> The European social democracies "did not offer much to
> women"? Then why do we find UN Development Reports
> consistently listing Scandinavian social democracies as
> having the highest quality of life for women in the world?
> And on what grounds are you calling these governments
> "authoritarian"? Or have I just misread you?
I'm talking about social democracy in its classic form (1950-85). Yes, Sweden was ahead of the curve, but indisputably Soc Dem countries like Austria were (and are) horribly sexist, and the trade union movement throughout Europe, just like the US, was geared to skilled male workers. Something like 95% of the Facharbeiter of skilled workers in Germany are male, even today; these folks are the backbone of IG Metall and of the SPD generally. Women had to go and fight for their social and economic rights without much help from the comrades, alas; it's only relatively recently, under pressure from Green parties and the post-68 micropolitics, than Soc Dems have changed their tune here. And all of the Soc Dem regimes were indeed authoritarian, though much less so than, say, Thatcherite Britain: they joined NATO, spied on their own citizens, and in general kowtowed to the dictates of industrial accumulation. Which in some ways was a good thing, of course, but you pay a price for organizing your society like a gigantic factory.
-- Dennis