Feminist Party Wants To End Marriage

Started by Mr Benn, Sep 19, 2005, 09:37 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr Benn

Swedish Feminist Party Wants To End Marriage
By: Matt Rosenberg Section: Culture


http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/16/153355/278

In a social welfare state such as Sweden, the continual urge to tinker becomes irresisitible. Although this might qualify as a bit more than tinkering. The Copenhagen Post highlights a report that a new political party, The Swedish Feminist Initiative (Swedish, "Feministiskt initiativ") has announced as an aim the legislative abolition of marriage.

This party is successfully making its way onto the national stage in Sweden to advance its theory that women are systemically subjugated. The recently-formed group intends to run candidates in the 2006 elections. Along with an increasing profile in the European media, I see guest lecturer positions for party members at The New College in San Francisco.

Now, more.
   
   Sep 16th, 2005: 15:33:55    

The Post:

   The Swedish Feminist Initiative has called for the abolition of traditional marriage, as we know it. Instead, the party wants to implement a modern idea of cohabitation, where neither gender, sexual orientation, nor the number of members are defined.

   ...the feminist organisation had met over the weekend for its annual general meeting, and come up with some radical solutions to what it sees as many fundamental problems in modern society.

   "We want a new legislation for two or more people, who live together, and have joint finances and belongings," said Tiina Rosenberg, one of the women spearheading the group. "The history of marriage is not about love and living together, it's about ownership," Rosenberg said, pointing out that regulations covering inheritance rights and ownership only applied to married couples or registered homosexual partners.

   "More than two should be able to live together. One example would be a divorced couple, who have new partners and where everybody wants to take financial responsibility for the children, who could all live together," Rosenberg said.

   But Rosenberg, a professor in gender studies at Stockholm University, also said it was nobody's business whether two, three, or more, had a sexual relationship. "In a free country the law shouldn't decide how people's sexual relationships are. No law can affect feelings," she said.

Is it now anybody's business (besides that of those involved) when a married person cheats on their spouse in Sweden? I don't exactly think there are monogamy police patrolling the streets in Stockholm. Is Rosenberg (no relation AT ALL, BTW) saying the institution of marriage is inhibiting sexual expression in Sweden? People have a choice, as anywhere else: get married and be faithful, get married and cheat (and live with the consequences), stay single, or get divorced.

But because some radical Swedish feminists cannot commit to the societally optimal alternative of monogamous marriage, and because they condescendingly presume to speak for all Swedish women by claiming marriage is inherently about "ownership," ergo marriage in Sweden should be abolished?

Phew! The liberal policy impulse slithers back to its punitive, narcissistic roots yet again.

Yet abolishing marriage is not all The Swedish Feminist Initiative wants.

   Amongst other proposals put forward by the group were a six-hour workday and completely individualised parental benefits to force men to take off as much time as women to care for their children. The all-female board also says it wants to introduce gender quotas on company boards.

The Feminist Initiative political party in Sweden formed only this past April, from the ashes of a similarly named pressure group, and intends to run candidates in the 2006 election. Lately, though, there's been a bit of discord. More here:

   On 13 September 2005 another of the 15 founding members of the Executive Committe, Susanne Linde, resigned from the party. Linde was the only member of the founding group who had previously been active in a right-of-centre political party, the Liberal People's Party. She gave as her principal reason the treatment she had received from another committee member Tiina Rosenberg, who, among other claims, had criticised her for being a heterosexual and for being a "middle class old woman". Linde was unhappy with Rosenberg's "reverse homophobia".

A founder was current Member of Parliament Gudryn Schyman, a fomer Marxist-Leninist who served as leader of the Swedish Left Party from 1993 to 2003, but had to leave that post after tax fraud charges. Last year she proposed a "man tax" in Sweden to to cover the costs of domestic violence, saying, "we have to have a discussion so that men understand that they have a collective financial responsibility." However, she has left the Feminist Initiative because it became too radical for her.
ww.CoolTools4Men.com

typhonblue

Feminists are doing more to end marriage by churning out generations of completely unmarriagable girls then they ever could with policy.

Somehow it upsets them to point that out though.

Gerard Velthuis

Plz, their chance of abolishing marriage is just a joke.
These women are crazy, it will never happen.

Only people with twisted minds like them might find the idea appealing.
These women are sick people.
t is time men start behaving like men again and stand up for their rights, instead of behaving like conformist push-overs.

D

If it looks like a communist, sounds like a communist, it  must be a duck.



Quote
"We want a new legislation for two or more people, who live together, and have joint finances and belongings," said Tiina Rosenberg, one of the women spearheading the group. "The history of marriage is not about love and living together, it's about ownership," Rosenberg said, pointing out that regulations covering inheritance rights and ownership only applied to married couples or registered homosexual partners.

"More than two should be able to live together. One example would be a divorced couple, who have new partners and where everybody wants to take financial responsibility for the children, who could all live together," Rosenberg said.

typhonblue

Actually, what's wrong with polygamy?

I haven't heard any cognizant argument why it should be illegal. And certainly it would be nice for fathers to have the same parental leaves benefits of mothers.

lkanneg

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Actually, what's wrong with polygamy?

I haven't heard any cognizant argument why it should be illegal. And certainly it would be nice for fathers to have the same parental leaves benefits of mothers.


Actually, I have no objection to polygamy, as long as every person involved in it is a consenting adult.  *I* wouldn't be one of the consenting adults, though, I admit.  ;)
quot;Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Something which we think is impossible now is not impossible in another decade."
-- Constance Baker Motley

"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got."
--Janis Joplin

Quasimodo

This is a response in a similar thread over at the Men's Forum of Askmen.com:

Quote
The bottom line purpose of this--other than pushing a lesbian agenda--is to further marginalize fathers. The whole thrust of feminism worldwide is to redefine families as a mother and "her" children. What could be [more] efficient in that scenario than two single mothers forming a legal "union" while each is receiving child support from a few babies' daddies. Two women raising three or four kids, pooling their CS monies, working full- or part-time, living in an elevated standard of living without the encumberance of fathers. Meanwhile, they can putz like a couple of minks with whatever males they choose. As an ancillary benefit, the sons in that union will be psychologically and emotionally much weaker than the daughters (who won't be a prize, either).

They envision a complete social upheaval, with Gen Next women in a position of unchallengable ascendancy due to their hegemony over childrearing. Banished dads, domineering moms, weakened boys, overachieving girls, FEMINAZI PARADISE.


The creation of a new world order. It would do Mary Daly proud.
axine Waters on the 2004 March for Women:
"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion." ! ! !

The Gonzman

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Actually, what's wrong with polygamy?

I haven't heard any cognizant argument why it should be illegal. And certainly it would be nice for fathers to have the same parental leaves benefits of mothers.


Bigamy contains its own natural punishment.

Two wives.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

D

Quote from: "typhonblue"
Actually, what's wrong with polygamy?

I haven't heard any cognizant argument why it should be illegal. And certainly it would be nice for fathers to have the same parental leaves benefits of mothers.



For one it doesn't work.  Otherwise that's what we'd be doing now.  For two, this is about state run families.  By ursurping parental rights children are forfeited to the state by default.  The whole feminist movement is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  Besides only one man and one woman can become one flesh.

D

Quote from: "lkanneg"


Actually, I have no objection to polygamy, as long as every person involved in it is a consenting adult.  *I* wouldn't be one of the consenting adults, though, I admit.  ;)



You're right , and so was I when I said that the whole gay marriage thing was not about gays but about destroying marriage as a fundemental staple.  Gays weren't interested in pushing gay marriage, but socialists were.  Socialists just used the gay crowd as an excuse.  Just like they hijack every other movement and champion all their causes only to push their own agenda.

D

Quote from: "Quasimodo"
This is a response in a similar thread over at the Men's Forum of Askmen.com:

Quote
The bottom line purpose of this--other than pushing a lesbian agenda--is to further marginalize fathers. The whole thrust of feminism worldwide is to redefine families as a mother and "her" children. What could be [more] efficient in that scenario than two single mothers forming a legal "union" while each is receiving child support from a few babies' daddies. Two women raising three or four kids, pooling their CS monies, working full- or part-time, living in an elevated standard of living without the encumberance of fathers. Meanwhile, they can putz like a couple of minks with whatever males they choose. As an ancillary benefit, the sons in that union will be psychologically and emotionally much weaker than the daughters (who won't be a prize, either).

They envision a complete social upheaval, with Gen Next women in a position of unchallengable ascendancy due to their hegemony over childrearing. Banished dads, domineering moms, weakened boys, overachieving girls, FEMINAZI PARADISE.


The creation of a new world order. It would do Mary Daly proud.




I really wish the men's movement would start gaining some foresight for a change.  Along with the feminist pawns who spout this bs.  In reality it is a divide and conquer scheme.  First they rid the home of the natural protector father/husband,  then they rid the family of the "mother" and the state thus becomes the single parent for all.  It's just like, "First they came for the pols, but I wasn't polish, then they came for the jews but I wasn't jewish", you dig?

Go Up