Category Archives: Debate-ish

Quote of the day

Humankind reaches every bottom and below. 

A system in which institutions are controlled privately and for profit…

I have no clear definition of where I stand on the political left-right spectrum*. Left in theory and right in practice, I suppose. To most people that makes no sense. Think about it though: one camp wants things that are all wonderful, it’s just that the methods they want to use to get there could be devastating to large parts of society. The other camp has a harsher view on human beings, less appealing goals, yet a political agenda that’s far more functional in the reality we live in.
For what is capitalism, if not a raw and unyielding strategy for survival and profit, favorable for the masses only when tamed by various laws and regulations?
It’s perhaps most apparent in the animal industries, where slaughter, torture and rape are profitable and, as a result, have been normalized. Small scale farms have long since been replaced by gigantic compounds, where cows have no names and workers have no time; where feed formulas are carefully calculated; spaces confined; sprinkle scarce and beaks trimmed. Animal rights activists are necessary to maintain the status quo.  Would this be a reality if farm owners had not been striving towards profit? Of course not. Our entire society is based around the concept of profit and many would be impoverished if they let compassion get the upper hand.
The problem is that we have nothing better. The only alternatives I can think of are a socialist planned economy and small hunter-gatherer societies. The first has, through the course of history, proved to be inefficient and rarely (if ever) compatible with democracy. Communism (which isn’t synonymous with socialist planned economies, but have enough in common to be treated as the same thing in this short, unqualified post) has, historically and invariably, meant that a totalitarian regime has replaced the aristocracy then led millions into poverty and starvation. Few humans are willing to work hard without personal gains, and that’s basically a requirement for socialism to work.
The second alternative – a hunter-gatherer lifestyle –  was abandoned a very long time ago, in our ancestors’ strife for a better life. I think it would be pretty counter productive to return to that, and anyway, nobody would do it willingly.
Bottom line: It’s a horrible system. Deeply dysfunctional. But it’s the best we’ve got.

* Unfortunately, there isn’t really a standardized political spectrum. I think of it as illustrating both economical models – socialism to the left, capitalism to the right – as well as ideologies about the role of the state, where the left tends to stress equality and communion, whereas the right is more about personal freedom.

Quote of the day

Forgive the idiots in your life. They don’t know they’re idiots. 

~ This awesome Facebook page

Blasphemy aint so bad

It’s pretty obvious that recent attacks (although they aren’t in fact THAT recent anymore. I’m a slow writer) in Paris and Copenhagen have targeted freedom of speech. It is understandable that many people react to this by trying to limit freedom of speech; avoiding anything that might trigger a new attack; blaming the victims of the attacks for insulting Islam. It’s appalling that those people have so many sympathizers.

First and foremost, I think it’s wrong to blame the authors, cartoonists and artists that were attacked. It’s like telling a rape victim she (because it’s always a she) shouldn’t have worn this and that. Dress may perhaps, possibly, maybe, have triggered the rapist but NOTHING can excuse such crimes. The fault, by definition, can’t be with the person who was raped – and no problem will be solved if she starts to wear full-coverage clothes.

Likewise, we won’t destroy any potential threat by limiting freedom of speech. Temporarily, perhaps – terrorists tend to have a target and if the target is gone the risk of an attack is diminished. If nobody insults islam, nobody will be punished for insulting Islam. But prohibiting blasphemy won’t help. Not in the long run. Because freedom of speech is also freedom of thought; people (and I think especially young, vulnerable and disillusioned people) are  susceptible to propaganda. By prohibiting anything that questions Islam, militant islamists and their supporters are given playing room. If there’s nothing to question IS’s propaganda, said information will appear like definitive truth.

In the long run, we don’t want to give up our freedom of speech. Because there will always be problems, in one form or the other, and we must be able to discuss their causes and solutions. And right now, religion is a problem we have to discuss.

I’m well aware that Islam has inspired wonderful acts of generosity, kindness and peace. One of my greatest idols, Malala Yousafzai, is a dedicated muslim. However, awful crimes are committed in Islam’s name. And I think that as long as a book is believed to be the word of God, there is a risk that someone will interpret it for the worse, then use God as a way to excuse or motivate their crimes.

I would never try to force atheism into someone – showing the secular alternative is far better. The Christian story of creation was proved to be wrong when the theory of evolution was proved to be true, which also proved that the Bible isn’t necessarily entirely true. In the long run, fanatic fundamentalism is the problem and education the solution.

Nous sommes Charlie

I’m not sure if a democracy with equal rights and responsibilities for all its citizens has ever existed. If it has, it’s threatened. Because it cannot exist without freedom of speech: the free questioning of ideas and opinions (duh). The very core of our western democracy has been attacked.

I doubt it will take long before PC thinkers start to ramble about how the Charlie Hebdo brought it upon themselves by criticizing Islam. They did criticize it, but is that a crime? Religion was and is a system of beliefs (thus it’s not racist to criticize a religion). Islam (which has a scripture with political ambitions) should be possible to criticize the same way that Communism is possible to criticize.

My thoughts are with the victims, the brave people who payed their lives for our right of expression.

Well that’s a relief


Merry Christmas… Or something

Some last minute Christmas shopping had to be done, and the vivid heart of my small hometown was the obvious place to go. So I went there. Every corner was crowded with people, but a few stood out to me. The beggars. Romanians, migrants that thanks to the EU now are a common sight in most European cities. People, for whom a paper cup to feed them, a cold, wintery,  Swedish street for a home, is the best option. And I saw them, and I realized how unfair the world is. And I realized that they won’t make it home in time for Christmas. And I realized that when I stuff myself with vegan pies and open presents by the tree, they will be out on the cold, harsh, snowy roads. And I thought of this song.

Merry Christmas folks!

Shalom, Mr. Speaker of Parliament!

many A couple weeks ago, Swedish PM Löfven announced a re-election, leaving my country in chaos. His government has been a failure from start to finish. A coalition of Social democrats and Green party, it never had a majority in the parliament, thus couldn’t pass their budget.

Who’s fault was it? Everyones of course! Read: it was the fault of the new “political climate”. Read: it’s because Sweden democrats became a weigher, so that no established bloc was in majority.

30 years ago it was a neo-nazi party (though in recent years some of the most extreme members have been excluded and the opinions that are expressed in public are not as extreme as Hitler’s). Their slogan is “Safety and tradition”, their goal to reduce asylum immigration by 90%. Their leader recently spent 60 000 € on gambling. Three members attacked a popular comedian with iron pipes. Another couple of top-cats made the following statements: “Art should not provoke”, “Rape is a deeply rooted part of Islam”, “homosexuality is unnatural”, “Jews and sami can have a swedish citizenship, but they are not Swedes”.  The list goes on.

They are bullied and ostracized by all mainstream parties. Which is to be expected, nobody with any ounce of intelligence would want anything to do with them. But, that has enabled them to play the role of the victim. It has – worse – enabled them to play the role of the only real opposition. Because that’s what they have become. That, and 13% in September’s Parliament election. And that scares me.

Nazi or not, do they have a point? Is immigration harmful? To answer that question you have to look beyond the why question, because reducing the number of refugees we take in will of course ruin thousands of lives. People will be forced to stay in war torn Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, et.c.

No, the question is wether immigration is beneficial for US. Unfortunately, many mainstream politicians are afraid of discussing this. Immigration does mean that more homes will have to be build. Education in Swedish will cost money, and without it employing them anywhere will be nearly impossible. There is a risk that extremist islamists will be among the newly arrived. But, they will also  contribute workforce to a community with an aging population. They will also enrich the culture of a falafel-loving people. They will also – hopefully – be given the chance of a better life.

And yes, our beloved Swedish culture will change. Of course it will change. Would you rather that we froze time? That we got stuck in a specific period, a specific culture, a specific degree of development? Sweden would change any way. 

Note (to any non-swedish reader): The Swedish democracy is based on three levels: commune, county and Riksdag. The Riksdag is  our parliament, formed in accordance to percentage of votes. A government in then formed by the bloc which received the most votes. Right now, eight parties are represented (on the national level). That gives a nuanced debate, but also difficulties. As for the current situation, the government didn’t manage to get a serious cooperation with the center-right bloc, something which would have made a passable budget.

Boys, man down!

The modern feminism is a multifaceted movement, where many wills and opinions come to express themselves. What they all share, the lowest common denominator if you so will, is the ideal for equality: the strife for women and men to have the same rights, responsibilities and possibilities. Therefore it’s time to let men into the feminist debate. Equality is beneficial for men and women, we can all get hurt when laws and norms put gender first. 

Feminism begun as women’s lib for women’s rights, but just as society it has changed a lot since the late 1800-hundreds. In a way it might be a misguiding name; Emma Watson launched the #HeforShe campaign for just that reason. In her speech (link here, in case you haven’t seen it) she deals with a – unfortunately very common – misconception: feminism is not man hating. Feminists think that men and women have the same worth, and ought to have the same rights in theory as well as practice.

That doesn’t mean we have to erase all differences, because some of them actually exist. For example the average woman is better at memorizing faces, whereas men tend to orient themselves better. The thing is, these are averages. Individual differences are usually bigger. Besides, many prominent gender differences aren’t in any way connected with our biology. What “is” male or female has changed a lot through the history, and of course it will continue to change. But from birth we are indoctrinated into these, and we are forced into templates that do not fit everyone. To create a society where everyone feels respected and participating, we must respect masculinity as well as femininity – and above all let the worth or value of an individual be completely set apart from his or her sex.


Beauty ideals are one of the areas where gender differences are still obvious. In part, of course, because of our different physique – but expectations and ideals play a huge role as well. Girls want to loose weight, boys want to build muscle.

Which is stranger?

Which is stranger?

It’s starting to resemble an epidemic, where people in general are unsatisfied with their looks, and girls in particular get eating disorders. Is it really so strange? Sweets and escalators are available everywhere, and the population in general is getting fatter. Thus, ideals become skinnier – simply because skinniness nowadays is harder to achieve. This is usually considered a problem that only affect girls, when in fact 10% of those seeking help are boys (underreporting is to be expected). On top of that, many boys and men feel bad for looking feeble and weak. Sales of steroids are going up – quickly – despite their destructive side effects.

Traditional femininity has been discussed in endless pages of analysis, political text, blog posts, fiction, philosophical pieces and whatnot. For good reasons; how many times haven’t women been discriminated against? How many women are still suffering because of this femininity? However, I think there is a screaming lack for such a dissection of masculinity. Traditional maleness is harsh and strong, almost agressive. It can manifest as a need to dominate: I think this is a common reason for rape. It’s about hobbies: boys (especially younger ones, I think) will refrain from things they consider girly, such as horse riding and ballet. It’s about life style choices: male vegetarians and vegans are often harassed for being “unmanly” and “gutless pussies” for not brutally murder an innocent animal for no reason whatsoever. It’s about degrading fathers, motorcycle accidents, boys who never read a novel, forbidden and hidden tears, fashion, suspicions… It’s about men who can’t live life to the fullest.

Some may object that “narrow social norms” are trifles, in comparison to rapes, childhood marriages and sex-linked rights to education and voting; things that are still legal in many parts of the world. And yes, I’m aware that my life is a sheer privilege compared with those women’s. I intend to use this privilege, by supporting the ideas that made my life tolerable. By questioning patriarchal structures, the thought processes that create inequality. By showing that we are all, first and foremost, sentient and thinking beings.

Let’s question social norms, let go of prejudice, open up. Change won’t come if only half the world cares, men must engage. For their own sake, not just for the women’s. For the girl who is tired of being submissive when she feels strong, for the boy who is tired of being strong when he feels vulnerable. For the the girl tossing out her muffin tray, for the boy longing to find one. For the boy who is forced to compete, for the girl who isn’t allowed to. They exist.


Statistics and images:

Some thoughts about feminism

feminismI see myself as a feminist,meaning that I think men and women ought to have equal rights and possibilities; I can see that we don’t, and I want to change that. In our enlightened day and age (and society) few people would object to this. However, the feminist movement has grown to be much more than this key value, it has developed many branches that often contradict each other and as a result “I’m a feminist” can hold many meanings, of which not all are sympathetic.

The hardships of my sisters
Living in Sweden, I assume the label “Swedish feminist” not be inaccurate. As a such, I’m spoiled, because apparently I live in one of the most gender equal countries in the world. It is something to be proud of, and it wouldn’t have been possible if Swedish feminists had not been engaged and multiple. A bit too engaged, sometimes. A bit too engaged, in the wrong issues. Are we restless? Have nothing to fight for? There are certainly battles to be fought, and mostly I consider it a good thing that feminists continue to work for an equal society. But sometimes it derails completely.

Objectification and its consequences
There is one problem typically associated with the western society of today: objectification. Seeing a person as a body rather than a thinking, feeling organism. This is a problem. Rapes, I suspect, are often committed by men (now I contribute to the male norm by writing men instead of people – but seriously, when did you last hear of a female rapist?) who don’t care to see their victim as having a mind equal to their own – they see them as just a body, a tool to satisfy their lusts.

On a smaller scale, a lot of advertising do the exact same thing. People become tools, objects. Objects become emotions, people. They aren’t – they shouldn’t be.

Treating the symptoms
Any doctor can tell you that using nose spray when you have a cold will relieve your respiratory passages but not do anything to get rid of the virus that caused them to swell.

Feminism is to wage war on a society that is geared against women. The basic structures of a society can be difficult – not impossible, just slow and difficult – to change, whereas the things that these patterns lead to can be alterable. Of course, if symptoms are all we can treat – we should do it. When the symptom is harming us or when treating it will eventually make the disease go away.

One example is parental leaves, because it’s so unfair that only women have the ability to carry a fetus within her body for nine months! Another (ridiculous) one is traffic lights – nowadays they install half and male half female. The female ones look like the males, but have longer hair and skirts – never mind that women can wear pants and pixie cuts.

I understand that male traffic lights is a sign of a society where “male” too often translates to “normal”. However, I don’t think new traffic lights have the power to change any deeper structures. I actually think it can do the opposite, by confusing pedestrians and by pissing people off. And this silly little thing (and many other of similar importance) is stealing focus from the real problems.

Where feminism is much needed
So what, then, is the real problem?

All the examples below are symptoms of a disease that could be called Patriarchy. They could of course also be the outcome of religious oppression, poor education or something else – one thing leads to another. 

  • A top politician in Poland recently said women should not have the right to vote.
  • In Iran, girls can be given a death sentence at the age of nine (boys at the age of fifteen). I’m against death sentences in general, even more so when they are given to children. So from that perspctive, it’s just the tip of an iceberg that girls are affected worse.
  •  In neighbouring Iraq, it will soon be legal for girls to get married – or be forced to get married– at the age of nine. Nine. That’s several years before most of them will have their first period, several years before they are old, strong or wise enough to manage a house hold, several years before they would be finished with their education (if, of course, they had the chance of education in the first place), several years before they are done playing with Tamagotchis or whatever else girls that age like to do. At nine there are several years before they are likely to have a hunch about who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.–560422
  • This list has some more examples.

A step in the wrong direction, you might say. Or, perhaps, a leap.