Gender Equality

Another example of an article where the author throws out an inaccurate generalization about the U.S. in order to support her otherwise pretty shaky thesis: The Economic Crisis can Bring us More Equality.

The program I studied in order to get my Swedish teaching degree was called Aspirantutbildningen, and was specifically for immigrated academics who wanted to become certified teachers in Sweden. The majority of the participants were women, though not overwhelmingly so (a higher percentage of our class was men than in the corresponding teaching program for "natives"). We came from quite a variety of different cultures, from the U.S. and England to several from Iraq, Syria and Bosnia. We had lived in Sweden for varying amounts of time, from 2 years in my case and the case of the girl from England (who is now one of my dearest friends) to 14 years or more for others. Some of my classmates were in their early twenties, and the two ladies from Russia were in their 50s.

We got along with each other very well, and it was a fun class to be in. We often bristled at our classes about democracy and equality and tolerance, though -- especially the "Democracy and value questions" class that was mandatory for us but not even offered for the Swedish teaching students. When we had a visiting scholar come to our class and lecture on the subject of gender equality (jämställdhet), we were in fairly unanimous agreement: her lecture was shit, and we were sick of the Swedish idea of what gender equality means.

We took this up with our teacher afterwards, and got into a long discussion with him about the same example that came up and was hotly debated (with most of us firmly on the one side and the lecturer, and later our male teacher, on the other side) during the lecture: it's okay that most teachers are women. It's okay if there are more women that want to stay home with their kids than there are men who want to do so, and it's okay that there are more male CEOs than female CEOs. It's okay -- and this is where we really made people cover their ears and scream "OH NO THEY DI'IN!" -- for men and women to want different things and to believe that biology plays a roll in those desires. Feminism, according to us, is the view that everyone, regardless of gender, should be able to make all these choices for themselves, and without feeling ashamed of their choices, and that the Swedish view of gender equality was therefore, ironically enough, often at odds with the true spirit of feminism.

That was our side, of course. The other side was to tell us that we just THINK we chose to be teachers and that we would like to work part time in order to be home with our children, but that we're really brain-washed by society and don't know what's best for us. It honestly never ceases to blow my mind that telling me I shouldn't be what I want to be because I don't know what's best for me sounds like feminism to some people.

Anyway, the point is that our teacher -- who I liked don't get me wrong -- was baffled by our attitude, an attitude that seemed to him to be a classroom full of foreign women who were just dying to subject themselves to the big nasty patriarchy. He saw it as a sign that we didn't understand that we were "living in a man's world" and that there was still work to be done. This is, as I understood it later upon private discussion with him, his reason for telling us a rather depressing story about a 13-year old girl from Motala who was liqoured up and raped by some adults and about the legal system's subsequent appallingly stupid and indifferent response to the incident.

So, the reason I start with this rather long discussion about this experience from my university days is so I can make the disclaimer: I am in no way under the illusion that any society, even the U.S. or Sweden, is the utopian ideal of gender equality and that I don't live in what is still "a man's world."

I do not deny that at least one very good point is brought up in the article: the fact that Volvo has had to lay off a bunch of people has been splashed across the media day in and day out and has launched floods of politicians into action. The fact that Coop is going to lay off 1000 people has not been treated nearly as seriously. The article is trying to say that this is because auto workers are mostly men and that grocery store workers are mostly women.

I'm sure there is truth in this. However, my first bit of devil's advocacy on that point is that we can't go around blaming only our politicians for the inconsistency. I had NO IDEA whatsoever that Coop was laying off people, which means the "fourth branch of government" -- the news media -- can take credit for seriously dropping the ball as far as responding equally to the two different incidents. I also think it's a far less fair comparison than the editorial writer suggests, partly because she has inaccurately said that 1300 people have been given pink slips at Volvo (adding up the several waves of "varsel" that have come out from Volvo gives a number much higher than 1300*), and partly because what we're talking about here is the possible bigger picture of both Volvo and Saab completely going under and all the domino-effect ramifications that can have for other industries and the Swedish economy. No one is concerned that some layoffs from Coop are going to shut down the entire business of buying and selling food in Sweden, and rightfully so. It may be an economic crisis, but we're still a spoiled western country -- we're not going to stop buying food, for crying out loud.

The main point of the editorial is to discuss whether or not an economic crisis will help or hurt the cause of gender equality. After first discussing what the author feels is the more obvious theoretical result -- that an economic crisis will force us into a sort of "panic" or "comfort" mode where gender stereotypes are embraced more tightly -- she then goes on to point out that the opposite can be the case, and gives examples of how many of gender equality's most important steps forward came during times of crisis in the 1900s. To show that gender equality can be "harmed" by good economic times, she says, "Alldeles nyss rådde, mitt i galnaste högkonjunktur, värsta hemmafruvurmen på decennier." Translated: "Just recently, right in the middle of the craziest of economic booms, we had the worst 'housewife craze' in decades." To show that gender equality can be "helped" by bad economic times, she says: "När män blir arbetslösa kan man tänka sig att deras hittills deltidsarbetande fruar kräver att få gå upp på heltid." Translated: When men lose their jobs, you can imagine that their part-time working wives demand to be able to work full time."

Again, while I have no problem with the author's basic thesis -- that an economic crisis can surely be both positive and negative for gender equality -- I bristle at the illustrative examples she uses (and the ironically chosen words) as to what is equality and what is not. I can't help but ask for the fifty-eleventh time what is so horrible about being a housewife if that's what you choose to be. Similarly, what is so horrible about working part time, and why on earth would a woman have to "demand" to her husband that he "allow" her to work full time? Why this 1950s assumption that a woman who works part time or stays at home does so because her husband has put her in her place? That she's sitting at home longing to work full time and that she requires a full-blown world crisis in order to have that opportunity? In a country where the men are constantly getting lambasted for not staying home enough, why is it so impossible to accept that a woman might choose to stay home and that she might consider the very possibility a freedom -- and consider working full-time during an economic crisis an unfortunate necessity rather than an opportunity? Why is it that the mere fact that women make a certain choice more often than men makes that choice an admirable one for men to make but a shameful one for women to make?

Now we come to the obligatory false generalization about America that seemingly has to be thrown into every editorial about society in order to sooth some sort of underlying little brother complex. After a paragraph that strikes me as both self-satisfied glorification of Swedes and Sweden, saying that Swedes are simply excellent at everything that's tolerant and modern while simultaneously missing the irony in the proposal to force immigrants to sign a contract stating that they will be just as Swedishly modern and tolerant, the author writes: "Kan det vara så enkelt som en fråga om var någonstans man hittar sin trygghet. Det är ju tryggheten vi kräver i oroliga tider och amerikanerna hittar sin trygghet i en bred mansfamn. Då får kvinnan krympa så att hon får plats där." Translated: "Could it be a matter simply of where we find security? It's security that we demand in uncertain times and Americans find their security in the protective arms of masculinity. Women have to shrink in order to fit in."

As usual, this mention of the U.S. comes seemingly out of left field -- it comes from nowhere and goes nowhere and just seems to be a strange mini-departure from the article's main argument. This goes hand-in-hand with the other "as usual": nothing is offered to support this wild generalization, which is understandable if it was just thrown in as a sort of egotistical verbal masturbation.

The author clearly holds to the definition of feminism and equality that claims we would have more of both if more CEOs and business executives were women, more nurses and teachers were men, and if all housework and child-rearing were shared so fanatically equally that number of square inches of floor mopped and grass cut were 50/50 to within the breadth of a human hair. This means I can't help but assume that she has no more experience with America than what she gets from her secret habit of uncritically viewing Jerry Springer and Ricky Lake. Otherwise she would know that the divide between "women's occupations" and "men's occupations" is not nearly as drastic in the U.S. and that women tend to go back to work quite quickly after having a baby in the States. Sure, the reason women go back to work right away and chuck their kids into daycare is because there isn't the almost year and a half of paid parental leave in the States that we're blessed with in Sweden, but I think Swedes need to stop providing that opportunity and simultaneously bitching and moaning that women are using it -- you can't have your frickin' cake and eat it, too.

Am I saying that women and men are more equal in the States than they are in Sweden? No. What I'm saying is that I don't believe there's more equality in Sweden, either; that there are several attitudes and laws in place in the States with the very purpose of securing more gender equality (for instance, that a woman who stays at home earns Social Security in the same amount as her husband) that would be called "kvinnofällor" -- traps for women -- in Sweden. That there are clearly several different ways to define what makes men and women equal. That you can be practical and actually do things to solve actual diseases -- like the fact that women earn less for the same work than men -- or you can bang your head against the wall trying to patch up the resulting symptoms of those diseases that you, arguably mistakenly, perceive as problems -- like the fact that women use more of the state-provided parental leave than men do or the fact that more women will choose to stay home with their children than men.

The simple fact of the matter is that I rarely felt limited by my gender before moving to Sweden. The times that I have felt manipulated or discriminated against because of my gender have come pretty exclusively from people who think they're "encouraging me" or helping me "realize my potential". I spent two miserable years as a PhD student in mathematics because everyone that I ever looked up to was totally right about my possessing the talent to be a professional mathematician but totally blind to the fact that I didn't WANT to be one. It was such a "waste" for a person as smart or talented as me to become "just a teacher" that my desire to teach was met with an assumption that I must be joking or being sarcastic; it was half-subtly suggested that such a frivolous choice would be a let-down to women everywhere. But my worst experiences with being told what was right or wrong for me to do as a woman came after I had moved to this country, and in an eerie echo from arguments about why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or to learn how to read, I was told it was because someone else knows better than I do when it comes to what's best for me and what I really, actually want out of life. I understand that in its infancy feminism was about women getting jobs and the same jobs as men hold. But there comes a point where it's time for feminism to grow up and return to its very axioms: that every individual should have full and exclusive control over their own life choices, regardless of their gender. That more mature brand of feminism clearly hasn't come in this county. So I don't think it's time for us as Swedes to have yet another session of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're just so awesome and equal and tolerant and open to new ideas, which is why ALL OTHER IDEAS ARE WRONG!"

---

*A quick search finds:
Sept. 30: Volvo anläggninsmaskiner "varslar" 500 employees (a warning that 500 people will be laid off)
Oct. 8: 3,300 employees at Volvo personvagnar
Oct. 23: 850 employees at Volvo Construction Equipment
Nov. 11: 900 employees at Volvo Powertrain