Jenny’s Pennies

What’s with the asshats and their flower references? (more flower themed stupidity in previous post)

I often wish I read more languages so I could take on all the world’s dumbfuckery. Today, Natalia Antonova has done a great job of translating and taking on a Russian misogynist called Dmitrii Artemyev who concludes that International Woman’s Day is Teh Evil because:

I have to admit: the natural qualities of woman - for example, the ability to give birth, or, even more so, the ability to be a mother, raise children, and so on - may, perhaps, deserve respect and even admiration, though not in the form of a holiday. But this isn’t what we are talking about anyway; we would then celebrate Mother’s Day, or something along the same lines. Oh no, we are talking about the feminine in its most basic form. We are, factually, admiring the qualities of the feminine soul and body of the lowest, most sinful caliber. Female breasts, genitals, the womb - this is what we worship when we worship “woman.”

… This becomes apparent in the symbolism of the holiday. Women are given flowers, and the givers know well that a flower is a plant’s genital organ, opening up to be fertilized. A flower is a symbol of tempting lust. This is actually why having little flowers on your balconies is a sin, an innocent-seeming bouquet is an honest symbol of orgiastic sin, of group sex, and any interest or delight one might take in flowers is therefore sinful.

If you can smell a rose, this means you won’t be too disgusted to smell the unmentionable body parts of a woman - because this, at its essence, is the same thing.

So, according to Artemyev’s church (he’s a self-described Orthodox Christian) the Garden of Eden was, what, paved? Covered in manly concrete?

My eyes have rolled so far back in my head I need to sleep now.

(I promise, the headline will make sense if you read on!)
Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet publishes a tired old same-sex-marriage-will-destroy-society tirade in their debate section today. It’s written by Anders Svensson, who says he’s a lawyer and law teacher at Stockholm University. I pity his students (and hope they take him on tomorrow):

Imagine a country were the legislators re-interpret human rights according to a value-neutral ideology, where dissidents are violated and where media censors unfit opinions. The military dictatorship of Burma or North Korea? No, it’s the country of Sweden.

Dear Anders Svensson: If you write a long opinions piece about a contentious issue and then get it published in a really large newspaper, where debate ensues and people are allowed to have different opinions and counterarguments are raised and you get support from some and critique from some, and all this happens without the police knocking on your door or you losing your job or getting imprisoned or tortured or threatened - that’s usually a sign that you’re not living in a military dictatorship.

His main argument against same sex marriage is not “won’t somebody please think of the children!” or “horses and box turtles and forty wives oh my!” but this:

It is not hard to see how a gender neutral marriage law would be yet another weapon of censorship against traditional values.

Oh really? What would be censored? How would this censoring work? Would legions of newlywed same sex couples invade newsrooms, lecture halls and kitchen tables everywhere to make sure everyone follows the “homosexual agenda”? Svensson, of course, doesn’t tell. But he sure is censored and oppressed, the poor little sod, sitting there at Stockholm University and getting his writing published in a large private newspaper. Yes, you can really feel the Swedish military dictatorship at work here.

But if the GLBT folks are so powerful that they can impose a brutal military regime à la North Korea on us unsuspecting Swedish citizens (they’ve done a great job of masquerading it as a pretty decent democracy, I can tell you), you would wonder why they haven’t managed to get that gender neutral marriage law passed in the parliament yet. Maybe they forgot to squeeze it in between brunch and facials.

A good society must rest on stable ground of values which are reflected in legislation. What does this ground of values look like? Well, it can’t lack values. In Sweden, we have abolished this ground of values and are traveling down a road of lack of norms. How can the legislature accept this?

If people aren’t allowed to think and speak freely, a democratically stable ground of values are missing. We don’t need any more laws which despite good intentions create a fearful society where conversations die out. I want to warn the Swedish parliament of taking further steps down this road of silence and censorship. The parliament should say no thanks to this sophisticated form of euthanasia for marriage.

As often with these kinds of articles, there’s no substance. No explanations, no examples, no logical arguments, not any arguments at all about why a “good society” can’t coexist with same sex marriage, why same sex marriage hinders people from thinking and speaking freely, which values will be destroyed and how and why conversations will be silenced. No explanation on how man-woman marriages will be “euthanized” if man-man or woman-woman marriages are allowed. No line of reasoning to follow. Just fluff and a lot of words.

Also, note this lovely allegory, used to rail against anti-discrimination laws and policies. As a metaphor for gay people, he uses a weed.

A dandelion isn’t discriminated against because it can’t call itself a tulip.

So, uppity gay-dandelion-weeds should be satisfied with the civil unions they have today (which people like Anders Svensson raised all kind of hell against when they were introduced in the 90s because they would destroy society, but which they now present as a great “separate but equal”-solution) and not destroy the lovely garden of heterosexual tulip-marriages. Dandelions can also silence conversations and turn countries into North Korea. Or something.

Tor of Antigayretorik takes on the train-wreck article here, tireless and to the point as always.

For the sake of my own sanity I really regret that I did it. But I browsed Söderbaum’s blog a bit more (see previous post for context). And found this gem that I just can’t keep from you. If you want to read it yourself the Swedish title is “Verka politiskt mot heteronormen är trams” (I’m not linking to him). And I am very tempted to create a new category for this, because the “stupidity”-category doesn’t really cut it. Here we go (translation mine):

If homosexuality would be completely normalized, it would inevitably lead to an even more explicit sexualization of society - all those “a bit too long” looks from a stranger are seen as a potential sexual invitation, which immediately makes us all sexual objects as soon as we are out among other human beings. Today we talk a lot about how terrible it is that girls are seen more as sexual objects than as persons. Yes, that is terrible - and imagine how it would be if that would happen to an entire population!

Oh noes! If we accept homosexuality then yucky fags might look at me as a sexual object!!! Sexual objectification happens to girls and that is bad, but it would be so much worse if it would happen to manly men like me! What if I catch teh gay from them?!?

Newsflash to Jakob E:son Söderbaum: gays might give you “a bit too long” looks today too. Hell, there’s even a close up picture of you on your blog, have you thought about what kind of activities that may inspire? And you know what: women can look to! (But of course in your universe no woman ever looks at other people with sexual interest unless they are married to them.)
Now, I have a practical idea for you: If you’re so scared of being oogled by someone of the same sex, you can just print out copies of some selected blog posts of yours and give out to those men you suspect of having an interest in you that goes further than discussing the wonderfulness of the Swedish monarch and other manly subjects, and they sure as hell will be running in the opposite direction!

Shit I feel snarky today! :)

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)

Saturday, on International Women’s Day, Claes Schmidt/Sara Lund was supposed to give a lecture on diversity and the equal worth on all human beings, in a pentecostal church in southern Sweden. It was not a church event - a women’s association called Zonta had rented the church for the speech, which was titled “Women, men and all the rest of us” (Kvinnor, män och alla vi andra). But when the minister of the church, Magnus Jonegård, heard about the lecture, he stopped the meeting. You see, Claes Schmidt/Sara Lund is not two different persons. Claes Schmidt/Sara Lund is one person - a heterosexual married man, who sometimes dresses as a woman under the name Sara Lund, i.e. a transvestite, and who does lectures and stand up comedy about norms and values, gender and “normality” (website in English here).

The minister said that he had nothing against Claes/Sara in person (they never do - love the sinner, hate the sin, you know), but that the contents of the lecture was against the values and teachings of the church. You know, human dignity, loving thy neighbor as yourself, respect - all very unchristian concepts…

The church was of course under no obligation to rent out its premises to Zonta and Claes/Sara’s lecture. But when the Swedish good templar order IOGT expelled Åke Green (the Swedish minister who compared homosexuals to a cancer growth on the body of society, was tried for this in court and acquitted), because Green’s opinions did not correspond with their values and teachings, then the Swedish Christian right was up in arms about it and said that this was so intolerant and undemocratic.

As Tor of Antigayretorik said then: it would becoming to the right wing Christians if they would think a bit further before they start to scream about “intolerance” and “oppression”.

And over in the States, Dolores Huerta, human rights activist and well-regarded progressive leader, was supposed to give a talk to Catholic school children about her funding role in United Farm Workers and the importance of public service. But she was stopped, because of her views on reproductive choice (which had nothing to do with her talk whatsoever), which makes her an “unfit role model”. Yes, social justice, integrity, non-violence… all very unfitting concepts for the Christian right it seems.
(Via Feministe).

Free newspaper Metro (Swedish edition) does it again. Who the hell writes their headlines? The headline in question was published Monday and said: Female terror increases dramatically (”Kvinnoterrorn ökar dramatiskt”).

Wow, has a female suicide bomber struck again? Has the number of female hostage takers, murderers, stalkers and torturers gone up? No, the article deals with the fact that the number of reported cases of violence against women have increased in Sweden - seven new cases are reported daily.

So why on earth does Metro use the term “female terror”? It is hard to convey it accurately in English. But to try to clarify: if you use the phrase “police violence” (”polisvåld”) it is obvious that it is a police who is the perpetrator. But often in Swedish, the analogous “female violence”, “kvinnovåld” in Swedish, is used to describe violence against women, even though the most obvious interpretation of the phrase is that the perpetrator of violence is female. I have no idea why this is, but people keep using it.

So now Metro used the world “female terror” (”kvinnoterror”). Let’s replace the world female with, well how about religious, Muslim, American… Who would you interpret as being the terrorist then?

Blogger Annakristina spotted the misleading headline and e-mailed the journalist about it, using the analogy with “Muslim terror”. The answer she got was poorly written and the journalist completely and utterly missed her point. The journalist answered (my translation): A woman who is subjected regularly to this terror in her home, has probably little understanding for the fact that there are other forms of terror in the world who by impartial observers should be seen as more serious.

Big WTF?!?!

Via ETC.

(Other example of Metro stupidity here)

The Swedish telephone directory inquiry service 118 800 wants to train their operators to sound “sensual”, and is sending them to a speech trainer. The managing director, who himself also will take part in the speech training, says that the customers wants to hear “involved” voices, like speakers on TV-commercials. Because everybody just loves commercials! And there is nothing more sensual than a husky voice trying to sell toilet cleaner.

The managing director quickly points out that they have both men and women employed, with all kinds of accents and dialects. He also says that the operators are allowed to speak however they want. So then what is the point of making them sound sensual? I don’t get it.

And what will the speech training sound like?
Speech trainer: So, let’s try a little role play here. I’ll be the client calling asking for a number, and you’ll play yourself as the operator taking the call. Okay, let’s start.
Operator in training: Hello, welcome to the directory inquiry. How may I help you?
Speech trainer: I’m going to stop you right there. That wasn’t very sensual, now was it? You need to lower your voice, make it sound like you’re moaning a little. Think about something that makes you really really…hot. And that welcoming phrase is way too clinical. Try something like this: Hello, stranger. How can I please you tonight? I’ll give you whatever you want…
Operator in training: Wouldn’t that confuse the customers? They might think that they have dialed another number.
Company director, overhearing the conversation: Now dear, you know what we think about negative attitudes at this workplace. Remember who pays you salary. 99 percent right is 100 percent wrong! Now let me show you how it’s done…

Update: I missed that the article says that the speech training is voluntary for the operators. Still creepy though.

I have been too busy to post today, but I have to direct you to this little gem: A “psychiatrist” has diagnosed liberalism* as a mental disorder.
Well, it takes one to know one I guess.

Via Pam.

*Liberalism, as you know, has a slightly different meaning in the States than it does here.

So, over in US of A, republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.

“This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception,” Huckabee said in a statement.

“With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value,” Huckabee said. “Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs.”

Burton’s initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

About 76 000 signatures are needed from registered Colorado voters to get the initiative on the ballot in the November election. From what I have understood from reading various comments on this, it will be possible to collect the signatures needed, but it is, thank god, highly unlikely that it will pass.

Nevertheless, the idea creates some interesting questions. Will the “fetus citizen” get a social security number (if it is a separate person, it needs to be identified somehow, right)? Will you be able to claim tax deductions for unborn children, just as you can for born ones? Does the “fetus citizen” need a passport if it leaves the country?

And of course, we somehow need to control women’s periods. Loads of of fertilized non-implanted eggs are flushed out with periods every year, without the woman ever knowing that she actually had that “person” in her. Like one of Pandagon’s commenters said: Tonight on CSI: “You only think it’s a bloody tampon. But there’s a fertilized fetus American in there - natural death or murder?…”

Pandagon has more, Feministing too.

I had actually completely missed this.

Short recap: Early in the fall last year, EU commissioner Franco Frattini (responsible for for freedom, security and justice within the European Commission) proposed that web searches for certain words and phrases should be blocked within the EU. He said to Reuters:

“I do intend to carry out a clear exploring exercise with the private sector … on how it is possible to use technology to prevent people from using or searching dangerous words like bomb, kill, genocide or terrorism”

(Is it only me, or is it really creepy that he said he wants to use technology to prevent people from not only searching but also using words like genocide and terrorism? What the hell did he mean by that?! And how can a word be dangerous? I thought actions and deeds were dangerous. If we say that words are dangerous, we are very close to the idea of thought crime.)

At his European Commission website, Frattini wrote in his “weekly thought” on September 9th 2007:

There is much long-term work we are carrying out at European level: from initiatives on radicalisation, bio-terrorism, security of explosives and detonators, and the need to constantly monitor the web. The web remains a fantastic opportunity for education and freedom but also a way for Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists to communicate all around the world, as well as for disseminating information on how to make explosives.

We must also ensure that our counter-terrorism work is underpinned by the best technology we can have. This is vital for us and difficult too because we have to strike the right balance between the right to security and the other fundamental rights of individuals, including privacy and procedural rights.

Frattini did say that he didn’t want to ban discussions about for example genocide and terrorism, only “how to”-sites. But how do you differentiate between the two? Of course, Frattini got a lot of criticism for his proposal (Google Frattini +censorship for an idea).

The Swedish Justice Department dismissed the proposal and it was made likely that Sweden would veto it, as it would violate Swedish law. And now in 2008, it is soon time for a decision in the EU council of ministers on this proposal. And it is no longer likely that Sweden will put in a veto.

The EU website blocking system would probably work like the Swedish filter for child pornography. The nifty thing is that the child pornography filter is not a part of the law, and therefore does not violate the law against censorship. It works like this: internet service providers (ISPs) sign an agreement with the police, and the police tells the ISPs what sites to block, all without any court involvement. The list of what is blocked is secret, and so is the agreements with the ISPs. We just have to trust that the system works.

Be silent. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Step into the time machine, we are going to 1984, where a search on “genocide” can make you a suspect. I better finish reading this book before it gets censored as well.

I hope some other government vetoes Frattini’s proposal, now when my own has no sense of decency.