Thursday 28 May 2020


I have an interesting reader who often poses interest questions.  A bit of a welcome break from Covid-19, I think, 

Thank you for your post Bjorn, (on the previous blog) there is much to digest there, particularly with applying the feminist perspective to everything, which I think probably applies to most western countries, not just Sweden.   I should perhaps explain to readers that students of literature when deconstructing a text will examine the text from a Feminist, Marxist, Psychological etc, perspective.  For example, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein from a Feminist perspective; The creature had no name -  neither did women, male obsession, 'workshop of filthy creation'.  From a Marxist perspective - the creature was made up of many parts and more powerful than it knew.  From a psychological perspective, obsession, narcissism, batshit crazy.  Applying a feminist perspective (thinking) when reading a text means actively seeking anything that highlights womens' subjugation and male patriarchal dominance.  Of course, quite rightly, 19th century literature is littered with it, even to the point where talented female authors had to use male pseudonyms to get published.  As Virginia Woolf pointed out, history is HIS-story, all the records of our past were recorded by men.  Even up until the last century, women (working class) were only educated enough for a life in domestic service.  Shakespeare's sister Judith (imaginary) would never have earned a living as a playwright, more likely she would have ended up in prostitution and penury.  

I have always described myself as a feminist, simply for the fact that I have never considered myself in any way inferior to any man.  Not since, I was 5 year old and learned to fight twice as hard! But I have never felt inferior, I have never felt I didn't get a job or indeed anything I went after because I wasn't a man.  That of course may all be down to attitude, I had a crazy mother who didn't accept any of society's rules, so it was probably nature and nurture. That's not say I don't acknowledge blatant inequality and that societies still exist who treat women as second class citizens.  But my answer to every question along those lines is education, education, education.  

So what is feminism now?  It's used by the right to promote corsets, high heels, botox and looking good on a man's elbow - see entry requirements for WH female staff.  The Left embrace all forms of victimhood and nothing makes you a victim more than being born the wrong sex.  I wish they would stop telling young girls that they are disadvantaged, or somehow weaker than their male peers, but that is the dialogue that has been established.  How about telling girls how great they are, and how they can change the world?

Real feminists for me, are women who celebrate and embrace their gender, women who achieve their goals without whining about the opposition and asking for concessions because they are women.  It's like trying to get an advantage by claiming you have a physical handicap, and it irritates me intensely.  I don't know how any woman can claim a victory if they didn't compete on a level playing field.  I think it is heart breaking that talented young men (geniuses waiting to be discovered?) who are discarded from opportunities because of their gender.  How can we find the best among us unless opportunity is truly equal?

When I think of feminism, I think of the most prominent 'Feminists' of today.  Those who have attached the label to themselves, or had it attached to them by the media.  Ivanka Trump, desperately in need of a 'cause' when she entered the Whitehouse, thought I'm a woman, in a cabinet predominantly made up of rich old white men, I'll be the representative of women, the successful ones.  To be honest I have a big problem with Ivanka's female entrepreneur schemes.  She is going into extremely poor societies who's cultures she does not understand and is offering cash only to women.  What about the men?  What about the husbands and fathers, the traditional breadwinners? How does her brand of philanthropy work in patriarchal societies?  Does she think she can change their culture with cash?  I really don't think you should fight gender discrimination by creating a new brand of it by discriminating against men.   

On this side of the pond, we have Labour MP Jess Phillips, not nearly so glamorous or interesting, who thinks women should be more man like.  Or, perhaps that should be more lad like in their speech and behaviour, louder and more offensive but ready to cry  'anti women' the minute she starts losing.  To be honest I don't know what her feminist causes are, other than the right for middle aged, middle class, middle income, foghorns like herself not to be offended or chatted up (as if!).  I've always had a problem with many of the prominent women who pitch and campaign on behalf of women everywhere, because when you start to dig a little deeper, you find that their pitching and campaigning relates only to issues that affect themselves.  How many of us, for example need a panic room?  You don't see them p&c ing for working class mothers, women who can't for love nor money, get the feckless fathers of their children to pay child support.  When young, frightened mothers were being fitted with ankle tags for not handing their kids over to potentially dangerous dads, Janet Street-Porter was writing about leg room on luxury airlines.  

Feminism won't reach down into the masses until it applies to the majority of women in the form of equal pay, equal opportunity, free childcare,  free school dinners for all, those very real, very basic, practical obstacles that make the playing field unequal for women.  But they are not headline grabbing issues like 'Lesbian MP has brick thrown at campaign office window', or 'Labour MP threatened by trolls on twitter wants a panic room'.  I think of those suffragettes who stood on orange boxes and chained themselves to railings, who went before her and sigh.  

The majority of working class women, and the majority of women are working class, do not like, or indeed take any notice of ardent feminists, mostly because, they have never, in any way, been relatable to their lives.  For the two parties, the distain is mutual.  Unfortunately for radical members of any cause, whilst they are able to get themselves all worked up into a frenzy over something trivial, passing that frenzy on is not so easy.  Especially as we love, with all their faults, the enemy we are supposed to hate.  Most women don't hate men. they have fathers, husbands and sons that they love.  They have never been on board with making men the enemy.  They actually like men, the non PC ones, the confused ones (the majority) and even the cheeky chappies.

Given the long or is it short, history of Feminism (200 years?), we have probably made a giant leap to about half way there.  That is, within just a few generations, most of the wrongs have been put right, but there is still a long way to go.  In my opinion there is still a debate/argument to be had as to which path we take.   The problem the most radical feminists have, is that the women they are trying to influence, Do we carry on much the same as we ever did, especially as it was probably being non PC that got most couples together, or do we veer towards the sensitive feelings of those who just can't make their minds up?  I have no problem with anyone being whatever gender they choose, indeed I always celebrate those brave enough to embrace their uniqueness.  

Those who upset me are the androgynous, 'how dare you gender assign me' ones, who I fear want us all sporting short, back and sides and sporting grey onesies.  No pink toothbrush and blue toothbrush, let alone miniature kitchens and baby dolls for the girls or plastic grenades and A47's for the sons.  Now you can buy my little ponies for your sons and tanks for daughters, a giant step for mankind.  Parenting must be hell these days, but my heart especially goes out to those with 'woke' parents.  But the gender assigning deserves a whole blog of it's own, so I will put it aside for now.  

Returning to the points you raise Bjorn, because as you say, Sweden is known for it's freedom and egalitarian ways, I don't think anyone seriously thinks Swedish women are oppressed in any way.  I personally think it is a good thing that men and women are so different, vive la difference (wish I knew how to do symbols), it's what makes the world go around, ultimately, how can any government legislate against human nature?  Misogyny still exists, as it always will, but a wise woman knows how to turn that misogyny back on the man enough to make him squirm.  She teaches her daughter how to do it too.  Like most of the unpleasant beliefs and practices from the past, open misogyny will simply become socially unacceptable.  

I don't stand by, with, or anywhere near the so called Feminists of today.  I think the 'Me Too' movement is a huge step backwards.  Those turning trivial, instantly forgettable instances of inappropriate touching as life changing traumas are the weakest among us, not role models.  Their sensitive, fragile, natures, I would imagine, have taken all of the fun out of the workplace. The young and flirty and even the old and flirty were always the most fun to work with. When you take all that away from an office environment, what's left?  What makes you go in every day at 9.00am?  A love of typing and filing?

Feminist thinking I fear Bjorn, accompanies a clampdown on our language, our Anglo Saxon vernacular (the swear words), our innate humour, our lawful right to laugh out loud at situations we find funny.  If we go by Orwell's vision of the future, we have a dark and gloomy world ahead, one in which we all wear androgynous grey suits and sport 'back and sides'.  Who on earth wants that?


  1. "Most women don't hate men. they have fathers, husbands and sons that they love. They have never been on board with making men the enemy. They actually like men, the non PC ones, the confused ones (the majority) and even the cheeky chappies."

    Didn't you have a blog about hating Trump and telling us the reasons why? I notice that the title to the blog has been edited now.


    1. I don't see Trump as representative of ALL men, do you?

      I don't hate Trump because he is a man, I hate him because he is a narcissistic sociopathic.

  2. "Feminist thinking I fear Bjorn, accompanies a clampdown on our language, our Anglo Saxon vernacular (the swear words), our innate humour, our lawful right to laugh out loud at situations we find funny. If we go by Orwell's vision of the future, we have a dark and gloomy world ahead, one in which we all wear androgynous grey suits and sport 'back and sides'. Who on earth wants that?"

    Hey that sound good - discuss.

  3. Hello Rosalinda, I hope you are doing well and staying safe through all the uncertainty and such that's happening these days. Anyhow, I don't have much to say really, just felt the need to drop by, to see how you are doing and to ask you a simple question if you don't mind answering? Have you seen or heard of anything from Sonia Poulton recently, not on YouTube or Twitter, but personally?

    Knowing is not paramount, but kind of important.

    Thanks in advance!


  4. Hi Jennifer, thank you yes, I am doing fine. I am doing more cooking these days than writing, the OCD has kicked in and I am approaching the art of cake making with a lab coat and a magnifying glass. All good fun.

    No, I have heard from Sonia for quite some time, I suspect she, like the rest of us, is having to stay put and make the best of what is available.

    Thank you dropping in Jennifer, and I do hope you and yours are keeping safe and well. Kindest wishes.

  5. Hello Rosalinda, I just had to pass this on to you, though I see that you've moved on to the current covid 19.

    A book on the subject of gender equality has recently been released here in Sweden. I don’t know if it’s going to be translated into English, as it focuses on our Swedish universities., still it discusses gender issues in a general sense. I had no idea that a book on this subject was about to be published here in Sweden. Didn’t know anything about that, when I started discussing the topic here.

    I have translated just a part of the introduction here below,just to give you a hint, but I need to delve much deeper into this topic in order to clearly express my views Rosalinda,and that’s the reason as to why I’ve been silent for a few days.

    My Translation

    “What happens when the idea becomes victimized in the name of equality?

    A revolution sweeps through our universities. It’s called gender mainstreaming and is used as a cover for a radical and in-depth process. Women are quoted in, behind closed doors. Scientists are silent for fear of reprisals. The knowledge is distorted and research funding is conditional and must apply a gender perspective - whether it is glaciers, Moomintroll (popular Finish fairy tale) or bridge constructions you’re researching. What is happening at universities will soon affect the entire society”

    Doesn’t the Swedish gender perspective sound like a sectarian ideology in this context? I’ve got to read it all.

    Anna-Karin Wyndhamn, PhD in pedagogical work at Gothenburg
    Ivar Arpi, journalist at Svenska Dagbladet,

    Have a nice evening Rosalinda

    1. Apologies for the delay Bjorn, I have been trying to make a Michelin star quiche! If anyone has any advice on how not to get a soggy bottom, please do let me know :)

      Many years ago I used to describe myself as a Marxist/Feminist, I had recently graduated and was in that condition now described as 'woke', or at least I thought I was, I still had much to learn and still do. My description in my profile naturally led to much abuse, the assumption among the majority being that I had a shaved head, wore dungerees and hugged trees (those were the kind ones).

      To be fair, I have never been at the extreme end of feminism, I never felt it necessary. Most men bodge their way through discussions of feminism, terrified to offend and wanting to say the right thing. And the bits they do understand, they totally agree with, so I don't think it has ever been about a war against men, they are mostly on our side.

      I agree with you Bjorn, I find the ideology behind that opening statement a tad sinister. Just how far are they going to go to put right the wrongs of the past? I am not sure teaching only the works of women is a step in the right direction. I know I have given an extreme example here, but it's not unheard of.

      For me, when candidates apply for funding, for whatever it might be, they should be judged on their merits, their talents, their potential, not their sex. How awful to exclude a scientist who may have the cure for Covid-19, because he is not female! Women who demand that allowances be made because they are female are insecure, and in my opinion, not up to it if they can't win with a level playing field. I was never a fan of Margaret Thatcher, but in fairness, she never, ever pulled the 'I'm only a woman' card.

      Returning to that 'woke' word, I really don't like the way certain subjects cannot be discussed, that they have become sacred and no-one dare veer away from the established woke opinion. #MeToo for example, don't criticise them even in jest. Men must be doing all kinds of somersaults and gymnastics in their heads before they utter a word to a right on feminist these days. It brings to mind a scene in the American 'Office' where Steve Carell is dragged away by Personnel still laughing at a 'that's what she said' joke. 'The Office' is hilarious on many levels, not least the way it portrays feminism, racism, etc, in practice.

      But I digress, giving women an extra step up doesn't lead to finding the best candidate for funding. How do you find the best among a group of candidates if the men are disqualified because of their sex? I also disagree with all these movements who are trying to make everyone gender neutral. I don't know why women cannot just celebrate their feminine qualities, and ditto, men their masculine ones. It is after all, what has made the world go around for this past 2000+ years. And I'm not excluding anyone here, 'it' is love that makes the world go around, boys, girls and whatever you want to be. I like transgender men the most, because they know how to enjoy being a girl.

      It is the anarchist ones on the fringe who scare me..... lol
      to be continued

    2. Not the anarchist transgenders, the anarchist feminists. They threaten, life as it currently is, the way in which society, men and women co-exist. Throw out those pink babygros and blue babygros, buy your little girls guns and your little boys dolls. But it's the assault on language that wounds me the most Bjorn, how do young men and women even get together these days?
      Has the 'asking out' onus now transferred to women! That's not a victory sisters, it was a lot better when it was the men who had to put up with the rejection, deh! Is the chat up line now 'would you like to join me for a non-alcoholic beverage in a public place - please don't call the police'.

      I jest of course, this is where extreme feminism and #MeToo has taken over the airways, as they used to say. But your post leads to a bigger question Bjorn, about Sweden. Are the public influenced by the ideas of the University Professors? Do these ideas pass down into the mainstream? Are the majority of Swedish people, university educated? I haven't looked it up yet, but would imagine your demographic with university degrees is higher than most other European countries. You have a culture that invests in future generations, ergo, you should be more advanced than the rest of us.

      It all depends on what Sweden's dominant ideology is, what is it that the Swedish establishment wants its' citizens to believe? For me when I think of Sweden, the word 'progressive' comes to mind. From your Royal Family and throughout your society, you are our more sophisticated Scandinavian neighbours. Where you are now, we may one day be.

      How are the Swedish people influenced by popular media and culture? In the UK, the tabloids (swiftly dying out), bring only stories of A to Z media stars. We have reached that stage in Orwell's '1984' where the plebs are fed a constant diet of adverts and porn. We are not quite at the stage where it is all about ratings, but we are probably not far off.

      For me the biggest feminist influences should be the heroines created by the artists, the writers, the film makers, the Hollywood stars! I am particularly smitten with Gal Gadot and Jennifer Lawrence, I wish I had had such kick ass muses when I was a little girl! All I had was Emily Bronte and Joan of Arc (bonkers). Even the cartoons of today have heroines who are not just there to look pretty, they now speak several languages and fight like Ninjas! That's the way to give little girls confidence, not feminist indoctrination.

      But I have wandered, these are strange times my friend, and it wonderful to get the rusty old cogs in my brain going again, thank you. If I were a sci fi writer, I would now be toying with the concept of Sweden, 100 years from now, ruled by women! The writer of James Bond would have had a field day with it ha ha.

      Kindest wishes, take care

    3. I gave you two long answers without even touching on the word victimised. Oops! You have used it in a strange way, is it the idea that is victimised, or the women?

      I would argue that making womens victims or perpetually aware of their victimhood is a bad thing. It is meant well by all those who rush to their aid, but it is an awful thing for the psyche to accept that you are victim. It changes your perspective on life completely. You then live with a victim mentality, everyone and everything is against you. How much better would your prognosis be, if you were told 'ok, that happened, get up and get over it'. It would cause outrage of course, but it might change the mentality that being a victim is a good thing. Telling thousands, millions of young girls that they are victims is the most negative life advice imaginable. How about telling them how powerful they are? How about telling them that their dreams can come true? Though I align myself with the far Left, on the 'nanny state' aspect, I part company. The Left reinforces the victim culture, it will encourage you to be as much of a victim as you choose. Such is life and the benefit culture, people with disabilities have no option but to emphasise their inability to do anything. There is no incentive to get better or to improve their quality of life. You get better, your income is cut off. It is a ridiculous situation in which the sick will always become sicker. Getting better shouldn't come with financial penalties but that's where we are.

    4. Hello Rosalinda

      Talking about victim, victimized I’d a sociological and a political system in mind. I’m actually so tired of listening to Afro-Americans who’re feeling the historical pain of the whole slave trade, when they instead should deal with today’s realities with regard to their specific social- end economic situations and with racial discrimination in general.

      As far as feminism is concerned, I have always had an admiration for Inna Shevchenko, initiator of the Femen movement. She represents the women who are brutally degraded and offended, thus not at all the "pity me" syndrome. She does not hesitate to use obscene forms of expression to shock and create awareness of the social structures of society, that often limit women's freedom. She is neither defeated nor traumatized, but just furious, as are her sisters. She fights against a social system, especially that of the Slavic countries. A real modern Jeanne d'Arc in my opinion. She wants all women to take control of their feminity and their sexuality, but not to deny it, because if they do so they will not be exploited by others, which in fact both men and women so easily can be.

  6. Hello Rosalinda
    Here are some thoughts, less facts though.

    “Are the public influenced by the ideas of the University Professors? Do these ideas pass down into the mainstream? Are the majority of Swedish people, university educated?”

    I’ve tried to answer, but remember that it’s my own personal views Rosalinda.

    Unfortunately, it seems as though we’ve got some new values at our universities, a kind of disguised conservatism hidden in a Trojan Horse that falsely promises equality and justice.

    I remember how difficult it was in the 1960s for any teacher to teach economics because left-wing students would constantly interrupt the teacher and question the scientific theories, which were often based on the American society and on American authors. So, of course I miss that vitality today. Still, I think there is less belief in authorities among Swedish students today.

    So definitely, Rosalinda there’re still progressive forces at play in the true spirit of the 60s at our universities, still making it possible for our students to more freely choose what they wish to be included in their university degree.

    Moreover, many universities offer alternative forms of examination in order to minimize the number of excluded students (drop-outs), who do not master the traditional form of examination, which compels them to answer a number of questions in writing within a limited period of time. Personally I’ve always questioned the 19th century way of examination at a modern university.

    I would estimate that about 50% of the younger generation now has some kind of academic degree, but to that category nurses, authorized real estate agents, officers, kindergarten teachers, most sports and gymnastics teachers, police officers and many other categories of people, who have learnt practical skills beside theoretical studies must be included, as there’re now so many different educations included in the university sphere.

    The average competence and quality among graduated Swedish students may not be so impressive, but knowledge in general is so prevalent in all our educational systems, that hopefully all "truths" and all authorities will always be questioned, despite attempts by some, as I’ve said before, to blend ideology into education and research.

    As for the University Professors, mass media often takes statements from them as incontrovertible facts, but students as a group often have more general knowledge than a professor and they don’t, like many journalists, have any enforced loyalties neither to their teachers, nor to one another and can therefore question everything from how their education is organized to the theories in which they are taught, but they do it more silently than in the 60s,I’d say.

    There’re now so many well educated citizens in our country, so I believe it’s difficult for anyone, be it a University Professor or another influential person, to change our way of thinking unless the ideas in question are grounded in reality. And finally, all journalism is taken with a pinch of salt here, like in the UK I suppose.

    P.S regarding journalists and uneducated dummies in society
    Just an example
    (what sane person with some kind of university degree, who reads The Sun or any other paper, does now believe that the newly found German paedophile, burglar, drug dealer, child abuser is Madeleine’s murder?)