Thursday, March 09, 2017

Sweden 2017 - peak feminism?

Feminism is off the charts in Sweden. The following stories are from the front page of just one newspaper on just one day.

The details:
Environment Minister Carolina Forest (MP) want to see fewer cars in Sweden's cities. This is because men drive more than women, and thus are "stealing space from women," she says to Göteborgs-Posten.

A magazine has named Swedish pop singer Zara Larsson "Woman of the Year" despite the fact that she is open and proud about hating men:

The runner up for Woman of the Year wasn't much better:

From the article:
Radical Feminist Ebba Witt-Brattström, 62, ended up in second place in Expressen's appointment Woman of the Year in 2017. She says that all male TV personalities should be removed and replaced by feminist women.

The next newspaper item is about a photography museum which decided to raise the entry price for men and to donate the extra money to an organisation which campaigns for gender quotas:

Some Swedish men are encouraging all this. The directors of a building union apologised for being flawed white males:

These are the same men who wore vagina hats in solidarity with feminism:

Their grovelling statement gives away some of their motivation for acting this way:
"Today on International's Women's Day we want to pay attention to all you women in the construction industry and tell you how much you're needed and the respect we have for you because you dare to break gender roles," they wrote in an opinion piece published by public broadcaster SVT.

"We know we're going to have to endure some jibes, mainly from other men, because we are standing here in our pink, home-knitted hats. But to us it is an act of solidarity."

"God knows we're not perfect. We ARE a bunch of white middle-aged men. Sometimes we put our foot in our mouth. Often we hear it ourselves and apologize. Sometimes we don't notice it ourselves; please tell us and give us a red card. So that we learn for next time."

"We ARE a bunch of white, middle-aged men. But at least we're wearing pink hats."

Note that women get respect from these liberal men because "you dare to break gender roles". Why should that be such a good thing? It's ideological. If you believe that our predetermined sex is a prison that we have to be liberated from, then those who break gender roles will be thought of as blazing a trail of moral progress.

But that's a big ideological assumption. Most societies, in most epochs, have thought of our manhood and womanhood not as prisons, but as core aspects of our own self. In fact, if you take away the Cartesian mind body dualism, then you are likely to think of our sexed bodies as being inseparable from our minds and souls. So to bring our own self to fruition means developing ourselves toward what is best in our manhood and womanhood, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

How can these union leaders be oriented toward an integrated development of themselves as men, if they believe that their predetermined sex is something they have to be liberated from, or if they believe that it is the breaking of gender roles that represents moral progress, or if they believe that sex distinctions exist because they, as white males, created them to oppress women.

Little wonder that these middle-aged men do not have that masculine "steeled" look that you would hope men would develop over a lifetime of struggle and achievement (and they have entirely abandoned the virtues of gravitas and dignitas that were so important to the ancients).

(I'd like to give some publicity to the Swedish paper I drew these stories from, namely Fria Tider. I've only read a few articles, but it seems to be a good source of Swedish news and commentary.)


  1. This is scary and obscene. Ir must be stopped.

    Once you accept the lie of 'equality', any and all draconian measures to create equality of outcome and redistribution of resources are on the table.

    Perfect tool for the envious, power hungry and parasitic.

    How do you kill this evil???

  2. WTF...sad bunch of twats!

  3. Once the Muslims conquer Sweden, only the men will be driving and the women will be back in their kitchens. Which they might have to share!

    1. No -- once the Muslim immigrants conquer Sweden, the public beheadings of 'infidels' and the 'honor killings' will commence; blood will flow in the streets.
      And I hope the Swedish men leave the women to their fates at the hands of the Muslims -- it will be well-deserved.

    2. TTRP, if the outcome in Sweden is that it becomes Islamic, the elite women will quickly convert - it's not as if they are devoted to Christianity. There are three possible outcomes. The first is that the Swedes go Muslim; the second is that the Muslims go liberal; the third is that the native Swedes ditch liberalism and defend their own tradition. Obviously I want the third option to take place, but the problem is that the moneyed section of the elite think that liberalism is great because it means treating global society as if it were a giant market place and the non-moneyed section of the elite in Sweden is committed ideologically to liberalism. We're going to have to see, very soon, a shift amongst the young in Sweden, if the Swedish tradition is to survive in any way - as seems to be happening amongst the young in France.

    3. if the outcome in Sweden is that it becomes Islamic, the elite women will quickly convert - it's not as if they are devoted to Christianity.

      I think that quite a few liberal women in the media and academia have this idea that there's the option of choosing a kind of Islam Lite. They think it's just a matter of wearing designer burqas, feeling vaguely spiritual and going through the motions. If they believe this then they really haven't thought things through. But then women do tend to make decisions without thinking things through.

    4. dfordoom, I think that's right. They think it's something that they can try on, either as something exotic, or to show solidarity as part of the cause, or to show how open and tolerant they are.

    5. They all wish to be Benazir Bhutto (without the same ending, of course).

  4. Hi Mark, it just goes to show that women in positions of unchecked authority are a danger to a country, culture and creed. Unmitigated by male influence, this would swiftly become a disaster. Who will build the roads, cars, houses, cities, infrastructures, etc? Imported men? Slaves? Are these spider-women who will ditch (or eat) the males once they've served their purpose?

    I've always felt there was "push" and "pull" factors in traditional Western cultures when men were the protectors and providers in the context of marriage and society. Women were no more "trapped" in marriage than what men were.

    Men's bad behaviour was mitigated by being married and tethered to his offspring, while providing for a wife. Man's natural bent is to sow his seed far and wide. Marriage tied man down and made him productive and accountable. Women held the purse-strings of sexual encounters, and the rest should have been history. This construct, I would argue, left the woman to build and control the softer aspects of society and culture - primarily the "community". Men built the infrastructure (hardware) and women built the society (software). How this was ever reconfigured to sound like women were in "a hutch to trammel some wild thing in [LOTR]?" I find staggering. In effect, with the rise of the economic woman, and competitor to men, software was allowed to become malware that would destroy the computer which housed it. White-anting.

    1. Who will build the roads, cars, houses, cities, infrastructures, etc?

      As Camille Paglia so memorably put it, if civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.

  5. "How do you kill this evil???"

    Barring some catastrophic electoral defeat for the feminists and their enablers, one needs to publicly expose, ridicule, and render intolerable to the general public the now dogmatic assumption that society (and history) is a patriarchal construct created to oppress women and enrich men. This is the cornerstone of feminist thought and their equality shtick, even if feminist "feminism is just the legal and social equality of the sexes" useful idiots don't know any better.

    The problem for us is that many regular liberal types work from the faulty assumption that feminists just want men and women treated the same. They do not realise that feminists see society as a stacked deck with men in charge and consequently we MUST give special consideration to women and elevate them above men wherever possible. Liberals point out this special consideration and say "that's not equality," but the feminists generally ignore them (and consider them ignorant and problematic) because they are working from a fundamentally different worldview.

    One of the things that must happen is the defunding (no student loans) of leftist humanities departments (practically all of them). They have gone completely overboard and it is absolutely intolerable they are allowed to push their radical agendas through the universities with taxpayer money. Cut off the supply of loans and you cut off their supply of useful idiots.

    1. One of the things that must happen is the defunding (no student loans) of leftist humanities departments (practically all of them).

      Agreed. That's the best starting point. A lot of these SJWs were relatively normal until they got to university.

  6. I have a hard time believing that the men in the pink hats are really descended from the Vikings. Good grief.