Feminist Snow Ploughing policy brings Stockholm to a halt

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, the original article linked to an original Swedish article, that, as far as I can see, is just a normal news story in the Stockholm version of Dagens Nyheter, a regular newspaper.

I know, it sounds crazy, but it seems it actually happened. On behalf of the rest of us Scandinavians, we get a lot of amusement out of Swedish news. The best one was the recent mansplaining hotline, where women could call in to complain about such treatment. Turns out the majority of callers were befuddled men, who wanted to know what mansplaining was and how they could avoid doing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-mitchell

What's a bit funny about some of the comments above is that people seem to think that driving=going to work.

Yet lots of women use a bicycle, walk or take public transport to work. The city of Stockholm was not saying anything about who was actually going to work, they just recognised that women were more likely to use their feet to go anywhere.

There is another political problem with the whole disaster; the snow cleaning service is not purely a public service, but uses private subcontractors, who did not pour sand in time on the sidewalks, causing the more than doubling spike in injuries.

That clears it up, thank you. I certainly wasn't going to click on OP's link after I recognized where it led.



I do wish that sort of reaction were more common. Instead of becoming aggrieved and defensive, these men went "Oh, that doesn't seem very nice. How can I do things differently?"



I would also expect that Swedes are adept at getting around in the snow.



Same story any time someone contracts out a service like this. If you give a job to someone who has financial incentive not to do it well, they generally won't do it well.

I'm a feminInis and think this policy was absolutely moronic.

Men and women don't drive on different roads. Surely it's common sense to prioritise busy roads first to avoid issues

Me too. The chattering classes have gone mad in Sweden, unfortunately. There was the case of a cinema that decided to show only films that pass the Bechdel test.

Personally, I think the Bechdel test is pure genius, but there is no reason to be all Taliban about it. It's a thought experiment, not a policy. As a thought experiment, it's extremely effective. When I told my husband about it, he started applying it to popular culture, and it really opened his eyes. All you have to do is to teach it to enough people, and it will effect change. Once you see, it's hard to unsee.

Sweden really is going mad about some things. For example there have been problems with gangs of Moroccan street boys who harrass girls sexually. Because the Swedes don't want to be racist, it's turned into a question for all men, and the media start these huge soul searching questions about how men should stop sexually harrassing women, etc., et. Meanwhile, I doubt these Moroccan street boys really read that much Swedish newspapers. And a lot of Swedish men are starting to take really badly to being lumped in with gang rapists. Which again fuels racism. The more vague and general the media are about these questions, the more people feel free to interpret it the way they like.

So movies like LOR, Harry potter, all Marvel/DC movies wouldn't pass....

How boring.

Note: there is no need to attack WP members. the ideas are dumb enough just attack the ideas. The WP rules allow for public officials to be ridiculed however.

You don't have to be on the right to realise this policy is nuts, it is an illiberal policy. That is what is meant by 'regressive' it is just another form of authoritarianism.

No problem. Here is the history of the policy, where is came from and why it was a feminist policy and the actual politicians involved (pay attention to what they actually said):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q6XYq2Chws

Here are the citations:
http://www.thelocal.se/20131211/snow-pl ... ual-greens
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/01/ ... omen/7977/
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 807762.svd
http://www.dn.se/arkiv/stockholm/jamsta ... i-ovadret/
http://heatst.com/world/feminist-snow-p ... tandstill/
https://www.quora.com/Is-this-an-exampl ... r-planning

Btw it is not a good idea close your ears to criticism even if you don't like the source of the information, because you might miss a crucial point, and it is self-limiting.

The video also covers quite well why attempting to disown this this at best pretty disingenuous, as if it had been a success they would be the first to say it has to do with feminism. Considering the constant use of "if you are for gender equality you are a feminist" fallacy (much like "if you are in India you are Hindu"), and the one true Scotsman fallacy, it is about time Feminists own their mistakes.

This is what happens when elected officials are driven by social theory alone, rather then actual need or careful research and modeling. Though anyone with an modicum of common sense would know you can't apply a policy from a small town (which you have no idea why or ever if it works) to a large city and expect it to work the same. I mean obviously women an children also need the economy to function, waste disposal, emergency service.

It is totally nuts that the to policy proritisise footpaths over roads in this way.

A bad politician uses social theory or ideology alone for the basis of policy.
A worse politician does so without gauging the need or support for such policy.
A terrible politician does the above, then when it fails tries to make it wasn't applied correctly rather than just being a terrible idea in the first place and repeats the mistake.

Btw the Suffragettes and Suffragists never called themselves feminists the term didn't exist, and arguably the may not be considered so by modern standards. Their pursuit of women right was at times quite selective, e.g. Suffragettes were originally for the voting right of women land owners not commoners rights. Also many of them also believed and were members of other popular movements at the time that were less than libel such as fascism e.g associated with blackshirts. So their motivation were necessarily for equality and freedom for all.

Radical femunism is mainstream, and it is not at all liberal in the true meaning of the word. Aslo Intersectionality has greatly undermined the civil rights movement, ans appropriated many causes for the worse.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 30 Nov 2016, 5:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The problem is this is the kind of feminism that is most popular ATM, and with the most power, and even those that attempt distance themselves from failed policies like this, are following the same sort of logic with "positive" discrimination and regressive policies in their activism.

It has a lot to do with intersectionality, its flawed power model and social theory. However is is very popular in academia and has made a big impact in politics, especially in the Sweden, Canada, US and UK. It is an extremely divisive ideology, which encourages an us and them mentality, as well as pigeon holing a categorising everyone. This ideology have built in new speak and double think, and taboos as propaganda in order to limit speech and control the narrative.

In fact you can pretty much say it marginalized choice feminism which is the only really rational feminist movement on the political scene.

Also men an women alike are getting tired of the whole approach to gender equality from the perspective of one gender, or even from the perspective of trumped up social theorists ideas of gender. Also they are getting tired of the the authoritarian social engineering which is not about choice and equality but about outcome and the idea that one group is always the victim. It is not really about solutions at all, it about placating an insatiable victim complex, whist simultaneous stoking the fires that reinforce it.

I'm not certain that this level of feminism gone nuts is all that influential around the world. These examples strike us mainly because they are unusual, and because they contain an element of actually wielding power, not just talking about it.

But yes; as long as we don't practice gender segregation, men and women do have a lot in common, and prioritizing one sex above the other is absurd, or pitting them against each other in a zero-sum game. I see the same problem in pitting the needs of the neurodiverse against the needs of the neurotypical; as if we don't come from the same families. With that kind of reasoning, a neurotypical parent becomes the natural enemy of the autistic child, which is absurd considering the lengths people go to to take care of their children.

Or for that matter, the idealists trying to pick a side in a civil war; they don't understand that it's a lose-lose situation.

How long have you got? Not all over the world no, but plenty example of this equality through inequality and many such double think/new speak.



I agree with that, and I have being making that point about NT for a long time. Polisiation is soemthign that tends to happen in politics. We are not whiter than white nor holier than thou. Same for NTs. Aslo the term NT is not an absolute. Not to sound all internationalist " its a social construct" NT is a relative term. Aslo all condtions as far as dx are concerned are based on models.