It is very interesting to see the difference between Britain and Sweden. Here the feminist discourse is dominated by academic feminists, where the younger generations are mostly intersectionalists. The Feminist Initiative that ran in the 2006 elections got a lot of bad press, and quite some was due to the dominance of "strange people". Then again a lot of press was due to very public in-fighting between the older guard wanting a essentially a strong second generation feminist program (that which was not achieved in the 60ies and 70ies) and the younger crowd wanted a third generation feminist program with a clear intersectionalist agenda.
As an example, one of the many clashes was over the name law, the younger wanted to repeal the paragraphs demanding of gender-seperation of names (you can not give a boy a female name and vice versa, though there is of course gender neutral names). The older thought it was silly and detrimental. Another was over household services where the older (and richer) gen leaned right and wanted tax deductions for professional cleaning while the younger (and poorer) leaned left and wanted shorter normal workdays.
Though the conflict illustrated the schism between the generations, in the end I also suspect it marked the transfer of the role as dominant interpreters of feminism in the public from the 2nd gen to the 3rd gen. And in the 3rd gen T is seen as a natural part of the struggle.
Lesbians and gay men, as she sees, have no common battles to fight.
This I would say is where the conflict can be found within the swedish letter-combination movement. Or rather between gay men and the rest. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Interestingly I've never seen the debate in such stark contrast in the rest of europe. Fedela Amara's work in France just seemed to be accepted as a logical evolution of feminism. Her new agenda wasn't contested, however much it embraced 3rd wave perspectives and rejected the boundaries of 2nd. keep to the Fen Causeway
Interestingly I've never seen the debate in such stark contrast in the rest of europe.
Thinking about it, I suspect the divide was not so obvious here before the Feminist Initiative started. Many different feminisms flourished, though generally keeping a common front to the outside (and having the heavy in-fighting out of the wider public).
At the time of the great public in-fight I thought they had made an obvious mistake in setting up the party. As I saw it you either start by declaring a clear direction and let those that concur gather or you start with a big group and see what you agree upon and agree to disagree on the rest. However, I am now leaning towards the conclusion that the involved parties did not realise from the start how much their policy suggestions differed and actually was contradictory. In that case there might not have been much they could agree upon. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
But that is actually a bit beside the point - or it would have been on point if it was a womens party (which was discuseed in the 90ies and as a result gave higher female representation in elected assemblies) - but this was a party around the feminist ideology. Just turned out there was some huge differences within that ideology. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
but this was a party around the feminist ideology. Just turned out there was some huge differences within that ideology.
Yea, same assumptions about commonalities. keep to the Fen Causeway
So it would be similar to assumption of commonalities among socialists. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Lesbians and gay men, as she sees, have no common battles to fight. This I would say is where the conflict can be found within the swedish letter-combination movement. Or rather between gay men and the rest.
Again, I think this is beginning to be seen as a uniform divide. It's certainly the battle line we've encountered here.
Except that it needs to be said that it's not all, or even most gay men. Rather, it is the mattachine (straight acting/preppy) gay men who are "regular" guys except that they sleep with other men. These are the people who shun any form of queer activism and behaviour (queer is not straight acting/gender conforming). Too often they end up looking down their noses at the rest of us and feel that the way we behave alienates the rest of society and hurts their acceptance.
This is what underlay the HRC's behaviour over ENDA (employer's non-discrimination act) last year where gender conformance was removed from the act at the last moment. This was seen as a huge betrayal by HRC and specific senior figures within HRC who are historically associated with sabotaging pro-trangender initiatives.
Gay men can be straight or queer these days. And only one of these groups is an ally keep to the Fen Causeway
