The Swedish debate on women’s position in society, and especially the workplace, had already begun in the early Sixties. Eva Moberg’s book Kvinnor
303 Kurvinen 2015, 29; Mickwitz 2008b, 25; Jallinoja 1983, 146-151.
304 Holli 1988, 329-330; Holli 1990, 83-84; Jallinoja 1983, 180.
305 Lennerhed 1994, 14.
och människor, published in 1962, is often cited as a key text in this debate. Moberg was especially noted for her principled criticism of gender roles, arguing that true equality was impossible until both sexes shared a common role as human beings.306 In radicalist papers like Liberal Debatt, Moberg’s revolutionary rebuttal of all gender roles and her “angry” tone was seen as a necessary tool for destroying the traditionalist “superstitions” present in Swedish society.307 Lennerhed has noted that the concepts of individual freedom and choice were the basis for gender activism at the time,308 and as a progressive alternative to the harmful aspects of traditionalism, Moberg indeed advocated the importance of individual freedom – persuading liberal cultural radicals to see that all attempts to classify people into groups were “irrelevant”.309 One key to this individualistic strand of liberalism was the idea that the principles of gender equality should be applied in a logical and comprehensive way as part of a general
“rationalisation”310 of the welfare state through expert planning.311 The concept of “equality” in this was central, and made applicable to wages, social influence, respect, and social responsibilities.312 The gendered conscription policy of the Swedish army, for example, was to be abandoned and replaced with a truly universal, gender-neutral form of conscription, as all single-gender organisations were deemed “abnormal”.313 Moberg’s relevance is further highlighted by the fact that, later on, even socialist-oriented gender activists – who may not have shared her core liberal values – still openly acknowledged her role in getting gender roles onto the Swedish political agenda. Her argumentation was seen as particularly relevant for getting the intellectual debate broadcast across all forms of mass media.314 This illustrates how trust in the political importance of public debate was shared by both liberal and New Left activists.
A liberal focus on individualism also dominated the early gender debates in Finland, although these began somewhat later than in Sweden – with national newspapers and monthly journals only starting to really write about gender issues in 1965. Transnational influences, especially those from Sweden, were readily acknowledged by Finnish gender activists, 315 and the mediating role of a shared language was clearly instrumental in this. Swedish language cultural publications in Finland like Nya Argus were some of the first to report on the
306 See, e.g., LibD 1/63, Sverker Gustavsson, ”Vetenskap med sprängstoff”, 29-32; LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36.
307 LibD 4/62, Lars Lönnrhoth, ”Arg liten bok”, 29-30; LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36.
308 Lennerhed 1994, 10-11; Östberg 2002, 44-48. See, e.g., LibD 7/64, Gabriel
Romanus, ”Sexkonferensen”, 32; LibD 1/64, Ingrid Gärde Widemar, ”Har vi råd med familjen?”, 5-6; LibD 4/66, T.H., Valfrihet eller jämställdhet?”, 2-3.
309 LibD 2/63, Eva Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16.
310 LibD 4/62, Lars Lönnrhoth, ”Arg liten bok”, 29-30; Lennerhed 1994, 9.
311 Andersson 2006, 30.
312 LibD 1/63, Sverker Gustavsson, ”Vetenskap med sprängstoff”, 29-32; LibD 4/66, T.H., Valfrihet eller jämställdhet?”, 2-3.
313 LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36.
314 Konkret 7-8/67, Gunnar Bengtson, ”Familjedebatt eller könsrollpolitik?”, 67-75.
315 Kurvinen 2015, 21; Mickwitz 2008b, 25; Bergman 2002, 134; Jallinoja 1983, 130.
gender debates in Sweden, and Finnish gender activists report that many of them read Moberg’s book at this time.316 Indeed, her role as a transnational agent is illustrated by the fact that soon after publishing Kvinnor och människor, she travelled to Finland to promote the book, and later invited to give a lecture by Yhdistys 9, the prominent organisation of Finnish gender activism.317 The Swedish debates were considered important not simply because they preceded those in Finland, but because activists on both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia maintained that they had been more intense and yet balanced at the same time.318 The Finnish particularly admired the Swedish radicalists’ way of dealing with gender roles and sexuality in their political, economic, and social contexts.319
Moberg introduced to Finnish debates the actual concept of “gender role”
(könsroll),320 although it was not the original concept used in Swedish debates, and nor had it even featured in Kvinnor och människor.321 To begin with, the subject was framed in other terms – as a “women’s issue, question, or debate”
(kvinnosaken, kvinnofrågan, or kvinnodebatt). These concepts were quickly deemed inadequate though, and the more neutral concept of gender role was instead adopted from American sociology.322 In Finland, too, a more neutral “gender role” term was adopted (sukupuolirooli) to neutralise the counter-argument that gender activists were only focusing on promoting women’s social status.323
One feature of the debate that was peculiar to Finland, was that it wanted to draw critical attention to the alleged moral conservatism of Finnish society.
Politically this was not so far from Moberg’s liberal ideas, but in the Finnish context, it meant something quite different. In Sweden, focusing on labour markets and the legislative aspects of the role of women were already a very concrete part of Moberg’s principled liberalism, but in Finland the focus was on the somewhat more abstract moral question of why institutionalised conservative values dominated society.324 The concept of “double role”, emphasising the dilemma of working mothers was one of the key indications of the concreteness of Swedish debates.325 It also meant that the gender issue could
316 Holli 1990, 71. Moberg’s book was reviewed in Finland, see e.g., Nya Argus 10/62, Kristina Witting, ”Kvinnligt och mänskligt”, 148-150.
317 LibD 2/63, Eva Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16.; Mickwitz 2008b, 33.
318 Nya Argus 20/65, K.T., ”Till handling i könsrollfrågan”, 294-295; Nya Argus 13/65, Astrid Gartz, ”Könsroller”, 186-187; YyKoo kesänumero/65, Torsten
Peltomo, ”Rauhan ja sodan sankarit”, 6; Medisiinari 1/66, Ryhmä 9, ”Vanhat roolit muuttuvassa yhteiskunnassa”, 29-31. TiS 9/66, Leo Ågren, ”Sexualliv i Finland”.
319 Nya Argus 13/65, Astrid Gartz, ”Könsroller”, 186-187.
320 Mickwitz 2008b, 25-32; Jallinoja 1983, 129.
321 Lennerhed 1994, 114.
322 Nya Argus 4/63, Ghita Barck, ”Våra könsroller”, 45-48; LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36; LibD 2/63, Eva Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16; Konkret 7-8/67, Gunnar
Bengtson, ”Familjedebatt eller könsrollpolitik?”, 67-75; Lennerhed 1994, 114-116.
323 Ritva Turunen, ”Rooleista”, in Vastalause 66 1966, 87-99; Holli 1990, 75.
324 See, e.g., LibD 7/64, Gabriel Romanus, ”Sexkonferensen”, 32; Lib_D 1/63, Sverker Gustavsson, ”Vetenskap med sprängstoff”, 29-32; LibD 2/64, Gunnel
Thörnander, ”Nancy Hemmafru”, 23-24; Lennerhed 1994, 112-113.
325 LibD 1/63, Sverker Gustavsson, ”Vetenskap med sprängstoff”, 29-32; LibD 1/64, Ingrid Gärde Widemar, ”Har vi råd med familjen?”, 5-6; LibD 2/64, Gunnel
be kept separate from debates on sexual morality and abortion rights.326 The conceptual differences noted earlier were part of the same phenomena – Finnish radicals saw the moral structure of society as a far more pressing concern.
As with other topics within Nordic cultural radicalism, the criticisms levelled at the conservative sexual ethics of the day were linked to a much wider set of social values.327 Underlying the Nordic gender debate was an appeal to favour reason over the religious “superstitions” and traditionalist stereotypes of conservative ethics.328 While radicals in both Finland and Sweden targeted moral conservatism, the focus of debate in each country was still quite different.
Liberals in Sweden focused on the central role of the state as a neutral guarantor of individual freedoms,329 while in Finland, radicals still saw the state as being subordinate to a morally conservative culture, even if they had high hopes that one day it would become more progressive. In many of these debates, the Lutheran Church of Finland, rather than the Finnish state, was seen as the real arbiter of society’s morals330 – especially in those articles that took a positive view of this. Some Finnish radicals, recognising the importance of the Church as a progressive institution capable of supporting social change,331 even appealed to more liberal clergy to support overturning the outdated and “inhumane” sexual ethics still present in legislation.332 This differed quite starkly from the debate in Sweden, which had been wholly secular and against the Church right from the beginning.333 Christianity was instead portrayed as being wholly responsible for the moral conservatism in the west. As one New Left writer in Sweden put it,
“when it comes to sex, the entire Christian west is just one big developing country”.334 Liberal and New Left activists in Sweden saw the state as the more
Thörnander, ”Nancy Hemmafru”, 23-24; TiS 26/66, Gunnel Granlid, “Debatten och vi/-Oavlönad familjemedlem kallas jag visst…”, 6-7; TiS 48/66, Gunnel
Granlid, ”Flickor, gå in för tekniken!”, 5.
326 Lennerhed 2014, 28-30.
327 Lennerhed 1994, 10.
328 YL 27/66, Jertta Roos, ”Ajalla vieras asia”, 5; OYL 26/66, Heikki Hautala, ”Kirkon kannanotto seksuaalikysymykseen ja sen arvostelu”, 2; YyKoo 23/66,
Batman, ”Kirkon eroksen eheys”, 2; Aaro Miettinen, ”Koulujen
sukupuoliopetus/Kollaaši olemattomasta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 32-51;
Ajankohta 8/67, Jorma Nirhamo, ”Kirjallisuus/Seksuaalivihamielinen
kulttuurimme”, 24; LibD 4/66, T.H., Valfrihet eller jämställdhet?”, 2-3; TiS 15/67, Gunnel Granlid, ”Har din fru skaffat sig körkort? Ja, jag behöver en snapsshcaufför”, 3; Lennerhed 1994, 123.
329 Lennerhed 1994, 126.
330 Sexual matters were not the only ones where the Church’s authority was tested. This also happened when Hannu Salama was accused of blasphemy in 1964 after his latest novel Juhannustanssit caused an scandal.
331 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Mauri Alasaari, ”kristinuskosta ja
sukupuolimoraalista”, 26-28. Alasaari worked as student priest in the University of Helsinki and was often a moderate and conciliatory voice in radical debates, especially in Ylioppilaslehti.
332 FBT 1-2/66, Claes Andersson, ”Tabusonat med aggresiv final”, 18-23.
333 Lennerhed 1994, 108-109.
334 ”när det gäller sex är hela det kristna västerlandet ett enda stort u-land”: TiS 32/65, Sven Wernström, ”Det där med sex”, 23; TiS 34/65, Sven Wernström, ”Det där med sex (II), 23.
promising vehicle for progressive policies and so a far more worthwhile target for their efforts than the Church, whose moral authority as regards sexuality had been superseded as early as the 1930s.335 This differed again from elsewhere in mainland Europe where Catholic conservatism was often associated directly with the state.336
When the Finnish Church did eventually deliver its official position on sexual morality, however, the response from the radical press was less than enthusiastic. Its critics accused the Church of approaching gender issues and sexual ethics from a negative, authoritative, and “irrational” perspective cloaked in theological jargon, even though it could be argued that the positivist arguments of Finnish student radicals themselves relied on a kind of ‘jargon’, but theirs was legitimised by modern social science and critical deliberation.337 The Church’s outdated and dogmatic values, they argued, were inconsistent with these scientific methods of self-doubt and self-correction, and as a consequence it could no longer be entrusted with the moral authority it once had.338 As an example of the hopelessly old-fashioned attitudes of the Church, Finnish radicals pointed to its demands for obedience to medieval concepts like the “Law of Moses”339.
Accusations of religious authoritarianism were not simply levelled at the way the Church treated its own flock, but at how it influenced the whole of society. Radicals argued that the close connection between legislation and Christian moral principles was clear evidence of the disproportionate power of religious leaders.340 It meant that legal experts in Finland were also prone to espouse overtly moralistic viewpoints, which seemed in stark contradiction with the secular accuracy normally associated with legal science. A legal textbook written by Professor Brynolf Honkasalo341 was often cited as one example of this.
Honkasalo claimed inter alia that the moral standards of a people were a clear indicator of its “intellectual condition”, and that individual liberalism would ultimately lead to the “decay of civilisation”. These examples led some radical
335 LibD 7/64, Gabriel Romanus, ”Sexkonferensen”, 32; Herzog 2006, 151; Lennerhed 1994, 104-106.
336 Vinen 2018, 231.
337 YL 27/66, Jertta Roos, ”Ajalla vieras asia”, 5; OYL 26/66, Heikki Hautala, ”Kirkon kannanotto seksuaalikysymykseen ja sen arvostelu”, 2; YyKoo 23/66,
Batman, ”Kirkon eroksen eheys”, 2. All these articles were reviewing an ecclesiastical publication called “An Issue of the Present Day” (Ajankohtainen asia), written by six bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and published by
Kirkkohallitus, 1966.
338 Aaro Miettinen, ”Koulujen sukupuoliopetus/Kollaaši olemattomasta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 32-51; Ajankohta 8/67, Jorma
Nirhamo, ”Kirjallisuus/Seksuaalivihamielinen kulttuurimme”, 24.
339 FBT 1-2/66, Claes Andersson, ”Tabusonat med aggresiv final”, 18-23; YyKoo, Pauli Piiska, ”Lusikka Lallukalle”, 2:8/66; OYL 26/66, Muuli, ”Provokaatio”, 10; YL 15/65, Ilkka Taipale, ”Eroottinen puheenvuoro”, 6-7.
340 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Timo Vuortama, ”sukupuolikuria ja säädyllisyyttä”, 34-35.
341 Suomen rikosoikeus I, published in 1948, was still being used as an academic textbook in the 1960s.
writers to conclude that the legal profession was just as outdated and lacking in sound intellectual basis as the religious authorities or, as Jarno Pennanen sarcastically put it, “the sexual mores of our legal system and experts seem to be based on Richardson’s eighteenth-century novel ‘Pamela’.”342
Radicalist criticism of religious authoritarianism often intersected with other issues such as nationalism, absolutism, elitism, and (in Sweden) monarchism.343 In the context of debates about sexual ethics, these conservative features were sometimes combined under the umbrella concept of “western culture”. It was a useful concept because it made transnational adaptations from other cultures easier; other metaphors could be used to refer to essentially the same thing. Religious and patriotic values, for instance, could be combined in pejorative concepts like “Victorian moralism” to refer to the underlying conservative attitudes controlling the whole of western culture (in spite of Victorianism’s British origins).344 Social factors uncovered by radical sociology emphasised the fact that these conservative viewpoints shared by “western culture” dominated even modern societies.345 This was not new though; the radical sexologist Alfred Kinsey had already explained the conservatism of western societies in terms of their “Judeo-Christian” traditions in the 1940s.346
Criticism of western culture and its restrictive morals also manifested itself in a growing interest in Eastern cultures and religions. Albeit a side issue from the debate over sexual morals, the discourse on what could also be called positivist orientalism is nevertheless a good example of the radicalist quest for an alternative mode of thought to challenge western Christian morals. One simple reason this issue almost certainly cropped up was that the Kama Sutra happened to be translated to Nordic languages at about the same time the radicalist debate on sexual morality reached its apex.347 Among Finnish student radicals, the book was reverently described as “pure religion”, which – in spite of its graphic illustrations – had nothing to do with pornography. This, they argued, was because there was no “harmful” division between body and soul (or
342 “Näyttää siltä että lakimme ja laintulkitsijamme sukupuolimoraali perustuu Richardsonin romaaniin ”Pamela” 1700-luvulta”, Ajankohta 6/67, Jarno
Pennanen, ”Epäsiveellisiä esineitä – tervettä sivellisyyttä”, 6-7; Nya Argus, 1-2/64, Tor Hartman, “Om sexuallagar och sedlighet”, 3-6; K.J. Lång, (transl. by Juhani Koskinen), ”Havaintoja sukupuolikäyttäytymisen rangaistavuuden perusteluista”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 124-141.
343 Lennerhed 1994, 122-123; Östberg 2002, 34.
344 TYL 20/66, Tribunus, ”Seksin kesä ja syys”, 5; Ajankohta 8/67, Jorma
Nirhamo, ”Kirjallisuus/Seksuaalivihamielinen kulttuurimme”, 24; Nya Argus, 1-2/64, Tor Hartman, “Om sexuallagar och sedlighet”, 3-6.; Lennerhed 1994, 58.
Victorianism was not only a historical concept in the UK context, see Herzog 2006, 163.
345 Aaro Miettinen, ”Koulujen sukupuoliopetus/Kollaaši olemattomasta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi 1966, 32-51; Tuomioja 1967.
346 Herzog 2006b, 42.
347 TiS 32/65, Sven Wernström, ”Det där med sex”, 23; Kāma sūtra: Indiens klassiska kärlekslära (translated from english by Per Meurling), Stockholm, Spegeln, 1965;
Kama Sutra (translated by Antti Pakaslahti), Helsinki, Tammi, 1966.
mind) as there was in Judaeo-Christian religions.348 The Kama Sutra’s positive attitudes were sometimes simplified, and Hindus portrayed as the happy antithesis to the “tortuous contradictions” of western spirituality. Unlike westerners, Hindus knew how to embrace the contradictions of life, accepting eroticism, for instance, as an integral part of human life.349 In the most extravagant arguments, this assimilation of east and west was seen as the logical outcome of a new, global culture.350 These examples clearly demonstrate a perspective that actively removed power from the equation of encounters between global cultures, and saw the mixture and fusion of cultural features as an opportunity for forming a new international culture free from parochial limitations.
Positive influences from the east, while certainly interesting, were not the main thrust of arguments for overcoming the detrimental value systems of the west. The emphasis was instead on the need to establish a wholly modern system of sexual ethics,351 and one that would be principally ahistorical. Venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy understandably affected sexual mores in the past, but in a modern society with access to the necessary medicine and readily available contraception this should no longer be the case.352 Contributors to the radical press repeatedly made the point that sexual ethics had already been modernised by birth control and the secularisation, urbanisation, democratisation, and rationalisation of culture, which were all factors that allowed a freer and more positive attitude towards sexuality353 – ancient divisions between decent and indecent were no longer relevant.
As Lennerhed has noted, liberal radicals in the Sixties focused on sex and gender as an integral part of what they hoped would be a completely new moral and social system, but for the most part, existing interpretations of Finnish gender debates have neglected this wider goal: radicals are portrayed as pragmatic or even passive critics, associated with either conventional political traditions, practical women’s questions, or simply advancing the development of the welfare state. This focus on just the practical outcomes of activism, however, ignores the creative and at times utopian aspect of Sixties’ activism.
Rather than limiting themselves to single issues such as gender relations or sex education, Finnish radicals often actually defined their fundamental objective to
348 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, käännös ja esittely Matti Sorri, ”vatsyayana/kama sutra”, 22-24.
349 Medisiinari, seksuaalin:o 4/65, Antti Pakaslahti, ”elämän pyhyys eli hindutemppelien eroottinen kuvanveisto”, 24-26.
350 Aikalainen 4/67, Matthew Verghese, “Seksuaalinen realismi sanskriitinkielisessä kirjallisuudessa”, 46-51.
351 Ajakohta 10/67, Margaretha Starck, ”Ruotsissa sukupuolivalistetaan – meilläkin pitäisi”, 12-13.
352 Ajankohta 8/67, Jorma Nirhamo, ”Kirjallisuus/Seksuaalivihamielinen kulttuurimme”, 24.
353 Kimmo Leppo, ”Sukupuolisen käyttäytymisen tutkimuksesta”, In Sukupuoleton Suomi, 1966, 9-31; LibD 4/62, Lars Lönnrhoth, ”Arg liten bok”, 29-30; LibD 4/63, Per Gahrton, ”Kvinnlig värnplikt – ett jämlikhetskrav”, 32-36; LibD 2/63, Eva
Moberg, ”Jämställdhet i valfrihet”, 11-16; TiS 12/67, Nina Yunkers, ”Mera kärlek åt vänster!”, 3.
be the “common good”. They wanted to create a more reasonable, less rigid and authoritative system of moral codes that was legitimised by sociological research.
By emphasising the importance of individual choice, for instance, radical arguments highlighted the open and dynamic nature of morality as an alternative and completely new value system to the intransigent, black and white
“paternalistic” values of good versus evil. In Finland, where political liberalism was a relatively weak and disorganised tradition, there were even some radicals who did not see it as a question of morals at all. It was rather about coming up with a system of regulation that would be “more relevant” in a modern society.
They defined individualism as not being a moral system at all, since it did not rely on “institutional power”. In a modern welfare state, previously ‘moral’
decisions were to be based on facts rather than prejudices or illusions – it was
“immoral to maintain ‘morality’ with lies” they argued.354 These statements clearly indicate that they assumed there was a model for society that could bypass morality and appeal to scientific-based reasons instead. These seemed much more “reasonable” to them than any ‘moral’ system founded instead on unverifiable beliefs.