Tallinn University, 12-13.10.2007
The Nordic Gender Equality Politics and the Challenge of Differences
Marianne Liljeström
The concept of gender equality refers to a regulation of relationships between women and
men. The concept is characterised both by it being attached to a binary understanding of
gender, and by meaning “opening up” for women such principles and models of activities
that are connected to men. In this talk I’m going to emphasise that in order to meet the
present challenges for this politics we need to constantly re-examine the concept. With
the purpose of doing this and pointing to some fields of conflict I’ll make short historical
excursions to the Nordic gender equality politics.
When discussing gender equality and more broadly women’s societal activity in our
contemporary world, it’s almost impossible to avoid references to “a Nordic model of
gender equality”. Gender equality and being Nordic, or Nordicness, are centrally
connected to each other. The basis for this connectedness is formed by women’s wideranging participation in working life and their strong representation in the parliaments.
However, in order to be more accurate, it is the situation in Sweden, “the leading country
of gender equality in the world”, which has become a pre-understanding for both
politicians and researchers in specifying and concretisising the Nordic model. As with all
presentations, greater and smaller tales, the general picture, understanding and plot of
Nordicness consist of different parts and contradictions. During different times and
depending on the issues, diverse purposes are formulated for the production of
Nordicness. The practice is nevertheless to articulate it above all in generalisations,
similarities and communities.
The Nordic co-operation in this field of politics has not in the same way as the
agreements accepted by the UN been binding for the member-countries. Instead it has
contributed to the shift and movement of influences between the countries. This cooperation got its institutionalised form already in 1974, when the Nordic Council of
Ministries established an organisation for cooperation. In 1982 the first broad action
program with commitments was accepted. Gender equality plans have been approved for
1989-1993 and 1995-2000. But in general, and especially in Finland, international
commitments have overall been important engines for the gender equality work. (((A
good example is the strategy of gender mainstreaming. This means a development of the
administrative structures and practices in a way where the goal of gender equality is taken
into consideration in preparation and enforcement of decisions. Its purpose is to brake
down gender neutral and gender blind procedures and culture. Instead of these, an
evaluation of the gendered effects of administrative measures should be done. For
example, in connection to important legislative work, the effects of laws for both men
and women should be estimated, and such alternative solutions should be sought for that
advance gender equality. In implementing this strategy, Sweden has – once again – been
a forerunner, for example, by developing mechanisms that make issues on gender
equality visible, understandable and mandatory))).
1
The 1970s meant in the Western world a considerable boom concerning gender politics
and actions directed towards the improvement of women’s situation. The efforts to
analyse the reasons for why gender equality politics became institutionalised during this
decade have resulted in certain, today widely accepted views: First, the strengthening of
the new women’s movement, feminism’s second wave with its origins in the 1960s.
Secondly, the 1970s saw a growth in the interest of the general opinion towards
“women’s issues” and, thirdly, as a result of these, a strong appearance for women’s
demands on both national as well as international arenas. A large-scale education of
women, which began in the 1960s, is generally considered the background for women’s
growing social and political activity. In the Nordic countries, and especially in Sweden,
the 1970s is preceded also by a broad discussion on gender roles. In Norway the first
official account of women’s situation was carried out already in the early 1950s as
cooperation between women’s organisations and the authorities. In Norway, as well as in
Denmark, the feminist movements strongly underlined women’s specificities and the
sexual or gender difference, and worked hard for a large-scale mobilisation of women. As
distinct from these countries, Finnish women accepted in the beginning of the formation
of a gender equality politics homologation as their operative model. This meant avoiding
the question of differences, and adjusting instead to androcentric social norms.
From the 1970s on gender equality politics has been defined and understood as political
procedures by which to promote gender equality. This equality is understood as an ideal,
kind of an end goal, and is to be achieved through different actions. During the times of
economic expansion, when the Nordic welfare states were in the process of construction
– in Finland during the years 1970-1975 – women were an absolutely necessary part of
the labour force. As such, women were major players to be taken into consideration in the
labour movement as well as in politics in general. Besides the advancement of a concept
of gender equality politics, many of those demands that were expressed and put forward
in the 1970s were repeatedly postponed to the latter part of the 1980s. This concerned
both the question of female priesthood, women’s right to their own surname, a more
liberal divorce legislation, as well as the long delay of the gender equality law opposed
by the employers.
However, in the 1980s, especially in the Finnish concept of gender equality, a change of
emphasis occurred: from a similarity based on male norms a shift to acknowledgment of
gendered or women’s differences took place. When difference started to be seen as a
resource instead of lack, women became more strongly actors and agents for gender
equality. This activity was speeded up by a temporally dual understanding of gender
equality: On the one hand, it was used as referring to a still unimplemented future goal,
on the other hand, it was considered to be present already in the ongoing activities. The
latter, “gender equality work in the practice”, was understood as actions for making
women visible, securing their representation, and to bring forth women’s views in all
politics. In Finland the most important reform from the 1980s is the implementation in
1986 of the Gender Equality Law, prohibiting all kind of discrimination against women.
Because especially the Finnish gender equality politics can be characterised as striving to
gender neutrality and avoiding conflicts between men and women, a most challenging
2
problem from the 1990s on, is, on the one hand, the prohibition and regulation of
violence against women, and, on the other hand, at large questions connected to sexuality
and sexual equality. While the authorities in the other Nordic countries since the late
1970s have acknowledged violence against women as an enormous and serious societal
problem, in Finland this has happened with a significant delay. The seriousness that
characterises the attitude towards this matter in Sweden becomes evident, for example, in
a decision from May 2006 when the Swedish government specified the four most
important goals for the present gender equality politics: In addition to an equal gender
division of power and influence; economic equality; and equal division of cost-free
home- and care-work, the forth aim consists of the elimination of men’s violence against
women. In Finland the criminalisation of rape within marriage was accepted in 1994, one
of the last EU-countries. In Sweden the corresponding law was accepted ten years earlier,
in 1984. This concerns also the law on restraining order: in Sweden the law was enforced
in 1988, in Finland 1998. Moreover, also the partnership law is an example of this kind of
delay: the right for persons of the same sex to register their partnership has had legal
force in Denmark since 1989, the first country in the world with this kind of law. The
equivalent law achieved legal force in Norway in 1993, in Sweden 1995 and in Island
1996. In Finland it was accepted in 2002.
In order to further exemplify differences concerning the topic of violence against women
between Sweden and Finland, one can take a look at the sexual offence legislation reform
in Finland in 1998 and the so called Kvinnofrid –reform in Sweden from the same year.
The latter, internationally exceptional “Female Peace”-reform is a large action program
for the prevention of violence against women. Besides legislating against a new crime
called “aggravated offence against female peace”, the reform has received enormous
attention for its criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services.
The most disputed gender equality strategy is the special treatment of women or the
under-represented sex, the imposition of quotas. This affirmative action procedure is
explained and justified with the fact that a certain group has historically been
discriminated against, and the discrimination continues in spite of formal equality. In the
Nordic countries the affirmative action politics has with differing emphases been widely
implemented. The most outstanding in this regard is Norway, which since January the
1st, 2006 has enforced a law concerning the balancing of the gender distribution in the
boards of Norwegian big corporations. According to the law, firms and enterprises should
in accordance with state companies before 2008 secure that none less than 40% of their
board members are women. The new law concerns in all about 500 enterprises, some of
which are listed companies, and about one hundred, which are not.
The gender equality politics of the 1990s is characterised by the question whether the
realisation of (women’s) equality requires affirmative special treatment or is to be
achieved along with time and progress. This question is substantially linked to the
understanding of the reasons for discrimination: is it anchored in the societal system, or is
it considered to be a product only of past and conservative attitudes.
3
During the past years all political parties in Sweden, except the Christian-democrats, have
decided to present themselves as feminist parties. Such prominent politicians as the longtime, Social-democratic Prime Minister of Sweden, Göran Persson, and the present Prime
Minister, the conservative Fredrik Reinfeldt have declared themselves feminists. Besides
the noteworthy increase in the politicising of gender equality politics, interesting here is
the fact, that the Swedish political parties count upon a growth of their support through a
presentation of their political profile as feminist. All the parties underline also that there
is still a long way to go before gender equality is achieved.
The situation could not be more different in Finland. In the public discussions gender
equality is more and more often declared as “already achieved”. Frequently national selfcontent remarks are expressed about our country as the model for gender equal. There is
also an increase in the individualistic, neo-liberal talk about gender equality as an
individual matter dependent on a person’s will, which can transgress possible gender
based obstacles. Such trends are emphasised by the broad anti-feminism present in the
Finnish society. Gender equality and feminism have for decades appeared in public as
antagonistic terms: “Of course I’m for gender equality, but I’m not a feminist…” is the
saying that many women proudly use, an expression which today is almost a trait of the
national, mundane consciousness. An important part of this development is still the
avoidance of manifestations concerning conflicts between men and women. In the
Finnish gender equality debates the involvement of men has often functioned as a means
of legitimating the gender equality politics.
In Sweden the political parties underline in their programs that the gender equality
politics consists precisely of the improvement of women’s situation and circumstances. If
men are connected to the discussion, this happens often from the perspective of changes
in women’s conditions. Thus, the declaration of parties as feminist can also be seen as
taking sides with women. In spite of its gender-neutral label, this was the starting point
for the gender equality politics in all the Nordic countries: the improvement of women’s
lives and the changes in their conditions was the purpose of the politics. Little by little,
and increasingly, men have been linked to this politics. Today in all the countries three
types of men’s organisations exist: therapy- and care groups, groups oriented towards
men’s or father’s rights, and pro-feminist groups.
However, when gender equality is debated on a more abstract level, men are still the
invisible norm. For example, in the discussions about quotas the very important question
of competence was nevertheless and still interpreted first and foremost as a problem
concerning women. When inequality experienced by men is debated, the talk concerns
above all the rights of fathers. However, the question of men’s equal duties and their
responsibility has in the debates been almost invisible.
The Nordic gender equality politics is heteronormative. This is expressed by its adhering
to a strict binary understanding of gender and sexuality. It legitimises such questions as
children’s day care, equal pay and equality on the labour market in the same time as it
silences issues connected to sexuality. The understanding of gender equality as a concern
precisely between a heterosexual, working, family woman and man became particularly
4
evident in the debate about the partnership law. This binary straight model based on
companionship and consensus creates limited conditions for the handling of differences
and potential conflicts between men and women. However, in order to further develop
the gender equality politics, to discuss its content, limits and field of action, it would, in
my opinion, be of first-rate importance to increasingly and more decisively dismantle the
binarity of the gender concept and the heteronormative order itself. I think that we should
discuss whether the capability and profitability of the politics nonetheless is dependent of
its character as denying differences. We should ask, why the politics is defined in a
consensual and one-dimensional way? Is it because this is the means to hold on to such a
gendered binarity, which is veiled in gender neutrality but androcentric to its content? We
also have here an important trouble: Simultaneously as the sexual or gender difference
should decisively be talked into visibility, we should free ourselves from that existing
dilemma where gender equality is understood both as “gender neutral” and as gendered,
that is, precisely as “women’s issues”.
Another field of conflicts is connected to the definition of the aims of gender equality
politics. The classic liberal view emphasised first and foremost equal possibilities for
citizens in spite of their differences. This is a strategy where the sexual or gender
differences are hidden. A norm critical and more courageous gender equality politics has
underlined as its goal equal conditions and results. In practice this has meant demands for
taking into considerations specific traits in women’s positions and life conditions.
However, these strategies have in all the Nordic countries focused solely on the
advancement of the equality between men and women. Only during the latter part of the
1980s has there in Finland been considerations about the positions of immigrants, and as
late as in the 1990s actions have been taken to promote an equality politics for lesbians
and homosexuals. As a result of this measures also in Finland the sphere of equality
politics has little by little broadened from exclusively gender equality to encompass also
other identity groups. Hence, it has been acknowledged that oppression and
discrimination can be multi-based, and that the life situations of individuals can be
controlled and regulated by multiple otherness.
The concept of equality is multi-dimensional and has in different times diverse emphases
and focuses. Therefore, it is important to differ between ontological, juridical and
functional dimensions of the concept. There is no necessary unequivocal correspondence
and consistency between these levels. This becomes evident, for example, in connection
to the dilemma I mentioned about the simultaneousness of “gender neutrality” and
genderedness. It is an enormous challenge to the contemporary equality politics to oppose
multiple oppressions, and in order to meet this challenge it is not enough to hold on to
such an equality concept, which acknowledges only the inequality between men and
women. In the same time as it is impossible to deny the gender difference, it is necessary
to increasingly pay attention to other divisions and identity differences between
people.
5