Jenny’s Pennies

Oh sweet Blind Io and all minor deities!
In today’s Dagens Nyheter, there is a letter to the editor signed Jakob E:son Söderbaum. Now for some reason DN doesn’t publish their readers’ letters on their website, but fortunately Jakob E:son Söderbaum has a blog (that I don’t want to link to, but if you read Swedish you can google his name and go on an adventure in a parallel universe). Jakob E:son Söderbaum is a “progress friendly conservative” (by “progress” he means returning to some unknown decade when we honored the king, kept our hands above the covers and our women in the kitchen), in his upper twenties or lower thirties. If you thought that Sweden was free of the “sex is gross, ewww icky icky icky”-crowd, think again.

Some background: a few days ago, Folkpartiet (the Liberal Party of Sweden) suggested repealing the law that makes it legal for parents to take their children out of certain lessons at school, such as sex ed or PE, due to religious or cultural reasons, and to force all children to take all classes. There has been some discussion on whether the Liberal Party’s idea is the best way to address the problem that some children aren’t allowed to learn about their bodies or to be seen in a bathing suit. I’m not sure how I feel about their proposal, but let’s leave that aside and focus on Jakob E:son Söderbaum.

He does not agree with the Liberal Party’s idea. No, he wants to excuse all children from sex ed. And he’s not even in with the abstinence only-crowd. He’s in the no mention of gross icky sex in school ever-crowd. Some of his arguments, put forth in the letter and in the ensuing discussion on his blog, are (with extra-craziness in bold, and my snarky responses in brackets):

- Sex ed teaches girls that they need to spread their legs for anyone, otherwise they are abnormal. (Because telling girls that they are not sluts or hoes if they like sex automatically means that you encourage them to do it anywhere with anyone. There can be no balance.)
- Sex should be taught by parents, only then can the serious nature of sexuality be properly conveyed to the rising generation. (And the parental version of sex ed should go “sex is gross and disgusting so you must save it for someone you love”.)
- Sex is for procreation only and sex ed teaches how to avoid procreation (Yes, let’s conveniently forget about reality: that the majority of adults will have sex a number of times without wanting to get pregnant. And that it could be a good thing to learn how to avoid STDs. And that not all people are heterosexual. But to base education on reality is such a bad idea.)
- Sex ed teachers are raping our children because talking to young girls about sex if you’re not their parent is akin to raping them. (He trivializes rape. What a surprise.)
- Sex ed teachers must be perverts, how else can they stand there talking about the subject day in and day out. (Yes, just like language teachers constantly mumble verb declinations and home ec teachers are unable to have a conversation that doesn’t revolve around pie crusts and cleaning products. Ohmigod, imagine what it must be like for OB/Gyns. They must be the most perverted people out there ever, staring at women’s icky parts all day and talking about stuff related to teh sex!!!!11!!!!eleven!)
- There’s too much sex in today’s society, it was better when it was a shameful secret. (So why are you discussing it? Doesn’t that add to the sexual fixation too?)
- Girls enjoying sex are almost whores. (And there he throws in some slut shaming to. Lovely.)
- Sexual pleasure is the lowest form of human feeling, and to acknowledge and seek sexual pleasure will lead you to become a sex addict who constantly think about and seek sex. (Oh, me thinks someone doth protest too much. Söderbaum says he’s in a “steady relationship”, but he doesn’t say he’s married, so he must be a virgin. For someone who’s not married, he seems awfully focused on sex. Doesn’t he know that subject is reserved for married people? Oh, I see, it’s only unmarried girls who aren’t allowed to think about sex. If you’re an unmarried conservative man - then it’s a-okay!)

Thank heavens that people like Söderbaum are a minority here and that he is sure to get some serious counter-arguments against him - it has already started on his blog. Now I need to go read some deviant and sex positive stuff before my head explodes.

Hoe-looking man writes too, and titles her piece “hardcore porn pussy anus lesbian sex dicks huge cock fuck ass pictures”, so that Söderbaum will find it when he goes on nightly internet adventures. LOL!

(Update: Here you can read more about the proposal from the liberal party, and reactions to it, in English)

Today, the outgoing head of the National Service Administration (Pliktverket), Mr Björn Körlof, has proposed making military conscription gender-neutral in Sweden. (You can read an explanation in English of how the conscription assessment process works here).

A very good idea according to me - if we are to keep the conscription system (which is in no way mandatory nowadays, due to budget cuts and downsizing of the armed forces) we should of course have an equal system with the right man or woman in the right place.

Many commenters that I have read today seem to agree with Mr. Körlof.
The anti-feminist side have long played the “well, conscription is only mandatory for boys and you are not complaining about that“-card when women in Sweden talk about societal gender inequality, and they seem mostly happy with the idea. Sweden’s most well know MRA Per Ström thinks that it is a great idea, although somehow (but not surprisingly) he comes to the conclusion that it is the feminists’ fault that we haven’t got a gender neutral conscription law yet.

Well, my experience is that it has mostly been men and conservatives, not feminists and progressives, who have been against women in the military, with the arguments that it will effeminate the military, it will distract the male soldiers, women can’t carry as much as men, they haven’t got the mental capacity to act cold blooded as they are too emotional and can’t use logic, they are too weak, too short and they have periods and breasts and vaginas and other yucky stuff that boys can’t handle.

Of course, the “debate” (i.e. the newspapers’ comments sections and blog links) has also had its fair share of comments along the lines of “well, next we should say that we only fight gender-neutral enemies with the correct queer theoretical ideas”, an argument so ridiculous that it only deserves ridicule back, but which also show how misogyny and anti-gay feelings are intertwined and demonstrates the fear some people have for anything or anyone not within their preconceived notions of “manhood” and “womanhood”.

And then there are the people - both men and women - who compare military service to pregnancy, saying that women already have their nine month “conscription” and therefore should be exempt from the military one. This argument is so stupid I don’t even know where to begin. But it is also scary, because it contains the idea that while men pay their tribute to the fatherland by enlisting in the military, women do it by having children. Pair that with these ideas, and I’m having a nightmare.

Luckily, it looks like Mr. Körlof’s ideas might become reality soon. The minister of defense (who was a conscientious objector!) has announced that he will start a parliamentary commission on the future of the conscription system, including the question of gender neutrality. Sweden’s supreme commander Håkan Syrén is also for a gender neutral conscription law, and so is many political parties.