Archive for December 18th, 2010

Since the most powerful social forces emanate from women it is women who must be controlled in order to control society. –  Maggie McNeill

You’ll have to forgive my act of epigrammatic masturbation; though I prefer not to make a habit of quoting myself, in this case I couldn’t find a better one to illustrate this column because it sums up my point:  the government of Sweden doesn’t really give a damn about individual women; it just uses women and feminist rhetoric to implement a plain old-fashioned tyranny while hiding under the cloak of “enlightenment”.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the infamous “Swedish Model” of prostitution law we’ve discussed a number of times before; this bit of legalistic skullduggery pretends to be “feminist” by making the act of selling sexual services completely legal, yet criminalizing the purchase of sex.  To the slow-witted or neofeminism-addled this may seem to “protect” women, but it actually does nothing of the kind because it attempts to rob whores of their livelihood by cutting off their income stream; once a hooker is identified as such by the police she can even be placed under observation, thus acting as unwilling bait for the entrapment of her customers.  Even worse is the principle upon which this model is based; all prostitution is legally defined as coercion, essentially a type of rape. Since no force is involved and the prostitute gives consent, the law basically classifies all whores as legal incompetents who are not qualified to give consent.  Just as any sex between an adult man and a girl below the age of consent is classified as him “raping” her even if she initiates the act, so hiring a prostitute is classified as a crime because, like the underage girl, the whore is not legally empowered to give consent.  Women in Sweden are thus defined as perpetual minors who are neither able to consent to forms of sex the government disapproves of, nor to be punished for violating the law (just as an underage girl is not liable in a statutory rape case).

Of course, narrow-minded neofeminists who are more concerned with denying men sex than with winning justice for women praise Sweden for this abomination and many of them are trying fervently to get similar systems implemented in their own countries.  But perhaps their praise for Sweden and their conviction that it’s some sort of feminist paradise might be lessened if they realized just how dismal the country’s record on actual rape is.  As Naomi Wolf reported in Wednesday’s Huffington Post:

Sweden has HIGHER rates of rape than other comparable countries — including higher than the US and Britain, higher than Denmark and Finland — and the same Swedish authorities going after Assange do a worse job prosecuting reported rapes than do police and the judiciary in any comparable country.  And these are flat-out, unambiguous reported rape cases, not the ‘sex by surprise’ Assange charges involving situations that began consensually.  Indeed, the Swedish authorities — who are now being depicted as global feminist sex-crime-avenger superheroes in blue capes — were shamed by a 2008 Amnesty International report, “Case Closed“, as being far more dismissive of rape, and far more insulting to rape victims who can be portrayed as ‘asking for it’ by drinking or any kind of sexual ambiguity — than any other country in their comparison group.  As Amnesty International put it in a blistering attack:  “Swedish Rapists Get Impunity.”

Wolf goes on to point out that of all reported rapes in Sweden, fewer result in any legal proceedings at all than do comparable cases in the US, Finland and Norway; “a woman who has been raped in Sweden is ten times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than she is of getting any kind of legal proceeding on her behalf undertaken by Swedish prosecutors.”  What’s more, during the same period (1983-1993) which saw an increase in neofeminist prohibitionism schemes in parliament, Swedish rape rates increased; since 1993 (when neofeminists almost unanimously unified behind what we now call the “Swedish Model”, finally enacted in 1999) the rape rate has quadrupled, yet the conviction rate is much lower now than it was in 1965 (when active debate on gender equality began and prostitution was not viewed as an equality issue).  And though neofeminists in other countries turn a blind eye to this outrage, normal Swedish women have largely resigned themselves to it; a 2007 study showed that only 5-10% of rapes in Sweden are reported, as compared to the 13-30% rate in the U.S. and U.K.  Of the Swedish incidents which are reported, fewer than 13% resulted in legal action of any kind, and less than 10% of those actions result in conviction.  Expressed in raw numbers, of the roughly 30,000 women who are raped in Sweden each year, only 20-30 will ever see their attackers punished to any degree.

These facts tend to make Sweden’s aggressive pursuit of Julian Assange for far less serious sex charges rather suspect; as I said in my column of December 10th, “the whole thing stinks on ice.”  And there’s a lot of ice in Sweden.  Many American supporters of Assange have attempted to portray his treatment as persecution by militant feminists in the Swedish government, but the fact of the matter is that there aren’t enough real feminists in the Swedish government to fill my bedroom.  Female Swedish parliamentarians are almost unanimously neofeminists, biologically female control freaks who will not hesitate to sell out their sisters for political power.  And the Swedish government only “promotes” feminism as a domineering pimp “promotes” a whore:  As a commodity to be bought, sold or traded for its own purposes. Sweden views women as a natural resource to be exploited in much the same way as it exploits timber, hydropower and iron ore, and its leaders only mouth platitudes about “equality” to keep female Swedish voters happy so they can stay in power.  Its dismal record on rape and its tyrannical efforts to reduce whores to slaves of its bloated welfare state demonstrate that Sweden doesn’t actually care about the welfare of individual women, but rather only about the political support of women collectively.  As Wolf states near the end of her column:

Finally, remember that in the Assange case it is the State rather than the women themselves that is bringing the charges.  The Swedish state — which has proven, in politically neutral cases that merely involve actual assaults against women — such a shameful custodian of raped victims’ well-being.

Many intelligent women (including the European group Women Against Rape and one of my favorite bloggers, Furry Girl) recognize the pursuit of Julian Assange for what it is:  A politically-motivated persecution of a man who embarrassed several of the most powerful governments on Earth, using rape as an excuse in order to win the support of silly, gullible women (including, apparently, a number of the staff at Jezebel).  As Katrin Axelsson points out in the linked Women Against Rape article, this is no different from the old Southern practice of lynching uppity black men for looking at white women.  It’s not a defense of women, but rather an exploitation.

Read Full Post »