Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]

[airrazor7]

You want equality? Here is the secret to it: acceptance. Gender or otherwise, people are all different from each other but the key is to accept them each in their own way. It is important to treat people equally, as in treating each and every individual fairly as a human being.

Man≠Woman along with everything between & betwixt but that isn't a bad thing or even a good thing; like a flower, it just is. The only time when anyone should give the differences any thought is while in the pursuit of personal relationships. Outside of that, it shouldn't matter. For example, hiring someone for a job. Man or woman shouldn't matter, he or she who has the necessary qualifications does matter. However, the lengths that they are taking this social project to seem unnecessary, as if they are missing the point of their own purpose.

As for education, when did teaching essential skills as a stepping stone to advanced skills to be a productive member of society suddenly have a deep connection to gender? I don't get it. Also, if the administration and teachers over there are more concerned about what toys the children are playing with and what clothes they wish to wear instead of teaching those essential-stepping-stone skills, me thinks there may be a flaw in their system already.

 

[Westaway]

I don't understand. Genders exist. Why would you pretend they don't? There's a dichotomy on purpose.

 

[NQJ]

I'm all for gender-equality, and would love it if kids weren't pushed into gender-roles, but I'm not sure how well this will work. Would people actually start using such a word?

Gender roles are shit. I like colour blue, and as a kid I was disappointed to find that in kindergarten I always got the pink nametags and mugs etc, and boys got the pretty blue ones. And when the other kids found out I liked blue (ecause I asked for the blue things), I was of course bullied for 'wanting to be a boy', and grew to hate pink because it was forced on me, and I was told that I must like it.

In school I was told that girls just aren't good at math, and other kids spread rumours that I was cheating because I got good grades in math.
I was told that things like liking invertebrates wasn't 'girly', and when I enjoyed stereotypically feminine things like making clothes for dolls I was bullied for that as well, because it was apparently a sign I was pretending to like 'boy-things' or whatever.

I have to this day issues in identifying as a woman (I'd just rather be neither), and I'm not sure if that would be the case if I lived in a more gender-neutral society.

I would prefer living in a world were such bullshit prejudice simply didn't happen, while at the same time people were still allowed to be male and female and spoken to and about as such, and I don't believe that's gonna happen in a world that is gender neutral. Such people would merely find new silly things to base their idiocy on.

Just look around at all the silly prejudice facing people based on hair colour, skin colour and even eye colour.

The only thing that can cure such is expore and familiarity, not hiding the difference beneath an nondescribtional nomenclature.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Deconstructing gender? I'm sorry but that sounds quite silly. Trying to bump off a concept that fits at least 95% of the population well is absolutely ridiculous. No one wants to argue against gender equality, but the gender dynamics we have in society in general are not entirely cultural creation. Men and women tend to be different in a lot of ways regardless of culture. To ignore this is foolish and counterproductive.

You can't have it both ways. If something is different, one is superior, more rewarded, and more desirable than the other.

Is Red inherently better then Blue? What about chocolate and peanut butter? Does one of them inherently taste better? The answer is no. Just because two things are considered different does not mean one is universally considered superior to the other. Of course individuals may favor one but that does not mean it is a factual truth.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

How interesting. I will very much enjoy seeing the data gathered on this population over the next several decades. An experimental trial the size of a country is a researcher's wet dream.

 

[repeating integers]

Deconstructing gender? I'm sorry but that sounds quite silly. Trying to bump off a concept that fits at least 95% of the population well is absolutely ridiculous. No one wants to argue against gender equality, but the gender dynamics we have in society in general are not entirely cultural creation. Men and women tend to be different in a lot of ways regardless of culture. To ignore this is foolish and counterproductive.

You can't have it both ways. If something is different, one is superior, more rewarded, and more desirable than the other.

Is Red inherently better then Blue? What about chocolate and peanut butter? Does one of them inherently taste better? The answer is no. Just because two things are considered different does not mean one is universally considered superior to the other. Of course individuals may favor one but that does not mean it is a factual truth.

I think the point is that, in this society, "individuals favour" male traits over female ones.

 

[excalipoor]

You people have no idea how lucky you are to have masculine and feminine pronouns. They make explaining certain situations so much more convenient.

In school I was told that girls just aren't good at math, and other kids spread rumours that I was cheating because I got good grades in math.

Which decade are we talking about here? Because I saw none of this shit in the nineties.

Also, as a kid my favorite color was red, and my best friend was a girl whose favorite color was blue. When we played house, she was the dad. Because fuck gender roles. She did suck at math though.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Is Red inherently better then Blue? What about chocolate and peanut butter? Does one of them inherently taste better? The answer is no.

Actually, it is. One provides traits and features that are more useful or desirable than the other.

Just because two things are considered different does not mean one is universally considered superior to the other.

Then they are not different at all.

Of course individuals may favor one but that does not mean it is a factual truth.

Oh? So you'd take the words of a chef equally to the words of a non-chef on what is the best way to prepare a gourmet meal? After all, what the chef prefers isn't factual truth, as you just said...

I don't plan on arguing over the validity of a metaphor. The point is that traits are considered "feminine" and "masculine" are both essential to any society. To value one essential trait over another is a personal preference that does not change the fact that we'd still be screwed without the other.

I think the point is that, in this society, "individuals favour" male traits over female ones.

Now that is something that could be addressed. It is true that we to often praise the soldiers and firemen in western society and to little focus on the Teachers and the Nurses. This is changing but we still have a ways to go.

Also before anyone says anything I am not saying that there are no men in Teaching and Nursing and that their aren't women in Firefighting or the Military.

 

[Hagi]

Deconstructing gender? I'm sorry but that sounds quite silly. Trying to bump off a concept that fits at least 95% of the population well is absolutely ridiculous. No one wants to argue against gender equality, but the gender dynamics we have in society in general are not entirely cultural creation. Men and women tend to be different in a lot of ways regardless of culture. To ignore this is foolish and counterproductive.

You can't have it both ways. If something is different, one is superior, more rewarded, and more desirable than the other.

The wha?

Fine, tell me which is heavier? A pound of iron or a pound of feathers?

Which is more valuable? 100 bucks worth of linen or 100 bucks worth of chairs?

What earns a person more, gross? 10 hours at 10 bucks an hour of carpentry or 10 hours at 10 bucks an hour of knitting?

 

[generals3]

Actually, it is. One provides traits and features that are more useful or desirable than the other.

Just because two things are considered different does not mean one is universally considered superior to the other.

Then they are not different at all.

Let's put this to an end:

Definition of difference
noun

1a point or way in which people or things are dissimilar:

See, according to oxford dictionary there doesn't have to be a superior or inferior element.

If you ask me your entire premise that a difference has to entail superiority or inferiority is just a way to confirm your conclusion.

 

[Genocidicles]

Why assume it's kidding?

From the first sentence of the book:

I thank my loyal readers, Nicolas Cage (For his manspirational films), the dozens of women I have had sex with, and, most especially, my editor, Jeremie Ruby-Strauss, for his manspertise in manhandling the manuscript into the mansterpiece you now hold in your hands: man hands.

How on Earth do you think he's being serious?

 

[DeathChairOfHell]

Swede here, and I don't approve of something as silly as "Hen". Equality and deconstructivism isn't the same thing. We should strive for equality of rights, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make distinctions between the two. Men and women aren't the same, and that's a bloody good thing.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. There are bigger problems at hand than how to be politically correct when adressing someone who doesn't feel like he/she/it fits the regular pronouns.

 

[Aramis Night]

Ok, that Vox Day guy is a misogynistic prick

Or is he just someone who recognizes that men and women have differences and properly concludes that one is, as is the case with things that are different, one is superior to the other?

Did you read the synopsis, or customer reviews at all, or just automatically assume it was straight up manifesto of woman hatred?

I did, and it simply mirrors the beliefs of people like Vox Day and Matthew Fitzgerald. Why assume it's kidding?

I recently acquired the new CD by Emilie Autumn. She isn't for everyone but i do like her music and i think she is immensely talented. She also has a pretty strong following. I was listening to the title track of her new album and some of the lyrics really dismayed me. In it she calls for going to war with the world, and then clearly states "or at least 49% of the people in it" and proceeds to talk about killing those people in her usual prose. Now the aforementioned 49% that she mentions going to war and killing are clearly men.

After trying to collect my thoughts about this, it dawned on me that while i've had the displeasure of hearing from actual women-haters, i've never heard a single one actual call for the mass killing and slaughter of women. I've heard them try to posit how they think the world would be better if we reduce women to 2nd class citizens, i've never heard them call for any gendercide. But here i was listening to a song where the person who i have been a fan of and supported was calling for war against me simply because i'm male.

And this was on a CD that many people will buy and listen to. Not some backwoods blog lost in the internet. While some may think that she was kidding or playing with hypotheticals to tell a story, it isn't entirely obvious from casually listening to the song. A Lot of women are huge fans of this woman and her work. What does it say about them? Do so many women truly identify with this? It is honestly a little scary. Is its all out of humour? I see no immediate indicators.

In fact some women have in fact published books that sold rather well that advocated for the death of my entire gender. Should i assume its all harmless and all of the hatred towards me for being male, is a joke?

 

[Darken12]

After trying to collect my thoughts about this, it dawned on me that while i've had the displeasure of hearing from actual women-haters, i've never heard a single one actual call for the mass killing and slaughter of women. I've heard them try to posit how they think the world would be better if we reduce women to 2nd class citizens, i've never heard them call for any gendercide.

I have, actually. Whether joking or seriously, these attitudes exist in both genders.

 

[Toilet]

Race is a myth.
There are no significant biological differences between anyone of any "race."
All variations can be attributed to biological mutation, and offer no significant reason to qualify as a category.

You just contradicted yourself, the significant biological differences between races are the biological mutations that were used to adapt to a particular area and people do categorize other people depending on those traits. It's basic genetics, all races have different genotypes and their phenotypic traits are displayed depending on those genes. You cant look at a man whos genes originate from Africa and a man whos genes original from east Asia, look at the differences like the epicanthal fold, skin colour, height, hair, eye colour, ect ect and say "Race doesn't exist, it's a myth and is a social construct." you just cannot debunk years of science by closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there, reality doesn't work that way.

Then again this entire conversation could be moot because one or maybe both of us is confusing "race" and "ethnicity". It's a grey area, because people think they is a distinction between the two and some people think there isn't. I could be opening a whole new can of worms.

While I think adding a neutral pronoun is good for practical reasons I don't really see how this is a feminist issue.

This is THE feminist issue. The ultimate goal of feminism is to dismantle patriarchal constructs of gender roles and societal norms. The movement is ultimately dedicated to total equality, not simply women's rights.

It's adorable that you think that, since when has feminism been interested in total equality. The term you are looking for is egalitarian.

 

[Genocidicles]

Repeat; he's only saying the same essential things that Fitzgerald and internet misogynists say frequently and quite seriously. No reason to think he's kidding.

The language used makes it all but certain he's joking. I don't think internet misogynists call each other 'manspirational'.

 

[Moderated]

I find the whole thing rather silly. Not to part about them wanting gender neutrality (that's completely fine), but the fact that they actually had to come up with a new word and incorporate it into their language in order to have a pronoun that's gender unspecific. I mean, couldn't they just re-appropriate some other word from their language and give it a secondary definition, kind of like "one" in English.

Also, "hen" seems a rather poor choice for a gender neutral word. If they were looking for a word that resembled "han" and "hon" then why not "hin" or "hun"?

Anyway, good luck to them I guess if they are trying to make their country entirely gender neutral. I've always been a fan of the fact that Sweden has really great gender equality (especially that they give both the mother and the father of a new born baby government mandated "maternity leave").

It's almost as if hen doesn't mean 'female chicken' in every language.

 

[Genocidicles]

So he's more jovial with it. Doesn't mean his conviction is any less real.

The book itself is in the humour and satire section of Amazon.

Plus, Amazon removes products that are blatantly sexist:
http://now.msn.com/amazon-removes-keep-calm-and-rape-t-shirts

If this book was serious, then it surely wouldn't be for sale.

EDIT:

goodreads.com [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3025317-men-are-better-than-women]
Men Are Better Than Women is a dangerous work of satire -- not dangerous in a revolutionary sense, but dangerous in that it walks the razor-thin line between cruelty and absurdity. That line is called hilarious.

Don't know how I didn't notice that, would've made this damn thing a lot easier.

 

[Aramis Night]

After trying to collect my thoughts about this, it dawned on me that while i've had the displeasure of hearing from actual women-haters, i've never heard a single one actual call for the mass killing and slaughter of women. I've heard them try to posit how they think the world would be better if we reduce women to 2nd class citizens, i've never heard them call for any gendercide.

I have, actually. Whether joking or seriously, these attitudes exist in both genders.

Source? Not some backwaters blog, but in something entertainment related that wasn't regarded with controversy. Something that a mainstream person not looking for it might come across.

 

[Jayemsal]

Race is a myth.
There are no significant biological differences between anyone of any "race."
All variations can be attributed to biological mutation, and offer no significant reason to qualify as a category.

You just contradicted yourself, the significant biological differences between races are the biological mutations that were used to adapt to a particular area and people do categorize other people depending on those traits. It's basic genetics, all races have different genotypes and their phenotypic traits are displayed depending on those genes. You cant look at a man whos genes originate from Africa and a man whos genes original from east Asia, look at the differences like the epicanthal fold, skin colour, height, hair, eye colour, ect ect and say "Race doesn't exist, it's a myth and is a social construct." you just cannot debunk years of science by closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there, reality doesn't work that way.

Then again this entire conversation could be moot because one or maybe both of us is confusing "race" and "ethnicity". It's a grey area, because people think they is a distinction between the two and some people think there isn't. I could be opening a whole new can of worms.

While I think adding a neutral pronoun is good for practical reasons I don't really see how this is a feminist issue.

This is THE feminist issue. The ultimate goal of feminism is to dismantle patriarchal constructs of gender roles and societal norms. The movement is ultimately dedicated to total equality, not simply women's rights.

It's adorable that you think that, since when has feminism been interested in total equality. The term you are looking for is egalitarian.

You're proving my point, absolutely none of the differences between the "races" are anything but mutation, none of them cause enough variation to justify racial categorization. The key word at hand is SIGNIFICANT. Also, Everyone's genes originate from Africa.