Sweden beyond gender?

Sweden beyond Gender?

There are signs that there is a concerted effort, perhaps sanctioned by the political authorities, to move beyond gender, or achieve as it has been said, gender neutrality. An article in Time Magazine (November 4, 2013) discusses the current state of the Swedish society in terms of gender.  Sweden has come a long way in terms of equality between men and women, but here a new phase has seen the light of day. At one of the preschools in Stockholm called Nicolaigarden “they still stock dolls and trucks, but ‘neutral’ toys like Legos and dinosaurs predominate” (Time p 27). But one parent at this very progressive school thought it had gone too far when another couple “refused to tell anyone the sex of their newborn baby because… ‘they didn’t want anyone to project their gender ideas onto the child’” (Time p 28).

There are many things at work here. What worries me is that once again Swedish society proves itself to be a “one issue society”. This is aggravated by the fact that the state run media and the major papers of the country seem to latch on to the one and only issue of importance. One can agree that gender equality is of primary importance but you hardly achieve your objectives by telling on a daily basis that women are disadvantaged in this or that way and implicitly or explicitly implying that men are the culprits. Things are more complicated than that and you gain nothing by blaming one half of the “Swedish humanity” for the sufferings of the other half. If this goes on too long this very method of portraying the problem will lead to a situation where the very idea of gender justice will look like a farce. What we need to attack is for example domestic violence and you do not achieve less violence by simply blaming men for what they are supposed to be doing. This simplistic way of portraying reality will backfire.

There are other problems at play. Gender equality is supposed to guarantee equal rights of women and men, but so easily, and perhaps this is part of human weakness, it becomes more a question of becoming the same rather than becoming equal. There are several pitfalls here. Let me mention three things, which are closely interlinked. It is certainly more than obvious that after centuries of male domination in almost all fields, women also would like to do what men always did. Now the doors must be made wide open for that, but the net result often is that women are trying hard to become like men, as tough, as hard, as physically strong or whatever. There must of course be a door wide open for that kind of understanding of how a new relationship could develop, but it could not be the only one. We can easily see that in some instances the feminist effort, very well intended, has resulted in women emulating men, even in terms of dress and body language; nothing to laugh about, rather something to be sad about. What are completely underestimated also in Swedish society, which still is inherently conservative, despite denials of this, are the deeply rooted male structures that dominate and steer most of our actions. After centuries of male dominance there is no wonder that this still is the state of affairs.

The second thing is this. Because of stark inequality between the sexes it has been difficult to propagate the idea of complementarity. If men and women are not the same but equal, and are destined to live together and to procreate, it goes without saying that the two sexes have to complement each other so as to achieve true fellowship; and this goes, not just for marriage and family life but for society as a whole. But, as I say, it is difficult to even start talking about the need for complementarity as any progressive woman, any feminist, here would suspect a hidden agenda, an agenda that indeed in the end will favour men only. A classic example is the arrival of women priests in our churches, in Sweden some fifty years ago. Opponents would say: you see, women and men are created as equals but are not the same. Male priests and females in other ministries than the priesthood are truly reflecting how men and women ought to complement each other. There is another way of dealing with complementarity and that is my third point.

If you want to discuss the issue of complementarity you cannot start by prescribing where a woman would fit in as a complement to a man. That is again to talk about these things on male terms. And here we are slowly learning from the reality that is unfolding. Some of us males have already experienced women in leadership and have found that not only to be agreeable but in some ways as something more attractive than male leadership. In my own academic field, theology, I see on an annual basis that women theologians in many ways are the ones coming up with new perspectives and sometimes as the sharpest analysts. Note that men are not excluded here, but I just try to register what is happening around me all the time. This state of affairs is most exciting to me. It in effect means that we could perhaps soon start talking about complementarity without running the risk of immediately falling into male stereotypes. If this is true we do have a very exciting time ahead. Again, just to take these two areas, the one of leadership and the other of excellent academic scholarship, these two areas may be examples of how women embark on fields in ways that did not happen before. It goes without saying that we should welcome such a development finding that things will be done differently from before.

There is in Sweden, just like in the UK, also a political development that is making it more difficult to find a space to articulate difficult and hard questions in an open and sincere way. One can now see the result of political parties gravitating towards the middle of the traditional spectrum of left to right. In one way one could deem the political spectrum of left – right to be declared obsolete by now, and yet it is used as much as before all the same. But there is a problem. Hardly anybody wants to be seen neither as ultra-leftist nor as ultra-rightist. There is a move towards the middle. This is not only a political move; there is also a move in terms of ideas and ideology. Any society worth its name must have a debate and a tension between progressive and liberal forces on the one hand and more restrictive and conservative forces on the other. What one can see now is that the move towards the middle politically, also has consequences in terms of ideas.

One can see the consequences regarding the issue dealt with here. Gender equality tending to become gender neutrality or something beyond gender, cannot be discussed in a proper way as there no longer is a space for that. Without such a space, that would have been there had there been a spectrum of liberal to conservative thinking, one cannot discuss, just blame those who do not toe the line (the same predicament we would of course have with other issues, like the one of immigration).

Finally one also has to protest against the tendency of the state to see it as completely natural that it interferes with the private life of its citizens. There is a human rights law and there is protection for each individual should there be violations of various kind, on any level, also on the level of a family (for example domestic violence, which is a scourge of any society). But the state cannot prescribe how families and persons should live their lives; that is not the business of the state. The state should be happy and so should the political leadership as long as the citizens do their duty towards the state as reasonably law-abiding and tax paying subjects. It is all and well if the society in question has a good and well developed civil society. Church, sports, culture etc., all contribute towards such a balanced society where the state has a limited role to play.

The bottom line is any idea of moving beyond gender. If you have followed my argument you would also see that the idea of gender neutrality is a tampering with what is there. If we do, the consequences will be dire. It is the doctrine of equality gone completely wrong. That is simply to manipulate with created reality and amounts to putting the human in the centre of the universe in an absolute sense. I feel a great pity for the parents who did not want to reveal to others whether their child was a boy or a girl. May they come to their senses soon enough and may they soon realise that they have a lot to be thankful for, having a new-born girl or a new-born boy, and may they even thank God for such a child.

However, the great challenge is how to develop a true and just sense of complementarity. We are in it together, which is a good start.