Fanatical Swedish Feminists

http://66.225.215.31/~mensnews/wp/2006/02/24/fanatical-swedish-feminists/

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602220826.asp

The stuff about chopping men to bits might have been a bit much.


With Congress about to take up the Federal Marriage Amendment, let's
travel a little and take a look at how marriage is faring in
Scandinavia - specifically Sweden, famous as a bellwether of family
change. In 1987, Sweden offered same-sex couples the first domestic
partnership package in Europe. This led Denmark in 1989, then Norway in
1993, to set up a more elaborate system of "registered partnerships"
(with nearly all the rights of marriage), which Sweden adopted in 1994.
I discussed some of these changes in The End of Marriage in
ScandinaviaFebruary 2004 piece. yet much has happened since then.

The years 2004 and 2005 saw the growth, collapse, and apparent rebirth
of a campaign to abolish Swedish marriage and replace it with a
gender-neutral partnership system that allows for multi-partner
relationships. This story of the drive to abolish marriage in Sweden is
bound up with one of the most bizarre and fascinating political tales of
recent years: the rise and burnout of Sweden's first political party
built entirely around women's issues: the Feminist Initiative (FI). (See
"The definitive guide to equality in Sweden.")


Youthful Polyamory
Our adventure begins in March of 2004, when one of the few conservative
papers in Sweden, Nya Dagen, reported that a local youth wing of Sweden'
s governing Social Democrat party had endorsed the idea of replacing
marriage with a gender-neutral, multi-partner-friendly marriage system.
Around the same time, the youth wing of Sweden's Green party called for
formal recognition of polyamorous (i.e. multi-partner) relationships.
Editorializing against these moves, Nya Dagen pointed out that the
leaders of these youth parties would someday be sitting in parliament.
Nya Dagen reminded its readers that the public had been promised no
further changes in the family after the initial same-sex partnership
legislation in 1987, and again after Registered Partnerships in 1994.
Don't believe it! said Nya Dagen. Unless the country reverses course,
Sweden will surely slip further down the slope. That editorial prompted
an angry letter from, Einar Westergaard, a spokesperson for the Green
party's youth wing:
We are trying to achieve a sexual revolution and counteract the
hierarchy that gives heterosexuality privileges and represses other
forms of social life....The two-person standard is part of society's
heterosexual norm...(whereas it is our) aspiration to make the laws as
norm-free as possible....Marriage is not the key to homosexual,
bisexual, and transgender liberation. What's essential is the battle for
norm-free, sex-neutral legislation, and a society without heterosexual
norms."

Certainly, a pro-polyamory movement among the youth divisions of Sweden'
s ruling left-wing coalition bodes ill for the future. Yet the
marriage-abolition bandwagon got rolling a whole lot sooner than Nya
Dagen could have guessed. It merely took a little help from Sweden's
feminists.


Feminist Pressure
Only a few months after that first pro-polyamory upsurge, in the summer
of 2004, Sweden's feminists grew restive with the apparent failure of
their attempt to impose gender quotas on the nation's businesses. In
2002, Equality Minister, Margareta Winberg, had set a much publicized
target of 25-percent female representation on the boards of Sweden's
publicly listed companies. Winberg threatened government-imposed quotas
if this "goal" was not reached by 2004. With gender quotas already in
place in Norway, Sweden's businesses had to take the threat seriously.
Yet by 2004, Sweden's companies were nowhere near compliance, with women
making up only 11.6 percent of board members. What's more, a majority of
parliament opposed business gender quotas. True, the Left Party and
Green party supported quotas, but the key to the governing left-wing
coalition, the Social Democratic party, was deeply divided over the
proposal. So it looked like a major defeat for Sweden's powerful
feminists was in the offing. They'd promised to impose business gender
quotas by 2004 if the "goals" weren't met, yet Sweden's feminists seemed
unable to carry through on their threat.

To break the logjam, Gudrun Schyman, a charismatic member, and former
head, of Sweden's Left party, decided to form a new political party
called the "Feminist Initiative." As the West's most secular country,
where changes in family structure and gender roles are most "advanced,"
Sweden is the center of world feminism. If Sweden's many feminists could
be drawn into a single party, reasoned Schyman, the governing Social
Democrats might be forced to bring them into its coalition. The price
would be Social Democrat support for a package of feminist legislation,
including business gender quotas. This strategy risked splintering the
vote on the left and turning the country over to a coalition of social
moderates. Yet if a feminist party could draw more than the four-percent
minimum of the votes required for parliamentary representation,
prospects for a brave new world of feminist legislation were strong.


Feminist Shopping List
A few months before Schyman bolted the Left party to form the Feminist
Initiative, she had stirred up controversy by proposing a "man tax:" a
tax leveled only on men, to help pay for the government's extensive
array of feminist-run shelters for battered women. Schyman's "man tax"
idea stirred outrage from more moderate commentators like Liza Marklund:
"To declare that all men are guilty of all rapes, that all men are
guilty of violence against women - that's not just offensive and wrong;
if the purpose is to get anywhere with this issue it's just plain
stupid."


Marklund's comments proved prophetic. Yet the man-bashing had to reach
an unheard of pitch before the reaction finally began. So long as the
"man tax" and business-board quotas were the issue, Schyman's promise to
"break down the patriarchal order of power" through FI (the Feminist
Initiative) enjoyed wide support. Early polling showed that five percent
of the public would "definitely" vote for FI, and an amazing 20-25
percent said they would at least consider supporting FI. Numbers like
that could easily have brought business-board quotas, a man-tax, and
many other feminist proposals into law.

Even during this early period of popular support, the Feminist
Initiative floated some remarkably radical ideas. FI planned to change
Sweden's rape laws by requiring men to ask women permission for sex
(something like the famous rules of sexual engagement at Antioch
College). There was also a call for "comparable worth" legislation, to
equalize pay between professions dominated by men (e.g., truck drivers)
and women (e.g., phone operators).

A central plank of FI's platform was forcing fathers to take as much
time off for childcare as mothers. Most of the one-year leave allowed to
Swedish parents can be taken by either the mother, the father, or both.
Determined to eliminate all differences between men and women, Sweden's
feminist wanted to assign half of this leave to fathers alone. That
would force fathers to spend as much time on early child-rearing as
mothers, or would push children into the day care system at six months
of age. (Most Swedish children enter state-run day care at age one.)
Either alternative would strike a huge blow against traditional family
roles. Sweden's feminists also hoped to promote androgyny through gender
quotas for day care workers, and through attempts to suppress the
gender-specific behavior of boys and girls in day care.


Feminist Gains
Schyman's strategy quickly bore fruit. To stem the tide of feminist
deserters, left-leaning parties put forward proposals modeled on FI's
platform. The governing Social Democrats recommended an "equality bonus"
for families that took the same amount of paternal and maternal leave.


And as one of many concessions to FI, the government agreed to consider
adopting formal same-sex marriage (instead of "registered
partnerships"). Together, the three left-coalition parties (the Social
Democrats, the Left Party, and the Greens) decided to give lesbian
couples the right to receive artificial insemination from the government
's health service. This eliminated one of the sole remaining differences
between registered partnerships and marriage.

Lesbian couples were given the benefit of government-supported
insemination regardless of whether they were registered partners or
simply cohabiting. That is quite the opposite of what the "conservative
case" for same-sex marriage would predict, of course. The government was
treating registered partnership on a par with mere cohabitation as a
setting for parenthood. The government also agreed that both members of
the lesbian couple would be recognized as a child's mother, thereby
creating potential claims of triple parenthood and contributing to the
notion that fathers are dispensable. The new regulations on lesbian
insemination came into effect in July of 2005, along with a number of
other measures designed to promote androgyny (for example, a measure
that prohibits businesses from charging women more than men for the
"same" service - say, a haircut).

By spring of 2005, the Feminist Initiative was riding high. The new
cultural mood emboldened Sweden's feminists both in and out of
government. As a result of feminist threats, for example, the Miss
Sweden pageant was canceled (for the first time since 1952).


Men Are Animals
In the midst of all this feminist success, trouble struck with the
broadcast of a televised documentary called The Gender War. This
close-up look at Sweden's feminist movement exposed a degree of
radicalism that shocked even Sweden's socially liberal public.

The documentary featured prominent feminist academic and activist, Eva
Lundgren, claiming that half of all Swedish women are victims of male
violence. Lundgren went on to assert that a network of male Satanist
groups had carried out hundreds of ritual baby murders in Sweden. (A
formal inquiry by Uppsala University has since discredited both claims.)
Another segment of the documentary featured Ireen von Wachenfeldt, chair
of the government's women's shelters. Von Wachenfeldt's remarks set off
what soon became known as the "men are animals" controversy.

Under Von Wachenfeldt, the government's women's shelter network had
printed excerpts from the "SCUM Manifesto" (Society for Cutting Up Men),
penned by a radical feminist in the late 1960s. The SCUM Manifesto urges
women to "destroy the male sex" by using modern science to insure that
only female children are born. SCUM goes on to say: "To call a man an
animal is to flatter him: he's a machine, a walking dildo." Asked by the
film-maker if she agreed, Von Wachenfeldt said, "Yes, man is an animal.
Don't you think so?"

Lundgren and Von Wachenfeldt's televised statements set off shock waves
in a Sweden perhaps soon to be governed by a coalition that would
include FI. After all, the "man tax" would fund a shelter system run by
a woman who appeared to despise men. The government's new Equality
Minister, Jens Orback, seized on the controversy to criticize Von
Wachenfeldt's "separatist" decision not to work with or employ men in
government shelters.

Thrown off-balance by the controversy, the Feminist Initiative tried to
find a "male feminist" to place on its governing board. Unfortunately,
their chosen male candidate declined the honor.


Dogged by the "men are animals" controversy through the spring and
summer, the Feminist Initiative headed into its critical September 2005
convention determined to emerge with a winning platform. Yet the
convention saw divisions emerge. After a bitter power-struggle, several
"moderates" resigned from FI's board. They complained that a
"broad-based" program (focused, say, on business quotas and compulsory
paternity leave) was being pushed aside by a radical coalition dominated
by homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered. One erstwhile FI board
member said she'd been "bullied for being a middle-class heterosexual."

Determined to transcend "patriarchal norms," FI decided against having
official leaders. Yet now the purged "moderate" feminists complained of
a "democratic deficit" on the board. The Feminist Initiative had become
"much worse" than the traditional patriarchal organizations it was meant
to replace, said one. In other words, "man tax" advocate and de facto
leader, Gudrun Schyman, was in control, purging the "moderates"
(themselves quite radical by American standards) and siding with the
radicals. The entertainment at the conference further radicalized the
party's image, particularly the rapturous applause for a song that went,
"F***ing man, we're going to chop you to bits."


Abolishing Marriage
FI's victorious radical faction was led by Tiina Rosenberg, a feminist
professor who made a badge of her lesbianism. Rosenberg raised public
hackles for reportedly calling women who sleep with men "traitors to
their gender." And shortly after her triumph at the convention,
Rosenberg announced the Feminist Initiative's new proposal: the
abolition of marriage and its replacement by a system of gender-neutral
partnership legislation that would allow for multiple partners. Like the
youth parties the previous year, Rosenberg touted the proposal as
freeing the family from "heterosexual norms." "The history of marriage
is not about love and living together," she said, "it's about
ownership."


By this time, however, FI's poll numbers were collapsing from the
combined effect of the "men are animals" controversy and the man-bashing
at the FI conference. The Left party (which Gudrun Schyman had bolted to
start FI) made a bid for FI supporters by embracing the idea of a
gender-neutral, polyamory-friendly partnership system as an alternative
to marriage. Within a month of the now infamous FI convention, Tiina
Rosenberg was forced to resign from the party. Schyman blamed
"homophobia" for the attacks on Rosenberg. In the meantime, Prime
Minister Goran Persson announced that, if necessary, he would be willing
to join in a coalition government with the Feminist Initiative, and
would in fact prefer that to a coalition with a new and more
conservative Euroskeptic party. "FI is further to the left," said
Persson. "We could come to agreement on many of their demands.

But with the collapse of the Feminist Initiative's popular support in
the wake of the man-bashing controversies, it looks as though FI now has
little prospect of entering a governing coalition. True, the parties of
the left will likely continue to co-opt parts of FI's platform, as a way
of mollifying Sweden's large and restless feminist constituency. Yet,
for now, the prospect of an independent feminist political party seems
to have passed.


Lessons
Sweden has obviously begun to slide "down the slope." Were it not for
the supposedly final same-sex partnership initiatives of 1987 and 1994,
Sweden would not now be facing calls for the abolition of marriage and
the recognition of polyamorous partnerships. And if that man-bashing
hadn't been exposed by a documentary, FI might still be riding high. The
remarkable thing is that, well before the man-bashing, when FI was
talking about radical ideas like a "man tax" and compulsory paternal
leave, the party was considered "moderate," and looked on with favor by
a huge segment of the electorate. Many Swedes remain willing to support
radical feminist reforms, and that is why the Left Party has co-opted FI
's relationship plan.


Sweden's bold feminists have exposed the long-term agenda of the social
left. Still, given FI's tactical errors, we can expect Sweden's social
radicals to adopt a more subtle strategy. The Law Commission of Canada
has advocated the establishment of a flexible, gender-neutral,
multi-partner relationship system in addition to marriage. The strategy
is to get that new system going, then subtly phase out marriage,
boil-the-frog-style. Expect proposals like this from Sweden.

Even if the Left Party loses its place in Sweden's governing coalition
at some point, it will surely be back. Say a decade from now, under some
future left-dominated coalition, the time may be ripe for adopting an
experimental multi-partner-friendly relationship system that, in the
long run, can push marriage itself aside. As Sweden's conservatives
point out, now that youth divisions of the country's left-leaning
parties are starting to tout polyamory, we can expect future parliaments
to consider the idea.

What does it mean when a movement wants simultaneously to formalize gay
marriage, equate marriage with mere registered partnerships, equate
registered partnerships with mere cohabitation, and then abolish
marriage itself? It seems contradictory, but it all makes perfect sense
once you realize that Sweden's social liberals don't support either gay
marriage or registered partnerships out of any affection for marriage
itself. On the contrary, Sweden's social left is simply using gay
marriage as a lever to achieve the abolition of marriage itself.

This is not how things were supposed to turn out according to the
"conservative case" for gay marriage. Registered partnerships should
have decreased cultural radicalism. Instead they've merely whetted the
left's appetite for more radical reforms.


Once again, Sweden is showing us a possible future. The idea that we can
and should abolish marriage and recognize multi-partner unions has its
advocates in America, though they may seem too few to be bothered with.
We ought not, however, mistake their chances for long-term success.
Those radical advocates recognize something that even the moderate
proponents of gay marriage overlook or deny: gay marriage changes the
way that young people see and understand their social world. The slope
from gay marriage to polyamory and ultimately to no marriage is not
slippery by accident, but by design.


.

Relevant Pages

  • 2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, Americas Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored
    ... mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. ... The Democrat Feminist Machine ... Real Christians must do business here on earth, holding feminists ... Republicans: AWOL on Marriage Policy ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Ask Dr. Helen: Should Men Get Married?
    ... an advice column to Pajamas Media. ... Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family_: ... casual sex wasn't on my agenda. ... just as feminists view sex. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Theres Nothing Wrong With Marrying A "Career" Female
    ... Feminists and women in general do not want ... the women who are making themselves unmarketable in the marriage game. ... feminist) has pretty much zero market value. ... As Paul McCartney is learning. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Feminism Is Why We Are So Delicate Pursuing the "Warm War"
    ... is America so delicate with the enemy?, ... This distinction is important because post-WKKK feminists who today demand ... they want from men, completely absent marriage. ... expand Johnson's so-called "War on Poverty", ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Juliani Will Win
    ... financial backers that are key to the Demoncrat party like George "2nd ... and you want him out of the party. ... 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the ... My main concern now is that the Democrats ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)