Although the role of Swedish activism and publications have been widely acknowledged in existing scholarship and memoirs,423 comparisons made by radicals at this time have mostly been neglected. In this sub-chapter I look at the way in which, not just education, but also Swedish gender and welfare policies were adopted and used politically in the Finnish context. Using Swedish policies and debates as a standard was an active political choice and offers a tangible example of how Finnish activists related to the Nordic welfare state and its policies.
Radical criticism of existing gender roles was heavily influenced by contemporary sociology, and radicals often presented new scientific results as a direct justification for adopting new social values.424 This was an essential part of Nordic political culture after WWII: politicians would narrow down problems so that they could then be solved by specialists.425 For radical activists, spreading information and the fruits of recent research was the key to initiating social change.426 The role of American scholars in this respect was widely acknowledged by radical circles in both Finland and Sweden. American sociology was decidedly modern, aspired to universal models, and did not limit its focus to historical examples.427 As already discussed, Alfred Kinsey, the American sexologist who revolutionised research on sexual habits in his studies directly following WWII,428 was a prime example of such a scholar whose
421 YL 4/67, Klaus Mäkelä, “Perhekasvatus vai sukupuolivalistus”, 5; Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Aaro Miettinen, ”koulujen seksuaaliopetus suomessa/puhetta olemattoman ongelmasta”, 30-33; Aaro Miettinen, ”Koulujen
sukupuoliopetus/Kollaaši olemattomasta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 32-51.
422 Schwartz 2009.
423 See, e.g., Mickwitz 2008b, 25; Jallinoja 1983, 146-151.
424 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65: PK, ”kasvatus”, 7.
425 Andersson 2006, 47.
426 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65: PK, ”kasvatus”, 7; Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31.
427 Ilkka Taipale, ”Lähete lukijalle”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 7-8; Holli 1990, 76;
Fridjonsdottir 1990.
428 Drucker 2014, 1-3.
findings had the potential to radicalise Nordic society. Kinsey’s works underlined the inherent diversity of sexual mores and the conflict between public morals and everyday life.429 Furthermore, Kinsey argued that sexual behaviour considered normal in western countries was actually only a small proportion of a far wider and nuanced sphere of sexual habits actually present in those contexts.430 For Nordic radicals, Kinsey’s studies was a factually based argument for sexual diversity that they could use to contest existing conservative attitudes.431 Their comprehensiveness and use of statistics lent Kinsey’s results a certain authority,432 although their purely American context somewhat restricted their application in the Nordic context. Some radicals thus saw Kinsey’s role as an inspiration for conducting their own local research on the same issues.433 The European radical frame was also aware of the American Christian culture peculiar to Kinsey’s findings.434 Other activists recognised the differences between local contexts, but in an effort to circumvent them, noted there were similarities too. The Lutheran supervision of Finnish culture, for instance, was was compared to the religious double standards portrayed in Kinsey’s studies.435
To spread these progressive ideas further, studies in a specifically Nordic context were needed, as this had not been done before.436 Edvard Westermarck, a well-known Finnish social scientist, had made a groundbreaking study of sexual morals and habits – but in Morocco.437 After the Finnish Left’s exposure to radical American and Swedish studies, there were high hopes for Finnish social science to become a form of “instrumental radicalism”,438 but it proved easier instead to adapt results from such a culturally, religiously, and politically similar culture as Sweden to the Finnish context. One such multisited figure in Finnish radical debates was the Swedish sociologist Joachim Israel,439 known as one of the most publicly visible scholars on Swedish sexual behaviour.440 During his visit to Finland in the spring of 1966, Israel made both academic and informal contacts with Finnish radical activists. Interviewed by Jertta Roos, one of the
429 Aaro Miettinen, ”Koulujen sukupuoliopetus/Kollaaši olemattomasta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 32-51; Lennerhed 1994, 43.
430 Christer Kihlman, (translated by Juhani Koskinen), ”Seksuaalisia poikkeavuuksia”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 110-123.
431 Ajankohta 8/67, Jorma Nirhamo, ”Kirjallisuus/Seksuaalivihamielinen kulttuurimme”, 24; Hagman 2016, 234, 245.
432 Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31; Lennerhed 1994, 41.
433 Ilkka Taipale, ”Lähete lukijalle”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 7-8.
434 Herzog 2006b, 40; Lennerhed 1994, 44.
435 Christer Kihlman, (translated by Juhani Koskinen), ”Seksuaalisia poikkeavuuksia”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 110-123.
436 Ilkka Taipale, ”Lähete lukijalle”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 7-8.
437 Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31.
438 Sosiologia 4/66, Katariina Eskola, ”Pääkirjoitus”, 147-148.
439 See, e.g., YL 31/65, Marina Sundström, ”Väärät uskot”, 7; FBT 1-2/66, Claes Andersson, ”Tabusonat med aggresiv final”, 18-23; TYL 13/66,
Tribunus, ”Naisasiamiehet”, 7.
440 Lennerhed 1994, 202-208; See, e.g., LibD 3/65, Joachim Israel, ”Innan vi gifter oss”, 28-32.
founding members of Yhdistys 9, Israel endorsed their activities and criticised opponents of the Finnish gender movement. The lecture was held in the apartment of Ilkka Taipale (see above), and inspired many Finnish radicals to follow Israel’s example as someone who could act without referring to the gender stereotypes that were still affecting the behaviour of other activists.441
Social scientists like Israel were important authorities, chiefly because they questioned the straightforward biological arguments behind human sexuality that were mostly only supported with observations of animal behaviour.442 From a social science perspective, straightforward biological reasoning was not enough to explain more complex human behaviour.443 Prevailing gender roles and expectations were therefore far from natural,444 and this state of affairs could only be changed by incorporating sociological, anthropological and psychological features into existing medical and biological expertise.445 The American cultural anthropologist, Margaret Mead, was a significant authority often quoted by Finnish gender activists who challenged biological definitions of sexuality and gender. Mead’s influence is partly explained by the relative accessibility of her studies. Two of her books (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies and Male and Female) had already been published in Finnish by 1963.446 Mead’s arguments were appealing because they seemed to undermine the whole system of western gender roles; Mead showed the absurdity of using absolute biological norms as a basis for gender arguments, and highlighted instead the importance of socialisation. Mead’s works were also interesting because she had observed different sexual practices in non-western cultures. By making people aware of these existing alternatives to current social norms in other societies, Mead showed that values could be changed in one’s own society, no matter the status quo.447 Mead’s studies also underlined the progressive nature of social science,
441 YL 11/66, Jertta Roos, ”Ihminen se on nainenkin”, 4-5; Leppo 2008, 176. As a sign of his open-mindedness, Israel had celebrated women who were sexually active and hence acted against their traditional role expectations.
442 Tilanne 2/66, Brita Polttila, “Roolidebatista (etenkin Jussi Talven luettavaksi)”, 115-122.
443 Ritva Turunen, ”Sukupuoliroolit”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 78-99.
444 Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9: Johan Mickwitz, Margaretha Mickwitz, Marja-Leena Mikkola, Klaus Mäkelä, Kati Peltola, Jertta Roos, Arvo Salo, Marina Sundström, Ritva Turunen, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31; TYL 13/66, Tribunus, ”Naisasiamiehet”, 7.
445 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Risto Palolahti, ”Margaret Mead: Sukupuoli ja luonne”, 65.
446 Sukupuoli ja luonne kolmessa primitiivisessä yhteiskunnassa, Translated by Aarne Sipponen. Jokamiehen korkeakoulu 15. Helsinki: Otava, 1963; Mies ja nainen: Miehen ja naisen roolit muuttuvassa maailmassa, Translated by Annika Takala. Otavan
filosofinen kirjasto 6. Helsinki: Otava, 1957. For an overview of Mead’s works and her influence on Sixties’ SMOs, see Jamison & Eyerman 1995, 128-140.
447 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Risto Palolahti, ”Margaret Mead: Sukupuoli ja luonne”, 65; Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 9-31; Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9: Johan Mickwitz,
Margaretha Mickwitz, Marja-Leena Mikkola, Klaus Mäkelä, Kati Peltola, Jertta Roos, Arvo Salo, Marina Sundström, Ritva Turunen, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa
yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31; Jallinoja 1983, 143, 161.
as it seemed to re-examine and diverge from the results of previous studies, including Kinsey’s, who had allegedly downplayed the role of learnt behavioural characteristics.448 Activists clearly influenced by her work could now argue that
“gender roles are not immutable, eternal, biologically necessary or universal, but vary from culture to culture and from time to time.”449 Mead’s example showed that the social sciences could be used to reform old, outdated attitudes: neutral objectivity and exactitude were the core values required when criticising gender roles and sexual morals.450 Mead’s relevance was further accentuated by stressing the sociological (and thus also allegedly “neutral”)451 aspect of her anthropology.452 This association with the social sciences not only increased the analytical power of ‘gender role’ as a concept, but also explained why the wider public used it in such a confusing way – the social sciences could hopefully change this.
Applying transnational gender research required a careful balancing act. As with applying Kinsey’s results to the Finnish context, theoretical examples provided a clear premise that set the parameters, while studies in each particular context were used to validate and strengthen them. This led to some interesting variations when transnational radical texts were dealt with. Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (Le Deuxième Sexe) in particular was praised for its brilliant portrayal of feminine myths and the problems of marriage, while simultaneously criticised in terms of its sources. Albeit coherent in their original context, they were fundamentally outdated when applied to the Finnish.453 In this respect, de Beauvoir’s arguments could not be classed as proper social science,454 but it is somewhat remarkable that her essay was even considered a part of the discussion at all: the Finnish translation was not published until 1980 and the Swedish only appeared in 1973. Reviewers were therefore relying on either the English translation or the original in French. A similar criticism was made of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan; in contrast with Swedish studies on the same subject, it seemed that Friedan was completely unaware of the situation of women at home in Nordic contexts.455 Similar remarks about
448 Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31.
449 “Sukupuoliroolit eivät siis ole muuttumattomia, ikuisia, biologisesti välttämättömiä tai universaaleja, vaan ne vaihtelevat kulttuurista ja ajankohdasta toiseen”. Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99. While this article does not explicitly cite Mead, other articles written by Turunen clearly show her familiarity with Mead’s works. See, e.g., Ritva Turunen, ”Sukupuoliroolit”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 78-99.
450 YL 31/65, Marina Sundström, ”Väärät uskot”, 7; TYL 25/65, Tarja Flemming, ”Lanka ja laulu eli naisen kulttuuriroolin selvittelyä”, 1; YL 17/67, Ilkka Sumu, ”Oppaaksi kypsymässä oleville”, 5; Holli 1988, 329.
451 Mickwitz 2008b, 32-33; Holli 1988, 324.
452 Tilanne 2/66, Brita Polttila, “Roolidebatista (etenkin Jussi Talven luettavaksi)”, 115-122.
453 YL 31/65, Marja-Leena Mikkola, ”Se toinen”, 6-7.
454 JYL 32-33/65, William Hart, ”The second Sex”, 9.
455 YL 28/67, Ritva-Liisa Sumu, ”Elävänä haudattu”, 9.
Friedan’s works were also made in the mainstream press when she visited the Nordic countries in 1967.456
As gender roles began to be seen as stereotypes that were culturally defined and reproduced, underlying traditional attitudes came under increasingly harsh criticism.457 In the gender debate, Freudian concepts were seen as a particularly damning example of such bias. Both Friedan and Kinsey had criticised Freud, which must have only contributed to their popularity.458 In Nordic contexts, Freudian concepts were seen as neglecting key social factors which were leading to the mistreatment of women.459 Radicals saw Freud and repressive Victorian values as two sides of the same coin and ultimately responsible for prevalent attitudes in western culture. Freud’s implication that women were sexually imperfect seemed misplaced if men were at the same time supposed to be envious of their ability to bear children. Joachim Israel therefore delighted Finnish radicals when, on his visit to Helsinki, he declared that psychoanalysis was indeed “pure humbug”460 – even if Finnish critics of Freud shied away from an explicit anti-psychiatric stance (see 4.6 below).
In keeping with a relativistic understanding of morals as a social construct, theorising about the current system of values was not enough. Whereas Eva Moberg had provided the impetus for this among Swedish activists, it was Margaret Mead’s ideas of moral relativism and the possibility of comprehensively changing the whole system of social values that did this in Finland. The straightforward way in which this change would be achieved shows how, from the radical point of view, social values were seen to have a rather simple and uniform structure that would be easy to adapt as required. This underlying presumption was also present in the arguments surrounding gender roles. Liberal gender activists commonly believed that existing gender roles could simply be replaced with what Yhdistys 9’s founders called “human”
roles,461 and then reinforced by studies and public debates.462 In Mead’s model, each individual would be free to choose a behavioural pattern according to their
456 Kurvinen 2015, 30.
457 Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9: Johan Mickwitz, Margaretha Mickwitz, Marja-Leena Mikkola, Klaus Mäkelä, Kati Peltola, Jertta Roos, Arvo Salo, Marina Sundström, Ritva Turunen, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31; . Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99.
458 Evans 2014, 153; Lennerhed 1994, 47-48.
459 Ritva Turunen, ”Sukupuoliroolit”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 78-99; Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31; Zenit 3/68, Dick Urban Vestbro, ”Könskamp och klasskamp” (A review of Göran Palm’s Indoktrineringen i Sverige, 1968), 74-76.
460 Ritva Turunen, ”Sukupuoliroolit”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 78-99. Leppo 2008, 176.
461 YL 11/66, Jertta Roos, ”Ihminen se on nainenkin”, 4-5. Interview of Swedish sociologist Joachim Israel.
462 Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9: Johan Mickwitz, Margaretha Mickwitz, Marja-Leena Mikkola, Klaus Mäkelä, Kati Peltola, Jertta Roos, Arvo Salo, Marina Sundström, Ritva Turunen, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31.
own “true characteristic”.463 The model was supported by findings that showed there was a greater range of ‘individual’ features than there were of ‘gender’.464 Whether it referenced Mead or not, this liberal individualism would allow people to assume their “true characteristic” without the burdens of traditionalism which excluded those unable to adapt to dominant gender roles – therefore wasting a significant amount of “human capital”.465 This focus on individual traits in the gender debate was still popular among Finnish radicals long after the turn towards class-consciousness among their Swedish counterparts. And yet it would seem that previous interpretations have ignored this focus on individual features, over-simplifying it instead as a series of pragmatic policy suggestions borne from the everyday experiences of academic mothers.466
The focus on individual features also meant that Nordic liberal activists aspired to change both gender roles.467 Previous research has not been particularly sensitive to this aspect, mainly because it has focused, for the most part, on the history of feminism.468 From a conceptual history perspective, the membership percentages of men and women in SMOs like Yhdistys 9 bear only limited significance – it is who the radicals felt they were representing that is far more interesting. In this way, political agency is not reduced to a simple question of gender. Interpreting the inclusion of men in gender role activism as simply a strategy for increasing a movement’s legitimacy seems like rather an unfair reading.469 Liberal Nordic gender activists clearly saw gender discrimination as a destructive practice for both men and women:470 “[t]he gender issue is a matter for both women and men, although it is often claimed to be a ‘women's issue’.”471
463 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Risto Palolahti, ”Margaret Mead: Sukupuoli ja luonne”, 65.
464 Nya Argus 13/65, Astrid Gartz, ”Könsroller”, 186-187.
465 FBT 1-2/66, Margaretha Starck, ”Om Demeter”, 56-59; Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99; Tilanne 2/66, Brita Polttila, “Roolidebatista (etenkin Jussi Talven luettavaksi)”, 115-122; Holli 1988, 326.
466 For such a pragmatic interpretation, see Jallinoja 1983, 167.
467 YL 6/67, Riitta Pirinen, “009: molempien sukupuolten Suomi”, 1; Lib_D 1/63, Sverker Gustavsson, ”Vetenskap med sprängstoff”, 29-32; LibD 2/63, Eva Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16; LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36.
468 Jallinoja 1983, 123-124. In Jallinoja’s case, this argumentation is even more problematic, as she uses these numbers as a clear sign of the ideological focus of Yhdistys 9. Because most of the members were women, she describes Yhdistys 9 as a women’s movement. For criticism, see e.g., Kurvinen & Turunen 2017; but even these more nuanced readings of the objectives of Yhdistys 9 still use the very same
membership numbers as justification for describing the organisation as a versatile gender movement, also concerned with men’s situation in society. See Jokinen 2012;
Julkunen 2012; Hearn 2006.
469 Julkunen 1994, 188 is an example of such an reading. C.f. Vinen 2018, 229.
470 LibD 7/64, Gabriel Romanus, ”Sexkonferensen”, 32.
471 ”Sukupuoliroolikysymys on sekä naisten että miesten asia, vaikka sitä usein
väitetäänkin ”naiskysymykseksi”. Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99.
Yet they could not exactly deny that it also helped legitimise their female-focused policies, too – “[w]e can never arrange our liberation without involving men”.472
Just like the Swedish liberals, who had moved from feminocentric concepts to a more gender-neutral frame of reference, members of Yhdistys 9 actively resisted those who tried to label them as an exclusively feminist organisation. In its publications, it frequently emphasised how conservative traditions affected men’s lives, and that destroying traditional gender roles would also benefit men – sometimes even at the expense of women’s traditional interests. Men would, for instance, have a more pronounced role in raising children.473 Activists saw that analysing the social cost of traditional male role expectations was in fact easier, as the negative factors affecting them were more visible, calculable, and so could be made statistically relevant. As women’s gender role expectations were seen as a tendency to adapt, less clearcut and less publicly visible, they were more difficult to measure and so demonstrate. Feminine behaviour as a whole was represented as a result of a “psychological adaptation mechanism” – in itself a straightforward product of traditional role expectations based on biological reasoning.474
Finnish Radicals also rejected the genderisation of activists participating in the gender debate – at times, they admitted that some men could be more conservative when it came to ethical questions, but this difference was not seen as a question of gender, but of the individual.475 Joachim Israel also emphasised the critical role of men in the gender role debate by portraying the men in Yhdistys 9 as “brave” individuals, as it not only required more effort to participate in the SMO than in the “male-oriented society” outside,476 but also because men who supported the radical gender movement were often pigeonholed by the conservative mainstream press as either homosexuals or lacking in some other way.477 The fact that the manifesto of Yhdistys 9 specified a certain quota of men was another argument used to highlight the SMO’s aspirations to gender equality.478
Defining the predominant gender stereotypes was an essential first step to then changing them. These definitions were so important that even the manifesto of Yhdistys 9 listed them,479 and other articles followed a similar procedure.
472 “Vi kan aldrig klara upp vår frigörelse utan att blanda in mannen.”TiS 18/67, Nina Yunkers, ”Kvinnorna – den längsta resignationen”, 13.
473 LibD 2/63, Eva Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16; Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99; Tilanne 2/66, Brita Polttila, “Roolidebatista (etenkin Jussi Talven luettavaksi)”, 115-122.
474 Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9: Johan Mickwitz, Margaretha Mickwitz, Marja-Leena Mikkola, Klaus Mäkelä, Kati Peltola, Jertta Roos, Arvo Salo, Marina Sundström, Ritva Turunen, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31.
475 Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99.
476 ”Ei ole ollenkaan vaikeata puolustaa miesten oikeuksia miesten yhteiskunnassa.”
Israel was invited to Finland as a quest of Yhdistys 9 and the Jewish student association Hanoar, an intriguing combination. YL 11/66, Jertta Roos, ”Ihminen se on nainenkin”, 4-5.
477 TYL 13/66, Tribunus, ”Naisasiamiehet”, 7.
478 Holli 1990, 75.
479 Holli 1988, 324.
Reiterating these stereotypes also helped underline their artificial nature. Men’s gender roles were usually defined as “aggressive-active”, and masculinity as the quest for competence and a career. Qualities that were valued in men were therefore objectivity and the cool-headed ability to make long-term plans, while sentimentality and empathy were not. At the same time, men’s sex drive was used to ‘biologically’ explain of their behaviour. Contributors to Yhdistys 9 argued that these contradictory expectations caused emotions to be
“suppressed”480 and the pressure to have both a brutish sex drive and intelligence demonstrated the paradoxical, irrational, and unrealistic nature of gender
“suppressed”480 and the pressure to have both a brutish sex drive and intelligence demonstrated the paradoxical, irrational, and unrealistic nature of gender