Monday, August 17, 2009

In defence of a stupid man

Again I need to "defend" a stupid prosecutor that cannot handle media and say the politically correct thing. In an effort to explain what should be a difference in regards to different levels of rape he sort of stepped into it saying that a “rape” within a relationship should not be regarded as the same thing as a brutal attack. In this he is, of course, correct, both legally speaking and morally. Even if Hillegrens "example" on penalty seem a bit strange; legally there is and should be a distinction between sexual abuses and rape and all the different levels of the two.

A person attacking a minor and violently rape this person with many bruises as well as emotional distress that comes with, should, at the very least, get locked away for a very long time. Preferably I would argue for the firing squad. If someone pushes another within a relationship and one says no but still, eventually, cave in having sex without wanting it that is not the same. Is it a crime at all? And if it is; what crime? What punishment? And when, in this latest example, does it become sexual abuse? Rape? When someone says no? If this is the case I have been raped many times myself. When someone says no several times and pushes the other one away? When?

People seem to have gone overboard on this issue and read something into something that isn’t there. Hillegren has never said there cannot be rape within a relationship; he has never said there shouldn’t be a punishment for rape. He might have expressed himself clumsy (and maybe gone to far), and he should know better than to antagonize an overzealous and politically correct media and populace, but was it wrong? I would like to see all those people screaming in blogs and such to take a breath and explain the differences, explain what punishment there should be and to do so with some form of level headiness.


  1. Of course it is more brutal to rape someone who you claim to love and protect. Most rapes occur within relationships. It is only naive men who thinks it is more hurtful for a woman to be raped by a stranger. WAKE UP!

  2. That is not an answer to either my questions or what Hillegren said. You are claiming rape by a loved one is worse then by a stranger. Maybe that’s true, probably not, but maybe. Either way it has nothing to do with this discussion. I would like you, and everyone else, to explain, really explain what was wrong with Hillegren’s statement and if it was wrong; explain when, exactly, this “rape” occurs. I have never been in a relationship when I, or the female in question, have not said no on one or two occasions. On some of those we had sex anyway, was that rape? If so I have been raped several times and find that notion really ridiculous. And I dare you to find me one single couple in this world where “no” never is uttered. I don’t believe such a relationship even exists, which means that pretty much every single person on this planet is either a “rapists” or a “victim”.

  3. OK,I will try to explain. Rape is when you "go on anyway" referring to a situation when one of the involved parties have said no. If you - as you describe it - have sex anyway I read between the lines that somewhere down the line the one who said no has given in to the wish of the other. That is he or she has not continued not wanting this. The line is quite easy to identify, most men and women are fully capable to do so. When someone goes on anyway it is a violation of the other persons integrity and if the signal from society is that these types of violations are OK because (mostly) men cannot be expected to withhold there animal instincts once awakened, rape is accepted informally. The problem in our western society is not that people have to little access to sex. It is that men are expected to always be in the mood, and women to always be ready to please. Why is it so terrible to request people to listen to and respect eachother? Most rapes are never reported because girls and women aim to please, and put blaim om themselves if a man has been turned on and "gone on anyway".
    Every woman I know has a story to tell when they feel lucky they were NOT raped, where they have been flirting, drinking, invited someone home or followed some guy, but turned him down for sex. It is only after the rape debates I realized this is not luck, they have just met normal men who take other peoples interests into consideration and who do not enjoy having sex with someone that does not want to. There you have it. It is really quite simple. Most men are not rapists, but what Hillegren describes is not someone giving in to nagging. "Going on anyway" is the rape part.

  4. In other words, rape, according to you, is whenever a “no” has been said and the sex occurs anyway. And, as I said, it means that every relationship that has ever existed is subjected to rape. That is not a valid explanation nor is it a reasonable definition. Should we overfill our jails with couples that have had sex? Is that what u are saying?

    Then you come into another discussion, although interesting and I tend to agree for the most part. Yes, it is expected certain things of each gender which can have its drawbacks. Also I agree that one of the reasons females do not report a rape is because of the reason you mention. And yes, I believe you are right about women having that experience, which is sad in its own right. However, all those things mentioned has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You have made a distinction and an interpretation, probably from what you write (and think) about the whole debate, not this particular case. Hillegren have not described what you say, that is your view, not fact. In no way is that something that can be read from his statement other than as an interpretation. And even IF, you are still not answering the main issue, when is this “no” a rape or not? According what I read into your writings, it is always rape, and I do not buy that for one second. In other words you are wrong.

  5. I mean that in the ordinary case, a couple, or newly acquainted people, they now when a no has changed to a yes. That is why you do not have to be afraid that following the law will result in overfilled jails.

    And yes, I believe that all those things you agree with, regarding gender and expactations are a result of norms - including legal ones - in society. It is not a coincidence that teenagers think that girls who are drunk, wear short skirts and stay out late alone at night are themselves to blame if they are raped. If the norm is that a NO has to be respected no matter what, men and women who cannot identify that line between sex and rape will probably be more interested in making sure they have consent. And that would give girls and women the freedom they should be entitled to in a modern, democratic society where men and women are equals.

    The law is never objective.

  6. Nietzsche once, very eloquently and lengthy, pointed out that language is the greatest lie of all [On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense]. Rape is evidently one of these words where there are no differences, no colors whatsoever. It leads people to false conclusions, on the topic of guilt as well as to the course of events. Why is it so difficult to see that rape, in order to be a horrible crime, needs to be reserved for horrible things?

  7. Only a man can argue that being penetrated against your will by someone who claims to love you is not horrible. Beauty LIES in the eye of the beholder.

  8. Anonymous 2:
    I was waiting for that stupid comment. It never fails. "u cannot know because you are a man". That sentence is always thrown into a debate like this when there is no argument. Like the very notion of being a man disqualifies you. Talking about being sexist. Whenever someone writes or says that I always know I'm right.

  9. Samantha:
    A law based on objective principles would be objective. Our subjective system with subjective laws and rulings based on opinions, common good or political standpoint can never be fair or a good justice system.

    And yes, you are right, most couples knows when no really is a no or yes, that is true, but what is also true is that many don’t express it that way all the time even when they really mean it, and I would argue this mainly goes for men. With that in mind men is actually getting more raped then women, if one argues the way you seemingly do.
    Even if I do agree with most of what you say, the notion that teenagers “think” as you say, is not true. Certainly some does, but hardly more than a few. But again you sidestep the issue. We are not talking about what people think, what teenagers say in a survey or whether or not we live in a patriarch society or not, what we are talking about is this statement, if it was wrong or not and if you are right, what should the penalty be. You are arguing from a feminist standpoint that everything is wrong in the country, but you do not take into account what the law says or should say and you ignore the debate about this particular statement. A naked female on a cover of a magazine is not the same as saying “rape is okay”, but even IF, that is not the issue.

    Men and women should be equals yes, but that cannot be implemented through the expense of throwing justice and reason out the window. A woman claiming she got rape shouldn’t automatically be believed, there is differences in levels of different sorts of sexual abuse and there is very thin lines that needs to be thread carefully. As long as this is not acknowledged there cannot be equality as well as it cannot be if men always cut females out of certain positions. The trust and the justice needs to go both ways. We need to stop looking at people as men or females, and start looking at people as people.

    As far as rape is concern, we need to de-criminalize self defense, we need harder punishments and we need a society where people, not men, females, black, white, rich, young or whatever is the focus, people, the individual. Only a country where the individual is the main focus can also reduce the worst elements.

  10. In many ways I like your liberal way of arguing, it is just that in practice it often fails. Freedom for one requires adjustment from another. Objective principles and ideals also come in conflict with eachother. There is always a hierarchy, decided in large by the power in force.

    Change in favour of equality has always been fought for by visionary politicians - many times liberals - against the public opinion at the time.

    You say equality is desired and can be achieved if the individual is the main focus. But sometimes focus on the individual helps to reproduce inequality because of the conflict between my freedom and your adjustment, vice versa.

    Enforcing the declaration of human rights sounds objective enough but even among those rights there are conflicting interests. That is why putting them in practice is so difficult.

    Now back to the issue. You also interpret and read your own experiences into what Hillegren said. There is no objective way of reading a newspaper-quote. The words expressed by him still remind me of the proposed law in Afghanistan saying that a married woman cannot say no to sex with her husband. Even if Hillegren does not mean that, the effect becomes similar.

    When rape occurs in couples, it is often included in a whole pattern of psychological and physical abuse, where saying no has long since lost significance. The problem with Hillegrens statement is that it does not exlude those situations, which makes it so provocative to all the women and men who have been in such relationships, and all of us who have met or read about those situations and become upset with how the prevailing attitudes makes it easy for perpetrators to continue destroying lifes since they are hardly ever sentenced for it.

    We all have a defencemechanism that make us relieved when we can narrow down rape to situations we easily could avoid, like staying out alone and drunk late at night. But attack-violations by unknown perpetrators only make up a small percentage of rapes. This image of the dark stranger being the one to avoid makes people less on guard in the situations where rape is most common, at home with someone you know and trust.

    This is why most people affected by rape do not - as Hillegren claims - think of "really brutal rapes" as what should be punished by our legal system, and that is why media, society and our courts also should stop shutting their eyes to this reality.

    Moving around loosely with definitions like Hillegrens, that unconsented sex in a relationship where the man continues despite the women having expressed a lack of lust should be treated as a misdemeanour rather than a rape is so unfortunate. He has influence in these matters and should know that a situation like the one he discribes hardly reaches court, if there is not an ongoing repression within the relationship.

    What is your definition of a rape that should be included in the law and processed by a court? And what is your fear, have you ever hesitated if your partner was consenting to sex or not - regardless of words being uttered? In such cases it is easy to make sure. To decrease the cases of abuse in relationships society should - as it has started to do - send a strong signal about who is in the wrong. It is not the abused partner who stays because the abusing partner promises over and over that this will not happen again.

    A couple of weeks ago in Mexico a journalist was so badly beaten by her husband that brain tissue started to leak through her skull. The doctor she met contacted relatives who came and kidnapped her at the hospital before receiving treatment. By the pressure of feminist organisations she was tracked down and brought to a hospital where the husband has no connections. She is still in a coma, and the husband at large, not even wanted by the police - since family violence is still regarded as an internal affair.

    I hope that prosecutors like Hillegren and the judges of the High Court are not going to be aloud to bring back domestic violence behind the family walls.

  11. Anonymous (female?):
    You're saying, if you're a female what actual took place doesn't matter? That's just not true! Surely most women, and men for that matter, would agree to that while some reported rape victims are victims of a hideous crimes others aren't victims at all and that reality includes everything in between. They also realize, this holds true for any crime against an individual regardsless of how its labelled.

    Yes, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. In general, that's a great thing but it's sort of the problem here, isn't it? Society is based on people sharing a common ground, a "beauty" most people can see. I trust and hope that the beauty of laws saying things like "a rape is a rape is a rape" escapes most people.

  12. Firstly, freedom for all was what I was talking about. Everyone should have the same rights, no matter gender, age, religion or anything else that is irrelevant. Such a society would not only be the most ethical one, it would also be the society wherein people would start to treat each other with a higher level of respect and consequently this would also reduce the number of rapes. Object principles do not come in conflict - that is a contradiction. Equality in my argument is the same thing as “same rights” or “same law applies for everyone”. In such a situation there is no conflict between freedoms or adjustments, everyone have the same freedom. The conflict is not in this basic axiom, it lies within people.

    And yes, you are right, I do interpret and read my own experience into what Hillegren said. And my experience tells me that there is no way this man is acknowledging rape in any way. On contrary what some feminists scum say or believe, the number of men actually capable of rape or arguing for its existence is dwindling few, and to think that one of those has been a prosecutor for many years is very unlikely. And even IF, that still leaves us with this statement, that he since also have explained further. There is no way one can read anything else into that statement other than what I have been saying.

    You are totally of base with: “The problem with Hillegrens statement is that it does not exlude those situations…” which is not true. Not in any way true. That is not what he is saying, that is not what I’m saying and that is not the issue. You cannot look at one statement, draw parallels with the rest of the world, drag every feminist patriarch lunacy into it and bunch it all together and then draw a conclusion and than compare it to a real and factual rape. That is not a correct approach, not intellectually, not morally and not legally. Either the discussion is one thing or it’s the other. And to draw parallels with Afghanistan? It is Sweden, Swedish laws and one statement that is “on trial” here, not the entire male species or another country.

    I think that the definition of rape we have according to the law is “good enough”. Sometimes it falls over in one direction an some poor sod get evicted on very loose grounds, sometimes it falls over in the other direction and people are set free that shouldn’t be loose on the street. So, of course, one can argue about details in the law, but I do not believe that is the main problem. And yes, it has happened that I felt hesitant about the female wanting it or not, on those occasions (mainly one-nighters) I have asked. In a relationship, however, you know what buttons to push. Both males and females, when knowing each other, knows that a kiss there, a change of clothes or whatever will turn that determined ‘no’ into a “yes”. Also one often recognize whenever the other one is not in the mood which, for most people, is a turnoff so it’s not a problem.

    And domestic violence is not either the issue. You can side-step this debate how much you want, the main problem exists. How/when do you go from probably saying “no” to really saying “NO” and how/when does this spill over in sexual abuse? Rape? And, what I regard as the main issue and that Hillegren also meant; is it regarded as the same crime as a violent attack? This is hard and very important issue and that’s why I get upset over thugs, politically correct and feminists that immediately jump at this man and things like this without even considering and think about what actually was said, what is actually the law and how do we solve potential problems. There are innocent people getting convicted and there are guilty getting away with it, so how to solve it?

    I vote, armament, harder punishment and an adjustment in the way we treat each other as a remedy. Sadly some rapes will always exist, but with this measure we can at least eliminate some percentages.

  13. The majority of rapes will continue to exist as long as theoretical people like you and Hillegren continue to fail to recognize them as rapes. Theory and practice influence eachother. If you only argue in theory, and do not acknowledge how traditions of the past still prevail in practice despite modern discourse, the practice will be to scrutinize the behaviour of the victim much more than the perpetrator's. Which is what happens in our courts NOT only Afghanistan's or Mexico's.

    You cannot concentrate on petty parts. It is all interconnected. Holistic approach is needed. Sorry, I don't think you will understand my arguments unless you gather some more knowledge about actual rape situations. Recommended reading about real life cases: Criminal reporter Katarina Wennstam "En riktig våldtäktsman".

    You seem like a nice guy, most guys are like you, but not all. You should stand up for the women of all sizes, ages and backgrounds who get manipulated by the ones who abuse there power. Your fear that protecting these women would get people like yourself into jail is really quite ridiculous. I am sorry. Real life can be worse than your imagination. Be happy you have not been there, and use your privilegues to support those who are not so lucky.

  14. Samantha:

    It's not an non issue, trying to find out what, if anything, the accused is guilty of. It's actually the main issue of the judicial system, at least in any country of free individuals. It doesn't matter if we're dealing with rape or abuse, theft, fraud, tax evation or whatever, it's still the most important thing! Why argue the use of coarse terms based on collective thinking when it's all in the details?

  15. Samantha:
    I actually started to like this debate, but apparently you are incapable of arguing without throwing labels and things that aren’t there around. I have never failed to recognize a rape. I have had friends and a girlfriend that has been raped and this is a topic very close to heart. A rape is a rape, no one has argued about that but you. What we are arguing about is if the same basic judgement should be applied within a relationship when one part on one occasion says no, really mean it, but eventually cave in. You claim this to be rape, I say that is ridiculous. I cannot be in any way except for in the minds of very strange feminist people that might even see the act of sex itself as an intrusion on the female body. But IF you are right, you need to clearly state, when this situation becomes a rape and then, even more, clearly argue for the punishment. And IF you manage this feat, you need to put down a rule, a law that cannot be misused. As I see it, if you got your way, I would be in jail for the rest of my life by now, and so should not every other male, also lots and lots of females.

    It is you who theorize, I talk about reality. Not only comes to the rape-issue, but also about the law and how people should and are interacting. You are seemingly unwilling to admit to the real debate.

    And again, you refer to patriarch structures and other countries. That is not valid in this case. Why can’t you look past all that mumbo jumbo and actually take a stand. Let us know what you actually considerer to be right and answer my above questions.

    And I know what you mean, I know your so called argument, but you fail to answer my questions and how the basic interpretation should be done. And as I mentioned above, I have very close experience from rapes and rape victims. I have also been involved in building a women shelter. You are only dismissing me because you have no answer.

    And I am a nice guy and I do stand up for people (women) of all sizes, ages and backgrounds who get manipulated by the ones who abuse there power. I do not see gender, I see individuals, and you should try that sometime.

  16. Anonymous: Problem is it does matter what we are dealing with. The crimes you mention are treated differently, a theft is a theft even if the victim is drunk and unable to express dissent while rapes are often written off because our courts do not believe that men in are capable to resist their sexual urges, or to stupid to recognize that a body they are f***ing is not participating.

    You are absolutely right about one thing - it is all in the details, read a few cases that have actually passed the needles eye of what ultimately is considered rape in this country.
    As a man I would be outraged about the stereotype of man that is conveyed in those rulings.

  17. AN: I am sorry, we misunderstood eachother, I have never said that it should be considered rape when a no has been changed into a yes - with or without words, which I have also agreed with earlier happens in ordinary relationships.

    But Hillegrens quote does NOT make that distinction. You yourself added the part of eventually caving in. There is nothing about the lack of lust having changed to any form of yes in Hillegrens statement, which YOU presuppose and I do not. That is why the situation in the quote to me IS rape.

    SO I am glad to know you do think people in a relationship should be able to decline having sex, and that failing to respect your partners wish is rape.

    I have not called what you describe rape, and I have kept on arguing that with the law we have today, there is no way a no turned into a yes can be expected to end up in court.

    What I think fooled me was your first paragraph where you say:
    In an effort to explain what should be a difference in regards to different levels of rape he sort of stepped into it saying that a “rape” within a relationship should not be regarded as the same thing as a brutal attack. In this he is, of course, correct, both legally speaking and morally.

    I am not saying those rapes are the same thing, but they are the same crime: Invading another persons body against their will.
    And I do think it should be called rape regardless of the amount of violence used. The consequenses of the crime - of course - have to be adapted to the situation of the case at hand. In some cases the level of violance can be even greater within a relationship than in an attack by a stranger, and in such cases I think that the abuse of trust and possible dependance should entail a longer punishment.

    I see both individuals and their surroundings, people develop in relation to others not in a vacuum. That is why I tend to disagree when you say that traditions and patriarchal structures have no influence in our discussion, which also I appreciate, as you probably can notice.

  18. AN - I just realised that you see feminists as a group, not individuals. It amuses me that you are so sure I am a feminist. Why do YOU need to put a lable on me? Am I not in my own right as a human being to have a gender perspective?
    Gender should not be an issue but it is. Why do you need to rule it out? Probably because you want to be free, like I want to be.

  19. Samantha:
    Let’s take the last part first. Individuals believe in things and belong to certain groups. And yes, I do sometimes refer to certain groups or opinions in a collective way, however, that do not mean I do not see the individual. And I have never said you where a feminist.

  20. Samantha:

    Hillegrens quote do a distinction between two things. Firstly between two situations that is or can be rape, and secondly he makes a distinction between the punishments. In the first case, I believe he expressed himself clumsy, which is the main reason for this debate, however never claiming anything else than that there is hard to see a rape within a relationship where an unwilling participant sometimes can exist, partially or temporarily, which he also says if you read every article and not only focus on one small part of one article. In the second case he says that the eventual conviction for that potential “crime” should not be the same as a brutal attack. If this interpretation is valid, which it is also according to his own explanation and what one actually can read, then I agree with him 100%. If it is not, well, then you, and many others have a point and he should rethink his position. However, that do not change my argument and this discussion, which remains, whether or not Hillegren is a snowed in idiot or not.

    Of course people with in a relationship should be able to say no. Not only regarding “usual” sex, but all things. However, a relationship is also about compromise, so sometimes you can cave in or not say anything in order to keep things going. 99.99% of all relationships in the entire history of mankind have made do with “good” and the reason it still works out is because people try to not find trouble where there is none.

    That paragraph of mine is the same thing as said I the first passage in this answer. There is a difference in brutally raping someone and having sex (rape) with a “no” hanging in the air. We have all the different levels of sexual abuse and rape that legally should not be the same, and morally likewise. With that hanging “no” it might be a punishable offence, but is it rape? Do you really think in both those cases the number of years in prison should be the same? There is a distinction in words, in laws and in morality. Do not confuse those three and say that everything in this abuse-sector is the same thing, it’s not. This seems to be a word puzzle. If all those things are “rape” then the discrepancy in punishment should be much bigger from 2-4y and 4-8y to maybe 0,5-8y. Well, I would argue for about 40 years, but looking at the current law. And finally I think you are correct, a rape by a “loved-one” with brutal force is equal or worse.

    Traditions and patriarchal structures might have an impact as a whole, but in this particular case it has not. This is about right and wrong, not about gender, statements or even laws. A person should not be convicted because someone says something, there is a difference in the definitions (which you yourself mentioned, and I said above I agree with) and in the punishments and there should be.

  21. Yeah, this has been quite interesting. We nearly agree, but I, who am a women more readily take the perspective of women who have experienced a second abuse in court where, as I said before, the victim often is more pressured about sexual experiences and behaviour than the perpetrator, and the victim is still more often a woman. While you, who have defined yourself as a man, are more worried about the risk of men being convicted unjustly. Can we take this as a learning experience and realize there is a valid reason for feminist's strive for representation where the economic, legal and political power over all of our lives reside?

    I am convinced that when equality is achieved and if we still have rapes, the victims will be as many men as women. Because equality will entail that norms that restrict our behaviour differently today will be the same for both sexes.

    A collegue of mine once said: Is this really equality? when a Swedish female boxer had gone up against Mohammed Ali's daughter, and there was a photo in the paper that displayed the bruising. I thought about it and concluded that the answer is yes.

    One of the points I argue with anyone that cares to listen is that it is time for men to challenge the restricting role they are assigned and often seemingly "choose" to adher to. But is it really respecting the equal value of human beings sending (mostly) men to their death in war as gun food. It may have a practical sense, but as long as that is seen as OK it will be possible to start wars.

    The greatest lack I see in some parts of the feminist movement is not including men in the fight against stereotyping and restricting possibilities in life due to gender.

    Probably the men would have been included in this fight more easily if they had not been quite satisfied with the type of control their traditional role has given them. Men's historic lack of demand for paternal caring is the reason why men are still distrusted and discriminated against in divorce disputes with children involved. So there is still a lot of space to fill with beautiful reforms bringing men and women together.

    An indian saying compares humankind to a bird, women as one wing and men as the other, both have to be able to develop in order for the bird to fly.

  22. Samantha:
    As said, I know how a rape case is handled in court. Have been there, listened and been involved. To a certain extent you are right and according to the law such things you mention should never be brought up in court. However, since rape is almost always about how you should trust, some things need to be said and put on the table. This is a very thin line and the entire thing really need a proper debate.

    I am not worried about being convicted unjustly per sey, I am however worried that many will be, and not just males, if the “no” is always rabidly considered a constant NO and consequently always leads to “rape”. A lot of females will end up in prison too, if you draw this debate to its consequences.
    And then I need to say no to you question about feminists striving for representation. This since that almost always include “cutting in line” or get ahead because of the gender. I don’t care one bit if a board of directors consists of only men or only females - that is not relevant. What are relevant are know-how and the right person at the right position. I do agree that, historically speaking, females have been pushed down and in some areas such structures may still linger. However, this is not a valid explanation today when the law actually do not separate gender and there is equal (or close to it) opportunities for both sexes. And sure there are stereotypes, some might be too much, but in general I have no problems with those either. As long as there is no force or coercion involved on any levels of society the eventuality of “in-equality” regarding positions or work is just natural and nothing I, or anyone else, should care about. Both this issues I have mentioned as an anti-feminist approach is the feminists biggest problems and the reason why I, normally, regard feminists as idiots.

    If the lady wants to continue this debate I have written a new post about this subject since Hellegren had an little article in the paper today.

  23. "What are relevant are know-how and the right person at the right position."

    Yeah, right, that is why we have so brilliant leaders, because men have NOT been cutting in line because of gender. You make me laugh. I think you like being provocative so much you have to attribut a want to cut in line to feminist's, only so you can argue against it.

    No change has come about leaving things as they are, and systems - formal or informal - will work against change if the driving power is too weak.

    Keep going with the flow AN and you will stay in status quo, as you seem to be comfortable there. I won't give you any more ass-hole comments about Hillegren, even though I read your new post and think you are right about the consent part. As you probably already guessed :)

    Fun trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in dialogue, but hey, deep down I think you actually do. Try not to be afraid of people who have a different perspective. That is always what leads to the need to put people in categories and stops creative solutions to problems.

    We do agree - competence should go first. That is why the informal affirmative action regarding men and the nursing of healthy men in their homes need to stop.

    Attitudes change slowly, but action changes quickly if the incentives are right. Look at parental leave. The leaps in fathers participation have come when freedom of choice have been restricted, first with one month by Bengt Westerbergs liberal people, and then another by socialdemocrats. And this is are only social insurance that is not distributed individually. I think that the child should have equal right to early attachment to both parents, no matter what they feel about it.

    Knowledge does not lead to action automatically. Status quo always seems more comfortable for the majority - no huzzle, no conflicts, just keep on going regardless of direction. Well, if the gentleman wants to continue debating, fine. If not - also fine.

    So long

  24. Samantha:
    No, we have horrifying leaders and live in a dreadful society. When I talk about cutting in line and getting ahead because of what’s between the legs, I talk about the law firstly, therein lays no distinction between men and females today. When we look at the overall power structure its not horrid because they MIGHT cut some females out, it’s horrid because of their power in general.

    And yes, I am provocative, but not because I strive to, it’s because our society is messed up and because people in general are idiots. This means that a basic human right like the right to self-defence is outlawed. If my standpoints make me radical or provocative I only take that as another sign that I’m right.

    And yes, you are completely correct, going with the flow and just let the power structure manhandle you as they wish will never change anything, in fact it will make things worse. Just take a look around the world and the injustice and horrifying examples are shining as Suns, still hardly anyone does anything about it. If you see an injustice regarding female’s rights, you should fight for them, but you cannot do that and in the same breath fight against men or common sense, that will nether chance anything. Exchanging one injustice with another is also status que, which is preciously what feminism is about.

    Well, I believe in dialog, however, do I believe that it will change anything? No I don’t. Some people might listen to reason, but they are not many in numbers and in the end our elitists will win. Either through straight-out cohesion (like forcing people to stay home with their child) or through the politically correct and duped that do all the work for them. I have been a politician for many years, been involved in the student movement and seen it all from within the belly of the beast. Anyone that thinks that politicians want the best for people or that things in reality change are idiots. People don’t listen to rational thinking, people do not believe in basic human rights and our entire world is overrun and controlled with power-hungry freaks (yes mostly men).

    One such mad political correctness that violates our human rights is that notion of divided parenting by forcing one or both to stay home. That sort of fascism does not belong in a civilized society. Even IF you seem to find some positive thing in that notion, it does not give you or the government the right to force people to act in a certain way.

    The gentleman wants to continue the debate since it still moves along. Besides, what should I do otherwise? Work? The lady is always welcome back.

  25. Here we have something - a liberal who thinks an individual insurance for parenthood means forcing one or both parents to stay at home. No, no, no, you do not fool me. It is the economy of it that do the forcing. Just because both sexes would have the same right to the insurance - unlike today - does not mean anyone can force you to benefit from it.

    The same way as giving the insurance money collectively to a couple does not force eather one to stay home, but the economy pushes them into the old way - child and home = question for females, economic independence and public influence = questions for men.

    So which one of us is actually the one for individual rights here?

  26. Samantha:
    A liberal? Moi? Well, that depends what you put into that word. In the English speaking world am not. I’m a libertarian, well, close enough anyway. In other words I represent the basic principles or axioms of Locke, Rand etc. Or in a Swedish context I’m a “nyliberal”.

    What this means, among other things, is that I believe in the axiom of ‘freedom from’ i.e. freedom from coercion and force. Anytime a government tax me, or force me to do anything that’s against basic human rights. The same goes for insurances or anything else our enemies conjure up. No one have anything to do with who(s) stay home with the baby, that’s the parents decision and no one else’s. To use laws and taxes and then through state subsidies to force people into a certain behaviour is called fascism, or if you wish, socialism. To oppose those forms of totalitarian thinking is to automatically take a stand for the individual.

    You cannot take someone’s money, at gunpoint, and then hand it out only if they choice to do whatever it is you want them to do. That is robbery with a sort of “rape” of my body, my choices. At least with a professional robber he leaves you alone after you handed over the goods, with government, and with you, however, it don’t stop there. A professional robber is consequently a more moral person than you are.

  27. That does not sound like a libertarian talking, rather an anarchist. You will have to take away all the rules of society if noones complete personal freedom is to be invaded. So anarchy and self defence. You really want to take us all back to everyones war against everybody. Survival of the fittest.

    This is getting more and more fun. Holistic like I asked for.

  28. There are anarchists that, in a so so way, belong within the libertarian movement, but no I’m not one of them. And you are almost right, 95% of our laws and public institutions can be abolished without any problem. The only legal government is the one that protects human rights, everything that goes beyond that is immoral, oppressive and horrid.

    Everyone’s war against everybody is what we have today and always had in one form or another. How many institutes, interest groups, and different political bodies don’t we have today? All of which are competing for your money and your life. Every single person around you wants your stuff, they want your money, they want your time, and they want your body. They won’t say this of course, but they do. That’s the consequence of statism and autocracy. The one(s) that scream the loudest and have the most eloquent tongue wins your money and your life.

    The alternative is a society where everyone is his/her own king. Where each individuals life, money and property belongs to that individual, not to anyone else. People in this world are slaves, and they don’t even recognize it. I don’t see the holistically in this discussion, how do you figure?

  29. Samantha:

    You can read more on my views in this post: