Feminism: Explained for Ladybrains

I use the tag surfer and the Readomattic with great pleasure. Sometimes it brings me to awesome blogs the existence of which I didn’t know of. For instance it caused the recent addition of Feminist Whore to my blogroll. However, it also sometimes brings me to blogposts about feminism, written by people who have no clue. Sometimes these people are women, sometimes they are men. Mostly those posts are so inane and ignorant that I don’t waste my time on them. This time, however, I wasted my time with much amusement, because this post was simply SO ridiculously hilarious. Now, it seems to me that the blog it’s posted on deals mostly with conspiracy theories of the New World Order kind. And with “deals with” I mean, believes in them and fervently believe in the theories that most people consider codswallop. This should give you some idea of where the poster is coming from.

As for the poster himself: I know nothing about him other than that he is clearly male, and I think he may be black or at least non-white. This seems irrelevant right now, but in his arguments later on, the colour of his skin unfortunately does become relevant. I’ll explain when I get to it.

The reason I read his post was the title: Modern Feminism is not Feminism. It had me go: “Uhhhh, and here I thought the dictionary told me otherwise.” But anyway, his post was so incredibly off mark that I simply have to write about it, because rather than becoming annoyed with a gross misrepresentation of women and feminism, I was so amused and chuckly, because it reads more like a parody of anti-feminists. And with no further ado I shall now share with you the ridiculousness:

When women hear the term feminism they envision white males in board rooms making decisions that negatively impact their lives or being excluded from corporate America in general or construction workers cat-calling them as they walk by in a sexy outfit or even just being underpaid by their white male counterparts for the same job.

Now, for all his conspiracy theories in the rest of his blog, he sure is quick to admit that he, in fact, can read minds. Perhaps he’s working for the government himself? He certainly does believe that all women are the same, believe the same things, and envision the same tings with the same verbal triggers. His above description is not what I think of when hearing the word feminism, though, that’s more like when I hear the words patriarchy, kyriarchy, sexism, and misogyny. The white males in board rooms is right enough. He completely forgets, though, that women receive cat-calls even when wearing non-sexy outfits. He actually lines up pretty accurately some of the things feminism opposes. But then he adds in a parenthesis:

(Black men do NOT make those decisions!!!).

Uhh, what? I do realise that very few black men are in the board rooms in the big companies and that has to do with racism obviously. But don’t bloody well tell me, that no black male manager has ever been sexist (with regards to pay) towards a black female employee. This guy seriously just tried to absolve the men of his race from sexism. When, in fact, all races include men who are sexist towards women. And this upstanding gentlemen just completely ignored/forgot/diminished the sexism black men exercise against black women (or for that matter women of other colours). But oh no, black men are not sexist. This guy needs to read up on intersectionality, being a victim of racism doesn’t mean you can’t possibly be sexist, and entirely forgetting all the women of your own colour seems, well, rather sexist to me. Just like me being a victim of sexism doesn’t mean I can’t behave in racist ways at times. I try not to, but I’m pretty sure I fuck up at times. Anyway, he goes on:

Those are all valid concerns from a society supposedly based on equality. The problem with it is that men and women can never be equal because we are inherently different as beings.

Disregarding the jumbled language in the first sentence (I think his meaning is clear enough), he now goes on to completely misuse the word equal. This guy clearly hasn’t grasped that equal does not mean identical. Yes, we are inherently different beings, he’s completely right about that, but just like Tracy and Sean are different beings, Rory and Martin are inherently different as well. In fact, as far as I’m aware, researchers have found greater genetic variety within a gender than between them. What does this mean? It means that we should all be equal before the law, and that we should all be awarded equal respect and acceptance of our personal choices.

Men and women are designed to complement each other other by our very nature, not be replacements and substitutes for each other. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce. It doesn’t matter how science can take an egg and a sperm and artificially fertilize it. The premise remains the same. Science and technology are destroying our basic humanity and turning everything into for profit business.

And here he just goes and gets confusing. From a reproductive point of view, yes, males and females complement each other. But, you know, ever since humankind achieved sentience, our doings have involved so much more than just reproduction. Our basic humanity is the same for all humans no matter their gender and sex, because out basic humanity is just that: human. Our basic humanity is not gendered (nor is it coloured for that matter – all those distinctions are all applied AFTER basic humanity is established). It doesn’t matter what science can do at all, he’s kinda right about that, we are all still human, and should all be afforded the same decency and treatment.

Since women have this built-in defensiveness when feminism is brought up [...]

No, that would be feminists who have a built-in defensiveness about their worldview. Not all women are feminists, in fact, due to feminism’s unfortunate and completely unacceptable history of racism (some of us are doing what we can to move away from that branch) a lot of black women (and other women of colour, obviously, but to my knowledge primarily black women) are not feminists, but declare themselves womanists instead. Way to go forgetting women of colour again. And not all women believe in equality for women either, there are female traditionalists out there, and while I disagree with their views, they certainly should not be disappeared like this. Way to go lumping us all into the same stew.

[...]it often precludes discussion of the real issues.

There you go, little ladies. Let the man tell you what the real issues are. Certainly not such silly little things as equal pay, equal respect and such.But he’ll spell it out for our insipid little ladybrains:

Feminism is not feminism.

See here, this is the issue. Y’all just think you know what you’re doing and that you know what you believe, when he knows way better that you believe something else.

When modern feminists say feminism they mean that women should be the complete equal of men in every way: on the job, at home with the kids, socially, sexually, emotionally, etc.

Yes, please. We’d certainly like that yes. And we’d also like for men like you to realize that we can think for ourselves, and that we know, what we’re saying, and what our words mean. But no, this here is a Man Who Explains Things, and because he is a man, he doesn’t need such silly things as definitions of words. He’ll make his own definitions, because he’s a Man Who Knows Things, and what he says goes.

That is not true feminism. It is gender neutrality aimed at creating more drones for corporate profit and consumption.

See, little ladies. All you want to be are drones for the megacorporatocracy. Nevermind that feminists clamour for the right to be the way we see fit – as in be individuals – no, we’re all just mindless drones. Seriously. Can’t this guy see that if he were right about what feminism is, feminism couldn’t even exist. It’s a paradox. No, he’ll tell us what true feminism is.

True feminism recognizes and embraces the differences between the sexes.

Feminism recognizes and embraces the differences between PEOPLE. No matter their sex, gender, race, ability, etc. But otherwise, yes.

It only seeks to provide equal rights for women in a society of white male patriarchy.

Wait… are you telling us that we really OUGHT to promote the white male patriarchy, ’cause that’s totally not what we’re going for here. Especially not those of us, who are of colour. (and since people tend to think I’m black, because I advocate against racism, I feel I must reiterate that I am white, but I acknowledge that there are a lot of women of colour in women’s movements, be they feminists, womanists or another label of their choice)

It seeks equal pay for women for the same work.

Check. That is exactly what we’re doing, you schmuck, only you’re apparently too obtuse to see what’s in front of your nose.

It does not seek to destroy the family by turning women into unfeeling, objectified automatons like gender neutrality does.

Check. I know of no feminist (or other women’s rights advocate) who seeks to turn women into robots. Rather the opposite. All the feminists I know are quite annoyed that women are continuously told that we’re too emotional even while people walk all over our emotions, and that we’re constantly objectified, not by ourselves, but by males like this bloke, who clearly do not view us as anything but objects with no individual thoughts of our own.

It does not deny our basic nature.

And check. Since basic nature differs from person to person (it’s called personality – fancy that) feminism is all about the freedom to be individuals. Something this guy is clearly not too cool with.

And then comes his screed against false feminism, some of which doesn’t even make sense to me. Even when I’m being charitable and really trying to understand what he meant:

False feminism is social engineering designed to undermine the family, which is the basic unit of societal stability and morality.

Yes, ’cause all those upright members of society, who have settled into families surely never cheat, lie, steal, murder or anything else. Remember, kids, as long as you have a family, you’re good. No murderer ever had a wife. No father (or mother) ever stole anything. No parents ever beat/raped/murdered their spouse and children. Nope. Never. Families are the new Jesus, and feminists hate families. That’s why feminists have partners, spouses and children whom they love just like everyone else… uh… wait a minute. I don’t think, I’ve ever seen such a logicFAIL. In which universe does this guy live?

It is also the one mechanism through which humanity can take back what the elite and their corporations have taken from us.

The family… Sure. The family is a mechanism through which we can get back at the megacorporatocracy. And that’s why married women have lower pay than single women. That’s why mothers have lower pay than women with no children. That’s why fathers get more pay than men with no children, and that’s why married men earn more than bachelors. Wait…  think I see what he’s doing. Of course, as a man, he wants a family, because families are actually an investment for men. Whereas for women it’s a risk, jobwise as well as healthwise, men with families are also healthier than those without, and for women it’s the opposite. Having families all around would exclusively benefit men in all financial ways – wages as well as amount of sick days. Since he’s (presumably – I still don’t know for sure) black, I can completely understand that he’d want some of what could help him rise up against the white-run corporations, but damn if he should do it at the expense of women of any colour. And let’s face it, due to racism and in many cases ableism and classism: whatever affects white women negatively will affect women of colour all the more because of the added effect of those other isms. But to this guy, that’s okay, because he’s not a woman.

They know this so they had to attack it. The family had to be destroyed.

Hold on there. Feminists know that the family unit, as it is perceived and valued in this society, is detrimental to women and therefore we question how it is viewed and valued. None of us (that I know of) are denying that a family can have great emotional value to the individual. We are, however, demanding the right to choose our own families ie. who (if) we partner with and whether or not we have kids, and the right to choose when we do it. Oh but that means that some men cannot get the family they want, when they want. And it seems our friend here is totally upset about that.

Women had to be confused, misled and objectified because without women, men are nothing.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this. But the way I read it, if I were a man, I’d be very offended. Come on, dude. Men are people just like everyone else. Women have realised that they don’t have to be wed and live in marital misery if they don’t want to. Women have realised that if they exercise their right to choose their own partner and have a say with regards to time and place they might actually have marital bliss rather than misery. But I can see, how this is a bad thing to our male counterparts, because men without families make less money. But seriously, dude, just because men without families make less money, it doesn’t mean they’re lesser beings – not to mention nothing. Women and men are all full individual persons, whether or not they believe women and men should be equal, and whether or not they have significant others.

Now what do we have in America? a plague of angry, lonely, bitter women. Why? Because feminism has convinced them to ignore and suppress their natural instincts as child bearers, caregivers and nurturers.

The ‘funny’ thing is: Last I heard, the lonely, bitter and unhappy women were by a much larger percentage those who do not believe in equality. Those who have bought into the idea of child-bearing, care-giving, and nurturing being their only value are far more likely to be unhappy. Feminists, on the other hand, whether they have chosen to be SAHMs or working mothers or singles or partnered with no children or whatever are much more likely to be happy, because feminists are more likely to make the choices that are right for them, rather than the choices that look nice to prats like this bloke. Feminism does the opposite of what he says. Feminism tries to instill in women the knowledge and acceptance that what is right for them is not determined by their gender, but by their personality and preferences. And whether this is child-rearing or a high-powered career or something else, women should feel free to make the choice that feels right.

Also. Really awesome to see a male, who will never by any degree have natural female instincts (whatever they are) himself expound upon what women feel, and should feel and have always felt. Look, cupcake, you don’t know what women are like, not because you don’t know any women, but because you don’t know all women, and even if you did know all women you still wouldn’t know, because women are not all alike. But this seems to be the major problem with your grasp of reality. PEOPLE are different. Not just men and women as groups. All of us. Individuals. Do take notes.

Men are also unhappy because women do not need us as providers and protectors so we have been emasculated.

I was just waiting for this one. Speak for yourself, mate. I know plenty of men, who are perfectly happy that they don’t have to provide for the women in their lives. From personal experience I can say that both my boyfriend and I are quite stressed out and unhappy, because of the fact that currently he’s supporting me, due to a disability I have yet to find a way to deal with well enough that I can hold down a job. I’ll get there, because damn if I’ll sit on my arse for the rest of my life. (I’ll make an exception if I’ll be sitting on my arse working and making money – like, in an office – then I’ll be cool with the sitting-biz ). But let me just get back to the point here: This is just one more insult against men. So, dudes, feminists in general do not consider you lesser men or less manly just because women can make money of their own these days. That’s just conservative traditionalists like this bloke, who insist that a man’s only value is in his wallet. That’s not what feminists are saying, we’re saying the opposite, spite of what this guy would have you believe.

That was the true intention of the feminist movement in America, not to liberate women from oppression but to liberate them from their womanhood.

He’s almost right. He just kinda forgets that the womanhood he refers to is womanhood-as-defined-by-men. Feminists demanded the right for women to define their own womanhood, rather than being forced to bow to an artificial womanhood defined by and for men.

The natural instincts of women are not inferior to those of men.

Of course not. He actually says some sensible things – he should just leave them at these short sensible sentences, because when he begins explaining them he gets it all wrong.

They are just different and complementary. Men are the hunters and women are the gatherers. Men are the providers and women are the nurturers.

Which is why no woman would ever want a well-paid job or to go on a hunting trip and no man would ever want to hold his child affectionately. Yup. Case is proven clear. Yep.

We are barely out of the jungle as a species on this planet and no one knows where evolution may take us one day but this technocracy that seeks to neutralize gender for control and profit is stunting the process of evolution.

Wait, I thought he just said feminists were the ones trying to neutralize gender. Now it’s the technocracy? Can he make up his mind? Interesting how he’s totally considering all of us stone age folks as if evolution never applied to our species, but he’s at the same time worried that the process is being stunted. Is the human species evolving or is it not? Sheesh.

We are fighting everything that makes us human in an effort to conform to the propaganda from the media that is overwhelming our innate sense of self.

Actually, we feminists are fighting propaganda from the media as well as from idiots like him, who seek to make us into uniform little woman-bots, who are all the same and all have the same purpose in life. Sorry, dude, sometimes a woman’s innate sense of self (what the heck is that, anyway?) directs her to become someone not approved by him or any other Dudely Dude of Dude Nation. This guy really needs to learn to live with it for his own sake, because women are not going to stop being people just because he tells us to. That’ll probably be hard for him to swallow.

Yes, there are some women that want to work right along side men in cutthroat corporate careers where they can pursue money and validation. That is fine for them as long as it is what they really want

Yes, exactly, but what kind of short circuit happened in his head, when he figured that all women are at heart child-bearers and nurturers all the while some of them prefer to be competitive career people and don’t want children at all? This goes against everything he’s said so far. Which is it? Do women have the ability to wish something outside nurturing or do they not? And if they do, then doesn’t that speak against his argument that all women are nurturers? It does, in fact. I hope he can see how much he’s contradicting himself. Of course, if he’s like other anti-feminists, who come here, he won’t have read as far into the post as this anyway.

That is fine for them as long as it is what they really want and they are not trying to live up to the myth of false feminism as real feminism.

Aside from the fact that he’s completely botched his understanding of feminism as well as what he thought was “the real” (his own) definition thereof, I still don’t see what the problem is. Of course, since I believe that women are full adults who can (and should therefore have the right to) make their own decisions, even if they turn out to be mistakes, I don’t give a flying fuck as to whether a woman “really wants” what she’s choosing to do, or whether she’s just sorta doing that for lack of a more attractive option. It’s HER CHOICE, and choice and freedom cannot be limited by a clause saying “You must only choose what you really want”, mostly because it’s actually quite often that people don’t quite know what they really want, and if that was the clause to our freedom, well, now that wouldn’t be freedom at all, now would it? And here I thought this was basic knowledge.

Perhaps tomboys are naturally inclined to such behavior.

See, he’s willing to test the waters of this one, but he still claims to know what women envision when hearing a given word, and he also claims to know how our natural instincts work – for all of us is the implication in this post. I’m less and less sure this guy even knows what he himself means and thinks.

Either way, sexism is still a huge problem in this country that needs to be addressed

See? One more of those instances when he says something true and factually correct. And then he goes and messes it up again:

but what has happened is that women have become distracted

Yes, our poor little one-track easily distracted ladybrains…

by trying to become the equal of men

Equal. Yes. Identical. No. Learn the bloody difference

which in effect is more sexist to themselves than anything men could ever do.

Huh? We’re being sexist against ourselves be demanding equal rights and equal treatment? Something tells me this guy doesn’t know what equal means. I don’t think he knows what sexist means either. He certainly proved he hadn’t a clue what feminism means.

Women are objectifying themselves now as strippers. Girls Gone Wild, pornography and the like.

Uhhh no, men are doing the objectifying aplenty. Some women have merely decided to make them pay for it. Women can’t be objectifying themselves unless we were the ones to look at and pay for these female strippers, which I’m sure some women do, mainly individuals who are of the lesbian persuasion. He also handily ignores the existence of male strippers – a phenomenon that some bi and straight women fancy quite much. Same goes for the rest. Way to go disappearing all non-het persons out there.

It’s not just those glaring examples either.

Hold your breath! On second thought, don’t. It’s not worth it. Use it to laugh instead.

Women approach men as if the only thing they have to offer men is a nice rack and a tight ass.

And why would that be I wonder? Surely not because men have spent a lifetime or more telling us that T&A is all we’re worth. What about those of us who approach men as people? Where are we in this equation? We’re not women or something? We can’t be, because this guy KNOWS women. Trufax.

Women have almost completely stopped cultivating nurturing, caring, loving personalities and environments that men need to make long term commitments to them.

Yes, because it’s the women’s responsibility to create “environments” that men want. How about men create the environments they want themselves and the women do the same. Then some people will decide that their “environmental politics” match and they’ll shack up (or not), and others will be happy where they are. It’s not even all women who want or even need long-term commitments. If a man doesn’t like a woman’s natural personality, how about he not date nor marry her? How’s that for a solution. Asking women to cultivate the personalities men prefer is like taking a moonlight stroll at day and asking the sun to be less bright or at least more like the moon. How about you seek out the moon if that’s what you want? There are plenty women with “caring, loving personalities” out there, but since one man only needs one woman, why should all the rest of us be what he wants as well? Obvious: He wants his free pick.

Men want to protect women and take care of their families.

And all those nasty feminists won’t let the men do what they want with no regard for what the women in their lives want. How evil of us. Also, note how he completely forgets that some men are gay and couldn’t care less about having female partners. But, I suppose, in his worldview, those men don’t count as men, even though according to biology, which he seems so oddly fond of, they are, in fact, men. That goes for cis men, at least. I suspect trans men and women don’t show up on this guy’s radar at all. It’d just make him all the more confused, and then we wouldn’t have such insightful posts as this one.

That doesn’t make women weak or dependent.

No, it makes men seem neurotically disordered control-freaks. Having such a need to be the bread-winner and protector that you cannot possibly be happy in any other situation is in fact frighteningly close to a disorder that the rest of us would seek treatment of therapy for. But men? Nope, they just demand that the rest of the world cater to their preferences. It’s much easier for them, as it doesn’t actually require any work except that of their surroundings.

It makes a family and that is what the elite fear.

So, a bunch of blood relatives are only a family if the MAN is allowed to protect and take care of the rest? Damn, there are a lot of families, I mean, groups of related people, who think they’re families even when they’re not. Whooey, glad someone told them.

It is the only weapon we have against them and they know it.

Yes, for all of those anti-feminist guys to set up families in which they can treat women and children like chattel and possessions, that will surely bring down feminists all across the world. Wait, he didn’t say feminists, he said elite. Now it’s the elite, that’s the problem? Huh? First feminists, then false feminists, then the technocracy, then the elite. Seriously… this guy seems to have it in for a lot of different groups.

It’s such a shame, though, ’cause the only one who seems to think the family unit is a threat against anything is him (and possibly people like him), everyone else knows that there are feminists (true and false ones both), members of the technocracy and the elite that have families. Quite many do, in fact. And tat doesn’t seem to bring them down any. I wonder if family is some secret code word for some hitherto unknown weapon of mass destruction.

Begone, foul creep, I have a family, and I’m not afraid to use it!

…

That sounds kinda wrong, no?

Anyway, I should really thank this bloke, because despite his complete disappearing of women of colour, feminists of colour, feminists with families etc etc those offenses fade into insignificance in face of his not making an ounce of sense in his entire blogpost. Only for a moment, though, because a brief glance at the rest of the blog will show you frightening levels of hatred against Jews, women’s rights, President Obama and other groups that I didn’t identify because the drivel and hatred was simply too saddening. In good proper spirit of blogging I shall link to this unwillingly hilarious post, and I shall shudder to think what sorts of commenters it will bring here. Hooray for the eternal moderation queue. Here’s the link, read at your own peril, absolutely none of the content is suitable for kind-hearted persons.

Minister shows restraint

Recently there’s been a lot of concern about the use of force in psychiatric wards here in Denmark. Many stories of patients being restrained to their beds for weeks on end have rolled over the headlines, and the Council of Europe have expressed concern that there seems to be an overuse of patient restraints in Danish psychiatry.

Apparently our minister of health care has been thinking. Apparently he isn’t very good at it. He has now suggested, that the psychiatric wards start using restraints on mobile patients, that is, securing their hands to prevent them from hitting and preventing them from kicking by placing restraints between their legs. He says this will minimize patient violence. He also suggests, we allow the wards to use padded cells. Because in his mind this will be an alternative to restraining the patients.

…

Get that… now think about it. How is it not restraining patients to keep them locked up in a cell with no furniture?

Ever since the issue of restraints in psychiatry surfaced in mainstream media, experts have suggested that more resources be channeled to the area. See, in the past 8 years the health care system has received much attention. Politicians have been elected based on how they’d work to minimize queue-lines for different kinds of surgery. They’ve been harping on about how waiting time from first appointment to diagnosis to treatment should be shortened. And all the time those of us, who have read up on it, have known that this goes for everything – except psychiatry. Psychiatry is the only area in Danish health care that has not been improved. Rather the opposite, it has had several budget cuts. Several in-patient clinics have been closed. Whole departments have been changed from in-patient to out-patient wards. Staff has been reduced, and the staff that is still left receives little to no post-education courses to update their knowledge to new advances in the field.

And now the politicians are surprised that staff more and more often arrive at their wits’ end (not to mention they haven’t time to talk to all the patients), and see no other solution than restraint. Where did that come from? Well, maybe from the continuous budget-cuts.

And according to Jacob Axel Nielsen, our health care minister, the best way to avoid restraining patients by force is… restraining them by force. Only in a different way. It makes me sick. How about we instead give staff the time and money to find out what it is that triggers psychotic episodes with the individual patients? No? No, see that would actually cost money, which we’re not willing to spend on those insane weirdos. Money should be spent on normal people with physical illnesses.

Also, the method of restraining patients’ hands and feet is illegal, but has already been used. And therefore the minister will attempt to make it legal. Yes, well, murder is illegal, and it happens anyway, so why don’t we just make it legal? Totally awesome argument right there.

The social issues spokesperson from the Social-Democrats, Mette Fredriksen, have called the minister’s suggestion old-fashioned, and she says that in the rest of Europe it is discussed, how forcible restraint can be avoided, and all the while the Danish minister tells the Danish psychiatry that more force is the future. She states that this is not the decent way to greet our psychiatric patients.

And boy, is she right. A few places in the country we have psych ERs. They are basically places people can go if they need emergency psych help, like if they’re heading into a psychotic episode or if they’re suicidal. But who really wants to go there if you risk being locked away as a result? I certainly don’t. I have thoughts of death and suicide often enough, but I don’t dare go there. Because what if nobody has time to talk to me, and they just tie me up to a bed instead – you know – just to make sure I don’t actually harm myself. I don’t know if that would happen, but for an Aspie, who needs to be in control of herself at all times and can’t stand the touch of other humans it would mean descent into insanity. So while I might need their help once in a while, I’m too friggin scared of going there. A friend of mine told me of a friend of hers, who went to the psych ER because she was suicidal. The people there sent her home, told her to light a candle and things would look a little brighter. Two days later she tried to off herself. So yeah…

The Socialist People’s Party’s social issues and psychiatry spokesperson, Özlem Sara Cekic, says that the minister’s suggestion is grotesque, and she too points out that it is ridiculous to replace force with more force. Hardly an improvement.

And at the same time another bit of news breaks: New research proves what most of us had already figured out, namely that there is a clear correlation between fewer beds for in-patients in the psych wards and the amount of homicides, attempted murders and arson committed by people with mental disorders increasing. Fancy that. When fewer patients who need 24-hour care can actually get that care, they are at a greater risk of hurting their surroundings. I’d be curious to see if they also checked the correlation between fewer beds for in-patients and the amount of suicides. My guess is that the correlation will look rather the same as the other. But the point is, now that we know this for sure, I would hope that the politicians would stop closing in-patient wards. But unfortunately I expect that they will not. I expect that once again this right-wing government will prove that they have only concern for ‘normal’ people; that they can cure and get to pay taxes from a full-time jobs. The sad truth is that most psych patients in need of 24-hour care will never get so well that they can provide for themselves. This means that helping them will not land the government a profit at the end, and I suspect that this is why the psych area has been cut, diminished and further short-staffed during the past 8 years with the right-wing parties at the wheel.

The right-wing normalcy supremacists clearly are of the opinion that they should only ever help those who’ll eventually have a chance of helping themselves (and thus paying back). Those, who can never hope to help themselves, should be left to the wolves or hidden away, where they won’t be a nuisance. There’s a reason I vote left.

I’d just like for the minister Jacob Axel Nielsen to spend a week with hands and feet restrained or in a rubber/padded cell and then tell us he didn’t feel restrained.

Or he might have been a tourist

Yesterday with all the whoopla about the IOC congress there was wall-to-wall coverage of the whole damn thing. It wasn’t possible to get any decent news from anywhere else in the country (or outside it for that matter) for several hours. All cams were focused on President Obama just like they were focused on Michelle Obama, when she arrived three days ago. It’s cool they’re, it’s god advertising for our nation, but seriously, half the time the cam is looking at  an immobile plane where nothing happens, and the reporters are talking out of their asses to pass the time. Such golden words were said. A man in military uniform exited the plane, the journalist says: “And here we have a man from the army.” I think I had that figured out myself, ya know.

And later on it went downhill. After President Obama had had a meeting with Prime Minister Lykke Rasmussen, they did a double-interview in which Obama said he’d been to Copenhagen before, and he loves this city. That’s cool. But then the reporter says: “Oh, he’s been here before, he says. As a basketballer perhaps…”

…

Hold that thought…

‘Cause you know all black men play basketball professionally – even those who have publicly stated that they’re no good at it. ARGH! How about maybe he was in Copenhagen as a tourist, before he became a President or maybe even a Senator? Maybe? Since that’s the most common reason people come to Copenhagen – as tourists. That couldn’t be it, could it?

Sheesh. And I’m pretty sure the reporter didn’t even realize how racist his ‘funny’ remark really was. So sad.

It’s only Parkinson’s

I’ve been wanting to take a picture of something for a while. But since I seldom carry my camera with me I haven’t yet had the opportunity. If I do get a pic, I’ll post it, but for now I’ll just tell you about a man I’ve seen downtown many times. Or, rather it’s not so much the man, it’s his bike. It’s an old bike, it’s seen some wear and tear, but it’s functioning and clearly kept in prime working condition. It has bags attached to it, for ease of storing groceries, I assume. But most notable of all are the signs. Two sheets of paper with a brief text, laminated and pinned on the bags.

I’d seen the bike several times before I actually caught a glimpse of its owner. But the bike told me what to expect, or the signs did. See, those pieces of laminated paper had two very telling texts.

I’m neither drunk nor crazy, I just have Parkinson’s. If I look like I need help, feel free to offer it.

And

I’m neither stupid nor dangerous, I just have Parkinson’s. Feel free to talk to me, I can talk back, if you give me time.

I’m not entirely sure I remember the latter correctly. But it was something to that effect. The man is not always around his bike, hence my not actually seeing him the first several times I spotted it. I’ve seen it parked outside several different stores, so he’s obviously able to take care of himself to a great extent. I haven’t seen people interact with him, so I haven’t seen any of those things the signs are obviously an attempt at preventing, but my, they’re telling.

From reading those two signs of his, it is so plain that people must have expected him to be from the worst dregs of society on so many occasions. The Danish versions of those signs reflect a good amount of humour, too, (I’m not sure I conveyed that in my translations) and I’m so impressed he can take all that and still be humourous about it.

I’m somewhat familiar with Parkinson’s because the father of an ex-boyfriend of mine has it, and I’ve witnessed it growing gradually worse, but be that as it may, it really shouldn’t be so hard to treat people decently. I still don’t understand why so many people are so quick to conclude that the man must be drunk, stoned or crazy, when Parkinson’s (and other diseases that attack the central nervous system) are so common in our society. Perhaps because we tend to think that disabled people should be stuffed away and therefore we assume it surely can’t be they, whom we meet on the streets.

It’s just sad that this man, who is obviously capable of taking care of himself, feels a need to defend himself and his behavioural patterns before an interaction has even taken place.

For shame, society!

No Thanks, America

I’m all for receiving exports from you in terms of science, inventions, good books, music and actors. That’s cool. But there’s one thing I would’ve appreciated you’d have kept for yourselves:

40 Days For Life

This despicable anti-abortion propaganda group has now begun their first serious campaign. On the road leading to Holbæk hospital they have placed posters depicting aborted foetuses – as they are wont to do. Disgusting images that do not even have relevance in our nation.

See, here in Denmark abortion has been legal for many years. Since 1973 abortion has been free and legal until the 12th week of the pregnancy. And it really is free, due to our socialised health care. You don’t have to pay a single dime to have an abortion.

Until the 8th week the abortion will be done by medicine, Mifepriston. About a third of all abortions in Denmark are done this way.

From 8th to 12th week it will be a surgical abortion. About two thirds of all abortions in Denmark are of this kind.

Sounds terrible, no?

After the 12th week, they use what I think is what Americans call partial-birth abortion due to the size of the foetus. This is why abortion after the 12th week must be reviewed by a team of doctors before being granted. Partial-birth does have more significant risks for the mother, than the other two less invasive procedures do. But generally, due to abortion being free and legal, rarely is partial-birth abortion necessary in cases that do not involve foetal or maternal distress, because if it’s ‘only’ a matter of wanting a baby or not, the decision is free to be made before the 12th week. As a result, only 4% of abortions in Denmark are of the partial-birth kind. And none of them happen after the 22nd week, which is the limit of legal abortion.

Since ‘89 it has been illegal to force doctors, nurses, midwives and other carers to assist at abortion if they do not wish to do so. Other medical professionals will take over. It’s fairly simple around here, because most of our hospitals are public and therefore duty-bound to offer the service that is guaranteed us by law.

Admittedly, the amount of late abortions have gone up slightly the past few years. Most likely because of a combination of more detailed foetal diagnostics and poorer average health among the population, resulting in slightly more women not being able to survive a pregnancy. And this even though the overall number of abortions have gone down.

When applying for a late abortion one MUST have good reason for not continuing the pregnancy. Defects or hereditary conditions not diagnosed till after the 12th week are always granted permission as far as I know, as are abortions that are necessary due to rape or incest (basically criminally caused pregnancies). For the same reason girls under the age of 15 (the age of consent) will always be granted an abortion unless they’re beyond the 22 week limit where the foetus is considered viable. If the mother’s life is in danger abortion will always be granted, though after 22 weeks it will be an induced birth (or if necessary c-section) to attempt to save the viable foetus as well.

The Danish branch of Right to Life had their plans for an abortion memorial foiled by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago due to a technicality. I certainly hope that these groups which fundamentalist Americans have so kindly exported to us do not gain much of a foothold here. But I do think their chances are small, considering that the Christian-Democrats lost all their seats in parliament for lack of votes not so long ago. We have a strong tradition for not mixing religion and politics, so I think we’ll be okay.

Now I just wish the 40 Days For Life bigots would leave well enough alone and not attempt to trigger the women, who had to abort a wanted child late in order to save their lives. The only people they’ll hit with this campaign, namely those women who had late abortions due to complications (or rape/incest), are the ones who need it least of all.

Why is this so? Because most abortions are early abortions, where not much of a foetus is seen anyway, so all those scary pictures of aborted foetuses that look like children? They don’t apply to 96% of abortions in this country anyway.

I am glad that the news channels didn’t even deign to show pictures of the posters. They didn’t so much as mention them among the headlines. They were just a little side-note on text-tv. Nonetheless, these bigoted groups are one of our more unfortunate imports from America. Keep them to yourselves, guys. Please?

My nation’s ableist shame

A man named Jens Holst recently took it upon himself to demonstrate just how crappy disability access is in Denmark. Of course, his focus is on wheelchair users as that’s the groups he’s part of, but suffice to say that’s plenty bad enough. Once we start taking into account accommodations for invisible disabilities it won’t be pretty at all.

Journey from Skagen to Copenhagen opens eyes to substandard public access for wheelchair users

Jens Holst has had a busy nine days, riding his wheelchair 437km from the northern tip of the country to the capital to highlight poor access for wheelchair users.

Along his journey, the 39-year-old came across everything from ill-placed curbs and steps to public buildings, a lack of disabled toilet facilities and even a hospital neurology clinic located on the first floor with no elevator.

Holst  lost the use of his legs to multiple sclerosis and undertook his journey in an adapted hand-cranked wheelchair.

Along the way he visited 17 different towns and cities, and highlighted both the positive and negative accessibility aspects to local politicians.

‘It has been really, really hard but a great tour and we’ve got the message out there, which is really the best result we could ask for,’ Holst said as he made his way into the city centre yesterday.

A large crowd of supporters including Liberal MP Anne-Mette Winther Christiansen were there to welcome him.

Holst delivered a bag filled with documentation and photographic evidence of the poor wheelchair accessibility across the country to Christiansen, who promised to deliver the images to Commerce Minister Lene Espersen.

‘It would suit us well to set a good example in Christiansborg [the houses of parliament], as there is currently no access to the restrum for wheelchair users,’ Christiansen said.

Next up for Holst is the hard-contact sport of Wheelchair Rugby when he joins his team-mates on the national squad for the European Championships being held in Copenhagen this October. [emphasis mine]

See what I mean? This would not look better if invisible disabilities were considered, ’cause we’re still hopelessly behind on the visible ones.

On a different note: I’m also rather impressed by taking only 9 days from Skagen to Copenhagen. If I had to do that, well, I’d fail and be totally busted after the first day. Of course, the man’s a rugby player so I’m assuming he’s in far better shape than I am, which doesn’t really account for a whole lot

Promoting women is up to the companies

Yes, I know the article is a week old. I’ve been out of the loop. Shoot me.

Maersk promotes female managers

The number of women in top level positions is set to increase significantly in the next five years

The country’s largest company, A.P.Moller-Maersk, has committed to having more female managers within five years.

The company is one of 75 to have signed up to the Gender Equality Ministry’s charter on women in the workplace.

Maria Pejter, head of talent development at Maersk, said 4 percent of the company’s vice presidents were women. The aim was to increase that to 10 percent in the next five years.Maersk was also aiming to increase the proportion of other high-level managerial positions from 9 to 15 percent. By 2014, every fifth middle manager would be a woman, Pejter said.

She told DR News the targets meant Maersk had to become better at attracting and retaining female employees. The target was no different from any other company target and there would be consequences if it was not met, Pejter added.

Gender Equality Minister Inger Støjberg welcomed the news labelling it a ‘milestone’ in Danish gender equality politics and predicted that other companies would follow suit.

From 9 to 15 percent. Ohhhhh. Such power women shall have. *eyeroll*

See how the Equality Minister nods and smiles benevolently and has done absolutely nothing to bring this about. She predicts… I don’t care what she predicts might happen, how about she edicts that it MUST happen? But ohhh, no, that would actually mean work and will probably not ingratiate her with the right-wing voters who put the government in power.

The comments are a fantastic example of the ignorance that sails around here.

Setting a quota for female workers for any position is descrimination. It means someone will be hired based on sex to fill in the quota and not on her/his qualifications.

See, the thing with affirmative action is that it won’t get jobs for people who aren’t qualified. You still have to be qualified to get the goddamn job. Affirmative action means that when two or more people ARE qualified (which is usually the case) you choose the one from the marginalised group. It’s that simple and NOT discriminatory.

Any discrimination is wrong, whether it be for the right reasons or not.
The only way around this is to do what my old company did. They had an outside company remove all names, ages, sex, and even educational establishment names of all applications, to stop any ageism, sexism elitism or race discrimination. They then needed to select the candidates for interview based on real skills.
I am a woman in a good job, but I would hate to think I got here ‘because I am a woman’ or even have my male colleagues wonder….
Just ask anyone from South Africa what effect ‘having’ to employ a coloured person for a job, when there are no qualified ‘coloured people’ available, has done for race relations and harmony in the country, and I’m sure you will get a page full. [emphasis mine - Jem]

You know, I’m a woman with NO job. And I’d rather get a job because I’m a woman, than not get a job. You, my dear little collaborator, have a job you seem to like and therefore you have the privilege to not need affirmative action. And as for the male colleagues wondering? Let them. Even in companies without affirmative action female managers are talked about, ’cause surely, the only reason she got that job is because she’s good at sucking cock. And this kind of speculation will happen affirmative action or not, because the men that do this sort of speculation are the kind of men, who think women are always crap and can’t justifiably be hired as managers, and so there mus be some underhanded reason in their eyes. Women can never be qualified, simply because they’re women. Even though women actually average at a higher level of education in this country.

They’ll wonder. Let them, there’s nothing you can do. So take the damn job and do your thing and make money.

And the other bolded part: ARGH! In South Africa there are entirely different issues at work. In South Africa whites had for ages kept blacks away from education, so there was indeed a shortage of qualified black people, BUT this lack was artificially created by the white oppressors, and is thus NOT an excuse to keep it that way. Here in Denmark women have as high or higher education levels than men, WE ARE QUALIFIED, get it? And yet we have less than 10 percent of manager positions. Things look best in the municipal departments, slightly less so in the state and it looks terrible in private companies.

Oh and btw, affirmative action is not what ruins race relations, RACISM is. Same way affirmative action is not what ruins gender relations, SEXISM is.

Sometimes the ignorance out there is just astounding.

The Big Blogroll Edit: a Meta-post

I’ve been going through my links. Cleaned out a couple of dead ones. Removed a couple of abandoned blogs from the list. And most time-consuming of all: I sorted them.

I have several more blogs I intend to add, and I try to categorize them as I best can. But I’m not infallible, and being as I sometimes spend long periods of time not reading much at all due to my mental condition, I’m not entirely sure I’ve gotten everything right. So if any of you, dear readers, notice that a blog on my blogroll has been miscategorized, please let me know, and I will correct the mistake asap. Also, if there’s a category missing that is necessary to be inclusive of everyone, let me know as well, it will be added, even for just one blog.

I am pondering whether I should place some blogs in more than one category, as would certainly befit some of them (my own included, I suppose), or whether that would end up taking up far too much space. This I will probably keep pondering for a while, input will be gratefully appreciated.

It’s official

I have Asperger’s. Finally. The appointment I’ve been waiting for for months now rolled around.

It was with some trepidation, I went. My experiences with psychiatrists and psychologists  have been bland at best. Really poor at worst. I’d heard good things about this guy, but as we all know: just because one person has good chemistry with a given psych, it doesn’t mean everyone will. But he was good. He was a big man, very tall, and since I’m rather short that would have been intimidating if he had not been so calm. Completely at peace with himself and his surroundings, he just radiated calm.  I felt immediately at ease – I never tried that before in such a setting.

He started by reading aloud what my job-counsellor (I have one due to unemployment and receiving benefits), who sent me to him, had written. Asked me for comments for some of the things. And then he got to the part where my job-counsellor had written that I suspected Asperger’s due to symptoms I had observed. What symptoms are those? He asked. And I just started from one end.

We talked for a long time. I noticed how he at some point asked clarifying questions to make sure, it wasn’t bipolar disorder, I had. We hadn’t even covered my whole list of symptoms when he asked about my background, parents, family, etc. but that apparently didn’t matter. After two hours of quite intense talking (my brain is totally busted now) he concluded that yes, Asperger’s is what I have. Two hours from he met me till he agreed that my diagnosis was correct. TWO HOURS! I had feared this would be several harrowing appointments before he’d hand out a diagnosis. But nope, he just covered certain topics, went a little in-depth with some of my observations, clarified some things, and finally decided that I had it right from the start.

I had heard good things about him – it was all deserved. Chemistry never really played much of a role. He was so professional; slightly distanced and without that unnerving “aw, poor you”-sympathy-face some psychs employ to make patients relax. Nope. None of that. It was factual, relaxed, awesome.

I’d recommend him to everyone if I could – but heh, being as I’m in Denmark and most of my readership is not. Well…probably not much use for any of you.

And now I can start working on moving on with my life. I can apply for the help I need, I am now – with an official diagnosis – entitled to several kinds of help and support, and it is such an immense relief. I feel like I’ve grown 3 inches and lost 20 pounds, the relief is felt that tangibly.

Wow.

I kinda already knew it. I mean I can read diagnostics criteria, and I can read/watch people with Asperger’s talk/write about their lives and I can recognise so much. It was rather a duh-thing for me, why didn’t anyone ever notice? But my goodness it is nice to know for sure (or as sure as you can be in this field). It’s nice to know, that it’s not just me, who’s being a hypochondriac, it’s nice to be able to say to people, I have this diagnosis, so THEY don’t think I’m a hypochondriac. I feel validated and vindicated.

And I feel like gloating. I was right all along, and that does rather make me want to go “Hah! I rock!”. I’m also pretty sure that with this, I shall be absolutely bullet-proof all Superman-like for the rest of the day.

Finally my life can move forward rather than stagnate.

How to be a good ally

Or even just an ally.

I’ve written about being an ally before and Genderbitch/recusiveparadox has written this very helpful guide complete with a brief list of Dos and Don’ts, that I simply must hawk where I can.

Here’s a couple of samples:

Let’s say you’re playing a real time strategy video game. Your base is under attack. If your ally sits back and watches your little soldiers die and your buildings burn, then that is a violation of the mutualistic nature of alliance. If your ally offers to trade some resources to your enemies, while they are attacking you, then they are in violation of the mutualistic nature of alliance.

And:

Let’s face it, no one wants to look like a bigot. It doesn’t look good and we all firmly associate the word bigotry with being a grade A fuckstupid douchenozzle (or an equivalent horribly insulting phrase in your mind). It gets especially worse when you’re in a pretty seriously marginalized group yourself and have to deal with other people being shitty allies. You would feel like complete guilty shit if you suddenly realized that you just fucked over someone in the exact same way you get fucked over regularly.

And:

Analyze and extend what we’ve taught you and try to find the points at which your privilege has truly given you immense advantages. And do these exercises in a way that will remind you. Publically, on paper, on a blog, in a journal, somewhere. If it’s just up in your head, you may forget or not accept it. But if you read what you just wrote, it will drive it home. And nothing seems to convince privileged folk better that they have privilege than another privileged person pointing it out. Which is an element of privilege in and of itself.

Read it. Use it. Follow it