myself an equalist – I want equality for all, regardless of race/gender/age/whatever.
When employment figures are worse for women, people like Johann Lamont and Lesley Riddoch go out of their way to bring it up. When figures such as the fact that more men are unemployed than women on the whole come out, it goes largely ignored or considered in a broad, non gender specific sense. If this is ever questioned, I’ve heard self identified feminists say it’s about time women had a better stat than men.
Furthermore, I find the insinuation that ‘macho’ politics have stopped women getting involved fairly insulting and pretty sexist. Firstly, what is ‘macho’? Can women not be ‘macho’? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is it some overbearing male trait that women can’t deal with or possess? I don’t think so. Why can’t a woman be confident and imposing when exchanging rhetoric? I’d say Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont show that they do it very well. I can see the argument that our politics are too -aggressive-, but that doesn’t only put women off and isn’t really the reason we have under representation.
It is a problem that not enough women are involved in politics, or even knowledgeable about it. Arbitrarily making sure women are in lists is a smokescreen, though. It’s discriminatory against any male who doesn’t get to be involved due to a ‘quota’, and it is demeaning to any woman who gets in because of one. The answer is to engage women in society in politics and get more grass roots involvement.
Despite my semi-rant, I do agree with the basic principle you’re espousing. If Scots Politics had more feminism in it, it would be better. However, until our feminists start using feminist methodologies for the betterment of us all, and not just 50% of us, I think they’ll struggle.
Rape, child welfare, domestic abuse, equal opportunities and any other issues women particularly suffer from are extremely important and should be considered so. I’d just like to see some questions asked about male suicide rates, male criminality and how it relates to upbringing, male loss of life during war, male sentencing tending towards more severe in court, and generally a broader range of gender based issues.
#6 by BM on May 20, 2012 - 8:03 pm
My girlfriend says I’m a feminist, but I don’t like the term either – it supposes that those who favour euqality are the ones with some sort of radical ideology to push, while those who think women should get paid less, be more dependent on the state, and should be systematically over-looked when it comes to furthering your career are somehow the sane, salt-of-the-earth, goodies, and not the mad, sexist, baddies.
I think the reason why unemployment inequality for women is brought up as an issue, while inequalities for men is ignored is because these issues have been chronic for women and on-going for centuries. A blip of higher male unemployment in one quarter is, frankly, note a result of systematic matrarchy-endorsed bias, but a result of the massive economic problems we’ve been having lately. It’s still easier for that unemployed man to get a job next quarter than the unemployed woman laid off the same week.
In Norway, companies over a certain size must fulfill a quota of women on their board. In the beginning, people said it would be demeaning, and that the women would be resented, and that was the case initially, but the women selected weren’t idiots. They showed that they were just as capable, and now it would be demeaning to say that those women are only there because of some quota – they are there because they deserve to be.
#7 by R Pollock on May 21, 2012 - 12:58 pm
So does the quota still exist today?
#8 by Steen Parish on May 20, 2012 - 12:29 pm
I’m an Anglo-Dane with extensive experience of both Scandinavian and British society and often get asked what the differences are.
Over the years I’ve come up with a paragraph to illustrate it.
“In Scandinavia we maintain and repair things on a constant on-going basis. In the UK we wait for it to break, then we wait a little longer before possibly fixing it badly”
The essence being; attitudes. Attitudes are such a deeply ingrained inheritance and probably the toughest thing to change in any individual or society.
That said, we must absolutely argue for better gender equality in all aspects of life. I for one, am a perfectly happy man argueing for it.
I’ll take the liberty of highlighting a European Greens report on women and climate change:
http://stopclimatechange.net/index.php?id=320
#9 by franwhi on May 20, 2012 - 8:49 pm
I have two daughters in their 20’s and they woud not identify as feminist even though they are in an unconscious way – if that makes sense. When young women in the developed world shrug and say they don’t like or need feminism I think it’s worth pointing out that the gains of feminism to date haven’t even reached many women and girls in many parts of the world and that where it has resulted in gains it stands on the shoulders of past feminist giants. If the future builds on the past then short memories don’t serve the cause of equality well. Will the new Scottish Studies curriculum developments take the opportunity to celebrate the achievements, the courage and the principled stance taken by many Scottish women in the past ?
#10 by Hrmmm on May 20, 2012 - 9:11 pm
@BM:
“I think the reason why unemployment inequality for women is brought up as an issue, while inequalities for men is ignored is because these issues have been chronic for women and on-going for centuries.”
That’s not good enough for me, though. People who were discriminated against a century ago don’t tend to be around any more. I don’t feel any association with people who shared my sex 200 years ago. I’m in my early twenties, and I do not engage in sexist behaviour. I refuse to feel guilty about anything that men 100 years ago did to women 100 years ago – not least because I don’t feel like any of us can truly relate to that time, or the people involved.
In principle, I feel that allowing inequality to be ignored because it’s against the grain is wrong at best and hypocritical at worst. I’m sorry if it seems I am straw manning you. You didn’t say that you believe that male equality shouldn’t be addressed because of historical inequality, you simply offered an explanation for why it is ignored by the wider world. I just wanted to get the above off my chest 🙂
#11 by R Pollock on May 21, 2012 - 12:57 pm
I’m White Scottish and a man. I am not sexist to anybody and don’t feel like I should feel shame for what other people may or may not do. We are all individuals and I would be very disconcerted that I should be overlooked for promotion because I was deemed to come from a “well fed” group of society. I totally agree with Hrmmm in that I do not feel any guilt because some idiot a long time ago of the same sex was a sexist. I am not and that’s what matters.
Sort out society. Everything should be based on merit.