[2Wycked]

In 2005, some feminists got together and decided it was time for a political party that held feminism as it’s guiding set of principles. The primary goal of the movement was to eliminate sexism, racism and class differences in society. The strand of feminism that this party represented was more radical feminism, as the focus was on patriarch, patriarchy and more patriarchy. Radical feminism has a hyper focus on blaming men for social ills, as opposed to liberal feminism, which is more targeted at legal “inequities.” The part was called the Feminist Initiative, or FI.

However, let’s step through creation of the party, it’s time in the spotlight, and it’s ultimate demise at the polls. In 2004, some there was some stirring on the feminist left about the abolition of marriage – replacing it with a gender-neutral, polyamorous institution. Essentially, this would be creating a government institution that allows for formal recognition of any two or more persons. Further, there was some anger at the fact Sweden hadn’t adopted Norway’s gender quotas. Norway, in 2003, had passed a law that mandated that 40% of publically owned companies must be filled with women. This feminist malcontent lead to an exploratory meeting to figure out if a feminist party could be formed.

Gudrun Schyman: Would you cunt punt?


The party origins are at that meeting – headed by Gudrun Schyman. While the organization claimed to not have a hierarchy and the people at the meetup refused to identify as anything other than equal individuals, clearly any group of people has to have a leadership pecking order and Schyman was the alpha female. At the meeting, gender quotas on corporate boards were discussed, as reforms to marriage and violence against women. They correctly determined, at the time, that they had enough support to take the party to the public. They decided on platform – which reads like any radical feminist screed – and decided to make the focus for the upcoming election on devolving marriage into simply consent between two or more people. Of course, in the advancement of gender equality, they reluctantly agreed to allow males to have leadership roles.

The party went public with much public approval. 5% of the population said the feminist party most assuredly had their vote – clearing the hurdle to be met for political parties to get into the Riksdag – the parliament of Sweden. Upwards of 20-25% of people said they would consider voting for the party – very impressive numbers for a nation with multiple major political parties. This wave of support was bolstered by the media, who praised the movement for advancing a progressive agenda based on feminism.

Buoyed by this support, the party began to advance an increasingly aggressive agenda. While the leader Schyman had previously espoused support for a “man tax” that would purely be used to fund female-only shelters, she once again began to talk about the advancing the tax. The rhetoric got further heated when some members began to publically call for sex to be based on verbal consent, a law like the policy on sexual conduct at Antioch College (I have a writeup on the policy here http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-23418-...id433982). Comparable worth legislation was campaigned for, so was forced paternal leave. The feminists wanted men to have to take the same amount of leave from work to care for a baby as women. At the time, either men or women got to take a year off work – and this could be split purely as the couple decided. Predictably, this wasn’t good enough, because the patriarchy was still forcing women to take most of the leave. The movement even inspired Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler to campaign on behalf of the movement.

These feminists also supported the suppression of gender-specific behavior of boys and girls in preschool and early childhood. Take a note that, in Sweden, after the year of parental leave, children are shunted into state-run nanny care/school. Their push has helped result in now the abolition of he/she pronouns used by government workers – the word is now “hen” for all children. This leads to what the major parties did in reaction to the initial popularity of FI.

The major parties realized the threat this party posed. The major parties and the government began to change some of their positions. First, they allowed for free artificial insemination for lesbian couples, regardless of formal status. Second, was the upgrade of homosexual relations from registered partnerships to full marriage. Third, was pushing forced female participation on corporate boards. Even, in that spring, feminist outrage cancelled the Miss Sweden pageant.

However, the real impetus – hatred of men – began to seep through. What kicked off the public’s souring on the party started with the release of the movie “The Gender War.” This movie described in detail how radical and how misandric shelters for women are in Sweden. A feminist activist in the movie stated that half of women in Sweden are victims of male violence, a clearly false claim. Further complicating matters was a positive reference to the SCUM Manifesto – most specifically the quote, “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” The director of Sweden’s women’s shelther, Under Von Wachenfeldt, agreed with statement, saying: “Yes, man is an animal. Don’t you agree?”

The public began to sour on the movement at this point, and the upcoming convention for the party leading up to the 2006 elections did nothing to help the party. The convention, in sum, was a disaster.

Tiina Rosenburg


This warhammer gave a speech at the conference, which both was met with thunderous approval and disgust from both the convention attenders, and the media. Her speech was famous her exhortation that women who sleep with men are “traitors to their gender.” Further, the fools at conference, in order to combat heteropatriarchal norms, mandated that there were no “formal leaders.” However, when you have women telling other women that if they have sex with men, they are traitors, then you clearly have leaders. There was more male-hating garbage from the convention, but it is fairly predictable fare. Men are the cause of all that is evil, men are all rapists or rape supporters, etc.

However, public support was fading fast. In response to the “perception” they hated men, they tried to find a male feminist to promote onto their director’s board – the male chosen declined to take on prestigious position. They continued to tail off bad in the lead up the election. At polling time, they registered only 0.68% of the vote – far belong the level needed to get into the Riksdag. A complete and utter failure.

So, what’s to take from this implosion of the FI? First, is their idea of polyamorous marriage will come to pass. Looking over the Online Hamster Thread at this site, plus my own experiences and polls in Sweden, young people are increasing in favor of polyamorous relationships. Of course, this isn’t anything new but devolution into the hypergamic hell that the West is rapidly falling into. The so-called progress feminists are fighting for is little more than a complete and utter descent into our basest human instincts.

Second, is the anger that underpins the feminist movement. I have long thought anger in the feminist movement was motivated by psychology – a manifestation of obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Instead of being outright bullies – while some feminists are – most are just severe and over-the-top enforcers of “the rules.” You see this in the idea of rape culture. While a strain of blank-slatism and authoritarianism runs through the theory, part of the impetus is a bizarre adherence to the rules. “You aren’t supposed to rape!!!! If you rape, you are violating the rules!!!” Even though rape laws exist and feminists have changed laws and approaches, rape still exists. So, feminists assume it must be some deficiency on the part of the laws – or rules – instead of individual psychology and biology.

While I do think part of this obsession stems from female biology – women are far more likely to adhere to authority and submit to dominant people – another part stems from this idea that if the rules are changed, then the world will change. However, as T at therawness.com has pointed out, this is merely a form of narcissism, as feminists demand the world around them change in order to sort out their own internal conflicts. Of course, this never works out, as the only person who can change your mindset is you. I have repeatedly seen at feminist blogs, such as Eve Bit First, this projection of violent fantasies of rape, murder and freaky sexual behavior onto men. Sometimes, they just blame men for their thoughts. Mostly, though, they just claim that these sorts of thoughts are the typical sort of thoughts that swill through the mind of the average male. Changing the rules won’t prevent bad thoughts or bad actions (generally), nor will they save you from your own ability to come to grips with your own inner turmoil - nor your ability to understand men.

As the world, haltingly and slowly, stumbles towards their “gender utopia,” the prospect looms of feminists dealing with their anger and hate. It is not surprising at all that the demands and accusations mount and become increasingly insistent. The day came long ago for feminists to judge themselves in the mirror, in my opinion; but for feminists, the day is coming faster and faster. Just like an alcoholic fears having the sauce taken away from them, feminists fear losing their mindset to hate, blame and fear men. It saves them from the painful and very real process of coming to grips with reality. It is no surprise that the more radical a feminist is, the higher the numbers of male victimizers become. As aforementioned, a feminist claimed half of Swedish women were subject to male violence – that is not just an astounding number, but emblematic of the fact that there is a direct correlation between a feminist’s hatred of men and her belief in how many women are victims of male violence.

In sum, the FI was an abortion of political that got a disturbing level of support initially. Given that the feminist hamster is combative, angry and hateful, it did not take long for itself to uncloak itself and show off its true identity. Some moderate “feminists” noted that making all men pay for domestic violence shelters implies all men are part of the problem. She is right, but FI would completely agree that all men are part of the problem. Given their support of the Society for Cutting Up Men manifesto, these feminists hate men to their very core. In another view, though, these women just hate themselves. Unable to come to grips with their sexuality, psychology and upbringing, they decide to blame Daddy – or just every person with a dick.