Thanks, but no thanks

A reader recently asked me: Shouldn't we be thanking feminists for 'waking us up,' helping us to 'take a look at ourselves'?

I so wholeheartedly agree. I've even thanked feminists on this very blog. I've thanked them profusely for - at least in part - making me the man I am. I've even admitted that I used to regard myself as a feminist! I don't any more - and I'll get back to why that is - but suffice it to say that I think feminism has been admirable and served a worthy, indispensable cause.

It has given us so much. Thank you, feminism.

It continues to give. So much. Thank you, feminism.

The girls
They will give it of course
But they give with such force
That it gives you remorse
(The Girls and the Dogs, Brel/Shuman)

Feminism has really given us plenty. Yes, society needed a wake up call back at the turn of the 20th century, because - whoops! - somehow it had forgotten to give women the vote and other civil rights. In fact, the notions of civil rights and equality were still relatively new when women got the vote. They were one of the last groups to get legal equality, along with another group that didn't have legal equality either throughout most of history: men. In its infancy, liberal democracy was for rich landowners. Sure, it was about liberty and equality for all. It's just that 'all' was rather a limited concept.

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Liberty....equality...rights....blah blah blah...!

YOUNG RONNY: Surely these principles apply to all...?

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Yes, to all.

YOUNG RONNY: All? As in absolutely, positively everybody? All of humanity, without exception? Every last motherfucker?

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Yes, of course. All of humanity. Within reason. Now, get over here and polish me boots, boy, or else you'll feel the sting of me whip! You'll be getting above thy station, young scallywag! I don't like the cut of yer jib!

YOUNG RONNY: Aha! But...ow! That's not fucking equality! Ouch! I'm a human being too...!

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: (stopping up, gobsmacked) What on Earth do you mean? You're just a servant!

This was the sort of elitist repression the common people had to fight against, and thus the first wave of feminism was a movement against very real injustice. I myself am a child of second wave feminism, whose agenda was a fight for women's liberation in the face of both de jure and de facto inequality. This movement notably addressed norms and stigmatisation, challenging the moral ideal of monogamous marriage and its gender roles. The greatest contribution of this second wave of feminism was probably in terms of changing social attitudes towards the sexes. We can certainly thank it for equal opportunities, independence and ideas of free sexuality.

Importantly, this movement didn't generally have 'men' as its enemy. The moral compass it was up against was arguably an attribute of society as a whole, not just one half of it. Feminists, other free thinkers and sexual liberators in the 50s and 60s would have had as many female as male pointing fingers pointing at them. One of the great achievements of this movement, I feel, was a modernisation of men's roles to include all sorts of household chores and 'new man' shit. That development is not parallelled in women's roles. She's generally not the one changing the fuse or reading the map. She's not the one designing the gadgets or reinventing the wheel. Who or what is stopping her? If second wave feminism has come up short it's in terms of finally freeing women from social attitudes.

Whose attitudes? Men's? Hardly. Is the man snatching the map from the woman? Or is she handing it to him as if it's burning her feminine fingers?

Here's where the ways part. Some of us feel that second wave feminism was doing an absolutely splendid job and that it ought to just keep up the good work. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it did get built. More empowerment! More tits, cocks and cunts on the beach! More alternative family forms, free sexuality, men in makeup and women in suits. Whatever makes you happy and fuck what anyone else thinks, it's a free society, etc.

But along comes third wave feminism, which in many ways resembles a motorway pile up. (Who's got the map now? Everyone? No one?) I couldn't help noticing, with a few chuckles, that the Wikipedia page on third wave feminism carries the comment, "This article or section appears to contradict itself." I won't pretend I can untangle the different strands, but I will try to identify some of them:

Third wave feminism can in part be understood as reaction against second wave feminism, which is seen to have failed. It hasn't finished the job of liberation. Ergo it must be wrong.

No more self-empowerment in the face of society's norms and stigmatisation. That idea is replaced by the notion of special privileges and extra rights as the solution in the face of the enemy: men. The solution to what? Inequality? The principle of equality is also redefined: Where once it meant equal rights and opportunities, it now means equal representation. If the sexes aren't represented 50/50 in some area or walk of life, this is seen as evidence of injustice, inequality, discrimination. This only seems to count for areas or walks of life that feminists happen to be interested in. They'll happily leave men to take the heavy, dangerous work and the innovative risks, whilst screaming that all the cushy, fat cat positions and dividends should be divided equally, by force if necessary. It's not really quite rational or fair, but I guess those have been redifined too.

No more free sexuality. Women letting it all hang out and enjoying sexual partners as they see fit is seen as false consciousness. They're really being exploited by men, whose sexuality is seen as repressive and demeaning to women. A consequence of this neopuritanical reasoning is the exaltation of romantic 'love', which on closer scrutiny means monogamy, chastity and modesty (i.e. ostensibly marriage), and disapproval of promiscuity and immodesty. Thus this movement opposes public expressions of sexuality like pornography, prostitution and anything portraying women as sexual beings, whether as instigators or objects of sexual desire. The resemblance to religious morality is striking, as is the irony of this U-turn in the face of second wave free sexuality and raised consciousness.

Where women's liberation in the 60s and 70s was in essence anti-establishment, the third wave is emerging as a bastion of political correctness, the screaming, spoilt ward of nanny states. Self-empowerment and personal liberty seem to have been replaced by the self-pity of eternal victim status.

Third wave feminism can of course be understood as a natural consequence of the first two waves. You make gender a political issue, it's going to develop as one, for better or worse. Nevertheless, the inherent U-turns, the ideological contradictions, the lack of basic horse sense in it lead to a certain confusion about what feminism is and what it's after. Many second wave feminists feel the need to qualify their brand of feminism with a modifier like 'liberal,' 'pro sex' etc. in order to distance themselves from the dingbat lunacy that's taken a patent on the name 'feminism.' Others have stopped regarding themselves as feminists alltogether in the realisation that that movement is alien to their principles and that they can no more call themselves feminists than English can call itself a dialect of Chinese. 

So thank you, feminism, for levelling the playing field, raising consciousness and helping pave the way for people to live their lives as they see fit. Do we need all this undone now? No thanks.

Too much time, too little to do

If you think about leading world powers, Sweden is probably not the first nation to spring to mind. There are greater, wealthier nations. There are nations that have distinguished themselves on the battlefields of history. There are nations that once were home to great civilisations (and not just marauding thugs in longboats), the centres of vast empires. Sweden has a modest reputation on the world stage of history. But in one area, she surely leads the world.

No other country has implemented more radical feminist ideology and made it into law than Sweden. No other country has sacrificed more equal rights in the name of radical feminist ideology than Sweden. No other country has invested so much time, energy and money on politically correct tokenism than Sweden. The feminists have taken the political scene in that country hostage and somehow established a national consciousness around their wacky agenda. In that country, they seem to face no opposition.

This is strangely frustrating to write. For one thing, there are so many examples of Swedish dingbat-ism, it's hard to know where to start. And as the born pisstaker I am, I feel my writing skills are almost redundant here, because truth is not only stranger than fiction, it's frequently also funnier. You will find me uncharacteristically gobsmacked, dear reader, positively lost for words.

Anyway, where to begin? Let's begin in the eastern Swedish town of Uppsala, where a local policy on pedestrian crossing signs has caused a scandal. Back in 2007, the town of Hässleholm was the first to introduce a sign depicting a female pedestrian in the interests of gender equality. Fair enough. Whatever makes you happy. Perhaps it helped more women get across the road. Anyway, they didn't have to feel left out in that town any more. In 2008, this became national policy and a standard design was approved for the new sign.

The woman on the sign, known as Fru Gårman ('Mrs. Walkman'), is a gender-sensitive version of her male counterpart, Herr Gårman, a name that translates both as 'Mr. Walkman' and 'This is where you walk.'

But somehow, in Uppsala, they put up the wrong sign, thereby falling foul of the national policy regarding the correct depiction of a female pedestrian. It has to be taken down again - at no small expense to the taxpayer - and replaced with the approved version. What's wrong with Uppsala's alternative Fru Gårman? She is simply 'too feminine'. More specifically, the breasts are 'too perky' and the skirt too short. Women who cross roads in Sweden are somewhat frumpier, as the official sign (below, right) indicates.

Personally, I don't see how either of these signs is a benefit or a danger to road safety. And to give them their due in Uppsala, none of the residents have complained.

Street signs are one thing. Personal pronouns are another. The swedish kindergarten Egalia has cancelled the use of the pronouns 'han' (he) and 'hon' (she) and replaced them with the genderless 'hen.'

"We use the word "Hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," said school director Lotta Rajalin (52). "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2pm.' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view.

Right.

This is part of a wave of gender neutrality sweeping Swedish society these days. Apparently, the first children's book has just been published in which the gender of the leading character is not specified. I bet that's an exciting read. It's also reported that the younger generation in Sweden is most likely to take on board the new neutral pronoun. Perhaps the reasoning is that if we pretend it's not there, gender will go away. Experience doesn't seem to suggest it, however.

Uralian languages traditionally have gender neutral pronouns: The third-person singular and plural personal pronouns are hän and he in Finnish, tema (ta) and nemad (nad) in Estonian and ő and ők in Hungarian, respectively, which always refer to persons or animals. But this traditional linguistic trait has not done anything to diminish gender roles in the societies where these languages are spoken. But hey, ideas don't have to make rational sense or be supported by evidence to become policy in Sweden. They just have to be popular amongst feminists!

In 2009, 26 year old father Ragnar Bengtsson began pumping his breasts to see if he could produce breast milk. I have no problem with this enterprising experiment. Had it been successful, it might have made modern men even more independent of women than we already are. Among feminists, the argument went that if fathers could breast feed their children, their mothers could return more quickly to the workplace. Yeah, why not? Why do men have nipples anyway? Answer me that. Mine are a bit hairy, but if the kid doesn't have a problem with it....

The funny thing about this particular news item was the dingbat commentary that accompanied it.

"Men often have trouble finding things. And if the mother is out, the child is screaming and they can't find the pacifier I'm sure there are a lot of men who give their baby their breasts," says professor of endocrinology at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sigbritt Werner.

Do men have trouble finding things? Do women have trouble with reality? Perhaps men will be giving babies their breasts some day. What surprises me is that this dingbat thinks a lot of men do it already. What planet does she live on? Or is this a realistic scenario in Sweden?

One is of course naturally curious as to whether Bengtsson actually managed to get milk out of his tits. No. Apparently, all he got was sore breasts.

They do seem to be trying very hard in Sweden, don't they? I don't know if I find them charming or chilling. One can't help but wonder what they're actually trying to accomplish. I wonder if they even know, themselves. Why? What's the problem? What is it with Sweden? I don't pretend to know why, but The Stranglers had a stab at it back in 1978:

Fluctuations at a minimum
Hypochondriac tombstone
Sense of humour's gone astray somewhere.
Too much time to think
Too little to do!
Cos it's all quiet on the eastern front
(Sweden by The Stranglers)

That's enough samples of Swedish lunacy for now. There will be more. In the meantime, let's keep fucking with those feminists!

Prejudice and discrimination

Is prejudice the same as discrimination?

I would argue that we all have prejudices in the sense of preconceived ideas about the people we meet and interact with in our daily life. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we didn't have social biases to guide us, we might inadvertently address small children in the same way as an international symposium on the subject of quantum non-locality using tripartite entanglement with non-orthogonal states....or something. Or vice versa. And no one would be any wiser. Without some prejudice, you might expect mother-in-law to laugh at the same joke that nearly made you shit the first time you heard it, instead of making her wonder whether her daughter's married a fascistoid schizophrenic from another planet.

MOTHER-IN-LAW: Oh my God! My daughter's married a fascistoid schizophrenic from another planet.

PROFESSOR RON: Holy fuck! I married the daughter of a crabby old feminist.

STEPHEN SONDHEIM: That sounds like the subject of my next musical.

WOODY ALLEN: No, it's the subject of my next film.

ED WOOD: I already made that film back in 1964. It's not the one I'm remembered for....

Do we have these sort of preconceived ideas because we experience that people are different, or are people different because we have preconceived ideas about them? Is mother-in-law only (allegedly) devoid of anything resembling humour because society expects it of her, or do we give her the benefit of the doubt because experience tells us that wit, sophistication and irony pretty much go over her head?

We use our prejudices wisely and unwisely every day as part of a set of social skills that - when succesful - paves the way for positive, productive relations, or at least keeps people from killing each other. Yes, we can overdo it. There's no need to talk to people with foreign accents as if they're morons, unless you want them to think you're a moron. There's no need to grovel to people in lab coats or uniforms, just as there's no need to condescend to the hired help. Unless you want them to think you're a moron. Maybe you are a moron, in which case you're just being yourself, which is and damn well should be your right in a democracy worth its salt. After all, the true test of liberty and democracy is not how well we all stroke each other and say 'pretty please with sugar on,' but how well we accommodate dissent, conflict and provocation. Democracy isn't there to make people nicer, but to enable assholes to live together. But the point is, prejudice is first and foremost a personal and social issue that rational thinking, free citizens should be able to figure out for themselves.

At what point does it become a political issue? When it becomes systematic and systemic unfair treatment, costing you your legally guaranteed rights of citizenship and fair opportunities. Feminists will tell you that's the case with gender, but the evidence doesn't support it. Sure, studies show that gender is a big cultural issue. We don't treat boys and girls the same. Whether it originates on a conscious or subconscious level, it's good to be aware of it if it can help one to be more socially adept. Do we make girls and boys different by treating them differently, or do we treat them differently because experience tells us they're different? Perhaps there's truth in both scenarios, in which case, the question becomes, how much? I'm all for challenging gender roles, freeing oneself from peer pressure, as well as one's own inhibitions, and helping others to do the same.

If you study prejudice in terms of gender, you will find prejudice based on gender. If you study it in terms of appearance, age, dialect, handicap or any other prominent human trait, you will find it based on these things too. Does it lead to discrimination? In some cases, surely, but that doesn't qualify it as a systemic problem that needs addressing politically. We have laws against discrimination, laws guaranteeing equal rights and opportunities. The rest is up to us as individuals and citizens of society.

Besides, we can't politicise everything, can we? I for one don't know what demographic I'm supposed to belong to. As a white male I'm judged by some to be an oppressor on at least two fronts. That makes me one of the bad people. As an ageing, ugly fucker with a distinctly Jewish looking nose, I'm probably subject to all sorts of prejudice and maybe even some discrimination in favour of the young and beautiful. Poor little me. I'm a victim. Who's going to pass a law solving all my problems? Can I even prove that they're not just in my own imagination?

BABS: Stop whining already! You call that a nose? This is a nose!

It becomes a campaign for political correctness, based on the fact that the sexes have different tastes, interests, humour etc. That's the difference between the different waves of feminism. The present one actually wants to dismantle equal rights in its quest for an artificial homogeneity, making a personal and social issue political at the cost of liberty and reason.

That's why I'm voting with my feet, so to speak, using ridicule and political incorrectness as an antidote to something I find absurd.

So fuck feminism! Not because I don't want equal rights and equal opportunities, but precisely because I do.