Jenny’s Pennies

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)

So, we’re in some kind of a backlash here in Sweden. A backlash of the majority, against the minorities who demand equal treatment, a voice and some damn respect.

You see, according to “ordinary people” (ordinary = male, white, heterosexual, Christian by birth but not church going), the demands of “special interest groups” has gone too far (special interest = female, non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual).

- Why is everyone so sensitive? (they whine). I believe that all people are equal and have equal value and equal rights. But feminists and queer activists and immigrants and all those special interest groups, they want more than equal rights. They want special rights! And I never offend anyone! But you know, you should really grow some thicker skin and stop whining so much. Being offended is the new black it seems. And I’m free of stereotypes! I have nothing against gays and Muslims as long as they mind their own business! Being called offensive really offends me!

Well, I’m sorry, but if you feel that discrimination and hate crime and prejudice and judgmental attitudes against people not like yourself are bad, if you really believe that all human beings have equal value and rights, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee: this does not only mean educating and changing the KKK members, Hitler follower, rapists and Talebans out there - it also means that you, yes you, have to give up your preferential right of interpretation and your privilege. And yes, it also applies to me, being a white, university educated middle class European.

It does not matter if you have twenty black friends, never knowingly have uttered a bigoted or homophobic remark, and are a nice ordinary human being - you can’t expect the fight for equal rights and against discrimination and prejudice to stop at your doorstep, because it makes you uncomfortable to be called out on your privilege and your prejudices. You tell “minorities” (who, added together, really are the majority. White Christian men are in no way “ordinary people” seen in a global perspective) to develop a thicker skin. Well if being asked to examine your own privilege and acknowledge that your interpretation of the world is not a universal truth offends you so much, then you need to grow a thicker skin.

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.

22 years ago, I woke up to the sound of my mother crying. I could hear the radio was on, but it didn’t seem to be that usual Saturday morning chatter. The whole atmosphere was strange.
I was six years old, laying in bed, terrified, because I know something was terribly wrong. if I got up, I would have to face that frightening unknown, so I kept laying there, despite my desperate need to go to the bathroom, and I wet the bed.

That is how I remember the day that Sweden woke up to the news that prime minister Olof Palme had been assassinated. That, and the front page of our local newspaper, which had a black and white photo of Palme, framed by four red roses. Maybe there were words too, but I only remember the picture and the roses.

Some people say that Sweden changed forever on that day. I don’t know, I was only six when it happened. Most, if not all, of my perceptions of Olof Palme are created after his murder, when hearing his often brilliant speeches replayed, hearing him brought up in debates and memorials, reading about the failed murder investigation. I do see what they mean though: a new sense of vulnerability, that something that we only had read about happening elsewhere suddenly happened to us, that our way of life - that the prime minister can go to a movie theater on a Friday evening without needing caravans of police escort - was threatened (feelings which once again awoke in 2003 when foreign minister Anna Lindh was stabbed to death while shopping in a department store).

But it is too easy to assign to a single event, however huge its societal impact, the power to change everything. Contra-factual history writing may be a worthwhile intellectual exercise and the subject of some great authorship, but to say “if Olof Palme hadn’t been murdered, x never would have happened”, is to simplify too much. I’m not at all sure, as some people like to think, that we as a country would have more solidarity with the poor and disenfranchised, or a more brave and outspoken foreign policy, had Palme not been murdered 22 years ago. I wish that would have been the case. But political ideas should be based on reality and visions, not nostalgia for times long gone. Thinking about what might have been clouds the issues facing us today. In the ten years that I have been allowed to vote, I don’t recall that I have ever voted for the social democratic party. Not because I don’t agree with the ideology, but because of the abandonment and distortion of that ideology. I don’t know if I would have voted for Olof Palme, and it doesn’t matter. What matters is now, what we can do now to create a better world. Asking what would have been if only, isn’t a way to create change, if it is indeed change that we want.

All I can say is: WTF?!?!

For non-Swedish readers, the story is this: A dad buys his son a present for his sixth birthday at a big toy store in Gothenburg, Sweden. When the son opens the toy package, a card falls out. It says (my translation):

Homosexuals spread AIDS when they lick each others assholes.
What are they doing? Look at:

www.amoso.se

Dislike homosexuality
Not the homosexual

The store (Toys R Us) takes the incident seriously and say that it is unlikely that an employee is behind it. They say that they will search the part of the store where the toy was displayed (but of course they won’t be able to open all the toy packets to see if any more include the lovely surprise-gift).

AMOSO is a Swedish “organization” (or more like a one-man crusade) led by Ron Linden a.k.a. Ronnie Lindén. Linden says he’s a Swedish American living in California where he earns a PhD in science (yeah right). AMOSO stands for Avslöjande av Myter Om Sexuell Orientering or, in the international version, Exposing Myths About Sexual Orientation (EMASO, yes there is a website, won’t link, Google is your friend). In 2006, Linden went on a strange tour around Sweden, where he parked his van outside roadside McDonald’s and gas stations, and gave out free anti-gay literature aimed at parents who “worry about their child’s sexual orientation”. Sadly, his van was attacked, evidently by AFA (Anti-Fascist Action, an extreme autonomous left organization), which was a stupid strategy and only adds to the “they are out to silence us”-rhetoric used by Linden and his kind (of course, he blamed the attacks to “the homosexual mafia”). Linden has also linked hurricane Katrina and the tsunami to acceptance of homosexuality. He is behind the site www.akegreen.com, about the Swedish minister Åke Green who was tried for hate speech after a sermon about homosexuality. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, where Green was acquitted. Still, his case is used by fundamentalists who say that they aren’t allowed to say what they believe (only now they have a Supreme Court decision that says that they are…). (For more ranting about this kind of reasoning, I direct you to this post.)
Antigayretorik has more about AMOSO (in Swedish).

Well, back to the card in the toy package. I wonder what the usual anti-gay suspects will say about this type of guerrilla activism. Of course we can’t know that AMOSO or Linden is actually behind it, it could be a supporter of Linden´s cause, or just someone’s idea of a sick joke. From what I could stomach of the AMOSO website, it seems limited to male homosexuality (with the usual anal fixation). So, if there are any more toy packets with cards, I guess the pink section of the toy store is safe.

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.

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.