Cancerfonden.

Here is the National Swedish Cancer Foundations (Cancerfonden)rationalization for not having an early diagnostic program for Prostate Cancer;

This information was posted on their official website for all to see;

"Everyone agreed that the early detection of cancer tumors significantly lessens the mortality rate in most groups. However, everyone was in agreement to not implement a general early detection program for symptom free men in the same way that we have mammograms for women, because we have no way of dealing with the upsurge in potential positive diagnoses".

In other words it would be too much trouble and far too costly.

The same report also goes on to brazenly say that about 40 % of all men in Sweden between the ages of 60 and 70 years old are likely to have a small cancerous tumor of the prostate gland despite the fact that they are symptom free (for the time being at least!).

However their rationalization for not implementing an early diagnostic program for men is as follows;

"By testing them we risk making cancer patients out of normal men". This statement was made by Olla Bratt, professor in Urology at Lund University hospital".

However - it could on the other hand very well save these men's lives. Notice her choice of words by the way. She does not say "by testing them early we can discover and treat potentially life threatening prostate tumors in outwardly "healthy" men that might otherwise have been overlooked".

Why is an early diagnostic program for women worth the effort and trouble, by the way, but not for men - when we are said to live in a male dominated society?

Vargen.

Daniel Amneus.

Daniel Amneus making the following observation on Simone de Beauvoir;

Back to Patriarchy (Page 74)

" Mademoiselle Simone de Beauvoir, one of the most enlightened of the feminists, who gave up the possibility of marriage and maternity to live the life of a bluestocking, tells of a recurring and baffling nightmare that long plagued her, a nightmare in which she visualized eggs and darning needles, the sight of which filled her with bewildering horror. This clever lady, with all her learning and slick intellectualism, was incapable of figuring out that eggs are incipient life and that darning needles are implements commonly employed by women to abort this incipient life in themselves.

She was incapable of figuring this out, that is to say, while she was awake; but it was obvious to her when she closed her books, fell asleep, and came into communication with her own deeper, wiser self that the lifestyle which she had chosen - foregoing marriage and maternity for what she calls (in the jargon she picked up from Sartre) the life of a "truly free existent" - that such a life-style was indeed a nightmare".

Vargen.

A warning from Socrates on human psychology.

"All truth passes through three stages. At first it is ridiculed, secondly it is violently opposed - and then finally it is accepted as self evident".
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860.

The Greek philosopher Socrates used to warn his students how easily intelligence and common sense can be corrupted into irrational beliefs and false logic. He said that the road to truth can only start when one is first prepared to question and scrutinize every belief one has ever held dear. If a certain belief stands up to rational analysis and scrutiny using common sense and cold logic - without any interference from ones emotions - then it should be kept. If on the other hand it does not, then it should be discarded - not only that - one should also enquire as to why one held such an irrational belief in the first place.

We all know what happened to Socrates.

Vargen

Jane Austen vs. Charles Dickens.

Do a google search using the words "Jane Austen" and "feminism" and you get 1, 300 000 hits. Scholarly historical observations of Jane Austens life from a feminist perspective are many. Here's a few typical ones I picked out at random;

....Austen comes across as a realist, someone who knows that life is tough, especially for women.

.....But rather than focus on how society's restrictions could cause someone to have a nervous breakdown, Austen focuses on the reasoning skills women need to survive, which, to me, is the ultimate feminist statement.

Indeed Austen herself described her situation in much the same way when she says the following;

"Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story." Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands.'

Reading these tales of woe, together with her stoic defiance, it is easy to see why this oppressed little upper class lady became the original feminist icon. One can really start to feel empathy for her situation - forced to live in an oppressive society where women were not expected to show any kind of intellectual flair. I can almost see her now, locked away in her bedroom, late at night, secretly writing her novel's by candlelight. Her defiance of the establishment is a triumph for the human spirit and one can only admire her bravery - against such overwhelming odds.

How oppressed she must have felt - just because of her gender.

How many historians, on the other hand, have ever connected the name Charles Dickens with oppressive gender roles?

Not many if I had to guess. Certainly not 1, 300 000 anyway.

Charles Dickens, was pulled out of school at 12 years old and forced to work for 12 hours a day in a Victorian shoecream factory. He was an intelligent boy who dreamed of becoming an attorney one day. This dream however vanished, when his father was sent to debtors prison and 12 year old Charles suddenly found himself the head of the household. The oppressive society that he found himself living in considered him duty bound to provide for his 5 younger siblings as well as his own mother!

Women in traditional English society were expected to be paragons of virtue - and they were not expected to get their hands or their minds "dirty" with work. Men on the other hand were - even if they were no more than boys.

One can no more associate the traditional male role solely with power than one can associate the traditional female role solely with powerlessness. They were different that's all. They were just as inflexible for men as they were for women. Both roles came with certain rights and privileges and both were burdened with responsibilities and expectations.

Which one of these two particular gender roles would you have preferred by the way - given the choice?

Vargen

The Glass Ceiling.

A common accusation that feminists aim at men - with the blind complicity of the mainstream media - is that men are over represented in upper management levels and the reason for this is basically a huge conspiracy against women. Men are being promoted to upper management levels solely because they are men - not - because they are more competent and committed.

No company has ever been convicted of this crime in Sweden - and it is a crime. "Hard to prove" say feminists". "Why so easy to believe then?" I ask.

You see - a company that employs men, which they first of all over pay (compared to female employees), only to then promote those men over more competent women, to be then duty bound to pay them even higher wages - would be committing economic suicide.

"Yes but company's do promote men over women when both the man and woman are equally competent and committed". But if you were a profit hungry boss and you had two equally competent and motivated employees - a man and a woman - but only one could be promoted which one would you pick? The expensive one or the cheap one?

According to feminists its the man every time!

Irrespective of what a male bosses motives are for promoting one employee over another the fact remains that male bosses are - just like when talking about any other group - comprised of individuals. It is not only arrogant of feminists to assume that all male bosses sing from the same song sheet- it is also sexist. If I made the same sweeping accusation against Jewish bosses - namely that they all had the same sneaky agenda - especially without any hard evidence to back up my claim - then I would be accused of anti-semitism. At the best I would be challenged to come forward with evidence or shut up. At the worst I would be charged with a hate crime.

Feminists have been given the green light to go forth and slander - just as long as its against men of course. What's more they have the full support of the mainstream media as well.

That's really bloody scary if you think about it.

Vargen.

What's a Nazi?

When one says the word Nazi most people think of a German in 1930:s Germany who hated Jews - or maybe a skinhead who hates immigrants - or maybe even a redneck who hates blacks and Arabs. But the reality is that Nazism can flourish absolutely everywhere. For me a Nazi is someone who discriminates against others solely because they happen to belong to another group. (I don't like him because he is gay!)

Or;

A person who spreads hateful stereotypes about other groups. (All Jews are thieves!) But Nazism is still Nazism irrespective of which group or individual ends up on the receiving end - and no individual or political group should be above scrutiny or criticism either.

We should be against Nazism because it is right - not just because it is trendy!

I therefore believe that the so called threat to society from neo nazi groups is grossly exaggerated by the media (for political reasons). Neo Nazis of course pose a threat to the individuals or groups that end up on the receiving end of their hatred in daily life - but a threat to society and democracy? - no way.

The reason is because their opinions are never allowed to come into the political centre - that is to say that their ideas and philosophies are never allowed to become the norm.

Nazist philosophies are on the other hand dangerous for society when they are treated by the media and authorities as reputable truths (axioms). Only then do these ideas get adopted by the rest of society and become "normal". It is when these philosophies become normalized that their malignancy becomes invisible - and society becomes corrupted. This is what happened to Germany in 1933.

Ethical Double Standards.

Here's a thought experiment for you;

What is the general consensus of opinion on the subject of stem cell research? My guess is that the overall majority (maybe 80 %) would respond negatively to this subject. The phrase "One shouldn't play God" has become somewhat of a cliche.

Now;

What is the general consensus of opinion on the subject of abortion? My guess is that the majority (maybe 80 %) would respond rather positively to this particular subject. The cliche most likely to be heard here is of course, "Its a woman's right".

Believe it or not I am not a pro lifer. I think abortion is OK - up till say 8 weeks. (maximum!)

When it comes to the subject of stem cell research I am open to persuasion from both directions. I believe that we should proceed in this area - showing the utmost caution and respect. Stem cell research of course leads to the destruction of those embryos and this, in turn, raises obvious ethical questions. But - what many people do not know is that these living embryos are only 8 days old. An 8 day old embryo is basically a female egg that has been fertilized with a sperm cell and divided once a day for 8 days. It is no bigger than a pin prick or the point of a very sharp pencil - or smaller than the full stop at the end of this sentence. One must balance the pros with the cons on any issue - and the pros to stem cell research are many and need to be taken into consideration.

When it comes to the subject of abortion we are no longer just talking about an embryo that has divided for 8 days. We are talking about something that is potentially much bigger - but how bigger? The growth of an embryo is not linear - it is exponential. Think 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64....and so on. So not much happens in the first four weeks - relatively speaking. In the first few weeks the developing embryo is about half an inch big and cannot be distinguished from the embryo of a pig or a dog. Between 4 - 8 weeks though, a lot happens in comparison. The developing embryo can now clearly be seen as human although it is still no bigger than a grape.

Here's my point though;

In an article that appeared in the Aftonbladet newspaper entitled "12 Weeks and The Fetus can Walk" I was amazed to read that a 2,5 inch fetus has, at 12 weeks, technically the ability to walk. The pictures show that the same fetus can yawn and suck its thumb at 15 weeks - and three weeks later at 18 weeks can open its eyes (click on the link and take a look). These facts were discovered by unique 4 D pictures taken by professor Stuart Campbells and shown in his new book "See me Grow". Att 22 weeks the fetus can what's more be seen to show emotional responses such as grimacing and smiling.

Today it is perfectly legal for an abortion to be performed in Sweden at up to 22 weeks. This means that Sweden has one of the most "liberal" laws on abortion in the world. How big is an aborted fetus at 22 weeks? Take a look. (Be warned - these picture are disturbing)

Its a bit bigger than a pin prick isn't it.

What I find incredible is how people can react so negatively to scientific research involving the destruction of human embryos - that are no bigger than a pin prick and could potentially benefit humanity greatly - whilst at the same time they can be totally supportive of abortion which involves the destruction of far bigger embryos for no purpose whatsoever - other than to give a woman even more control over her own reproduction than she already has!

Why does a woman need 22 weeks to make up her mind?

Maybe one could argue that it is her body after all and therefore her right. But rights come with responsibilities - and at 22 weeks it is clearly not just her body anymore. What about her responsibility to the child? How can one justify being morally against stem cell research whilst at the same time being morally supportive or even apathetic towards abortion?

I can respect someone who is of the opinion that abortion is OK - who also does not have any ethical problems with stem cell research - that I can at least respect. I can also respect someone who disagrees with both stem cell research as well as abortion. But this double standard that exists in the western society quite frankly makes me feel sick.

Vargen

SVT - A Lesson in Spin.

When it comes to the subject of homelessness we get yet another example of how we can easily see with our very own eyes that the vast majority of homeless are indeed men - and still not see them. The media, politicians and other governmental organizations choose to ignore them - and so we do too.

But how would society react if the vast majority of homeless people were women?

Something tells me that if this were the case then the problem would be very high on everybody's agenda. However, it is men who make up the vast majority of homeless people in Sweden and the authorities do virtually nothing.

For example;

It was only last year that the Swedish Social Services bothered to do an investigation into the problem for the first time. Until then no hard data on the phenomena of homelessness had ever been gathered in, by an official authority.

The media also plays its part in making these men invisible to us, of course. The few articles that are ever written on this subject are deceiving. Once again the tendency is to avoid the obvious fact that they are nearly all men and to instead carefully use the word "people". This again proves to me that these facts are politically embarrassing.

When The Social Services finally published its official report on homelessness in Sweden, on the 31st of January 2006, I was surprised and excited to discover that SVT (the Swedish equivalent to the BBC) would actually be talking about it on the evening News. Here was a great opportunity for the Swedish people to hear about a problem that primarily effected men - for a change.

I eagerly anticipated the broadcast that evening - however I needn't have bothered. The broadcast was incredibly slanted, to say the least. Once again the newscaster continually used the words homeless people. During the whole 15 minute report the word men was not uttered once.

What's more the News report profiled a "typical" homeless person in order to give "a face" to the problem - and, of course, chose a woman. It turns out though that this particular woman was not really a homeless person in the strict definition of the word either. She had a job. She was not a chronic alcoholic or crack addict. She looked like a normal, healthy middle aged woman. She did not seem to be psychologically disturbed or damaged. She was in fact a very articulate and well presented woman. Her problem - as she explained to the interviewer - was a lack of adequate housing in the commune where she lived. She simply could not find an apartment to rent and therefore had been living in a hotel for over a year.

This woman was technically registered as homeless according to the official statistics, although she most certainly did not fit my definition of a homeless person. It made me wonder how many other women in a similar situation were also counted in on the Social Services official homeless statistics - to maybe make them more politically correct.

Anyway the report ended with the Newscaster saying that there were now over a thousand homeless people in Sweden - and as much as 25 % of them were women. The implication being that this was a very worrying development.

Under the whole report the word men was not mentioned once - however women were twice connected with homelessness in the public consciousness. I was just gobsmacked at how slyly and even skillfully it was done.

What the report didn't say of course was that if 25 % of Swedens homeless were female then it must mean that 75 % are male, which would mean that men are still 3 times more likely to be homeless than women.

Does this story sounds paranoid to you? or maybe petty?

An easy way to answer that question is to simply reverse the roles. Try to imagine a society where women made up 75 % (at least!) of all homeless people. What's more the media and the government had the tendency to avoid and ignore the problem. If the subject was ever addressed at all the impression given was that homeless people only had themselves to blame. Also the word women was carefully avoided in the media and the word persons was used instead.

The fact that women were greatly over represented compared to men was never publicly pointed out.

Eventually though, the Social Services finally bothered to gather some data on the problem and the National News was to do a special report on their findings. However during the entire report the word women was never mentioned once. The News decides to interview a "typical" homeless person and chooses a homeless man - who, what's more, has a job and lives in a hotel.

There is not one mention of the over representation of women in these statistics and at the end of the report the Newscaster points out in a dark voice that men now make up about 25 % of all homeless people in Sweden, with the implication that this rising figure is very worrying indeed.

How would it feel, as a woman, to see facts distorted in such a way by an "independent" and supposedly objective media - in a so called democracy.

Would you feel particularly powerful?
Would you believe the myth that you lived in a female dominated society?
Would this story still sound paranoid or petty to you?


Vargen.

Suicide - Men's Dilemma.

"How fortunate for us that the people cannot think".

Adolph Hitler.

The fact that men our so vastly over represented in the death statistics comes as no surprise to me. I am acutely aware that the society I live in is heavily stacked in favor of women - despite what the media says. This feminist inspired myth of female oppression is not only a lie - it is the polar opposite to the truth. For me there is no doubt that women are extremely privileged in this society and it is men who are forced to pick up the tab. Hence men's increasing over representation in the death statistics.

In order to hide this reality from the public the western media needs to spin the truth 180 degrees - to lie and deceive us basically. Their tactics, when forced to look at the death statistics, are therefore always the same.

For example;

When it comes to the subject of suicide - and men's obvious over representation in the statistics, the media tends to talk about "persons". When a gender breakdown is ever made (and this is something the media try to avoid at all costs), so that we can easily see that it is indeed men who are 4 times more likely to commit suicide - the fact that women are 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide is always quickly added on afterwards. I get the distinct impression that men's over representation in the suicide statistics is politically very embarrassing indeed.

But this only leads to more questions, that the mainstream media and the so called "experts" at the Social Services have never bothered to take up as far as I know. Namely - why are women in Sweden 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide - but - men are 4 times more likely than women to actually succeed?

How does one seriously attempt to explain this discrepancy?

One could say that men use more violent methods in their suicide attempts and are therefore more successful than women are. But this explanation would only make logical sense if men and women attempted suicide at about the same rate - and - because of their more violent methods, men succeeded maybe twice or three times as often than women.

No - this rather vague explanation cannot explain such a huge discrepancy - namely - that men are a staggering 9 times more effective in their suicide attempts than women.

A very logical and interesting theory, that seriously attempts to explain this phenomena, was forwarded by the Psychologist and author Robert Anton Wilson in his online article entitled

"Androphobia - The Respectable bigotry" (April 1996). He says that there exists nowadays a tension in many men that Psychologists call a "Double Bind". In his important research on this phenomena the Psychologist Gregory Bateson described a double bind as follows;

• An impossible situation that cannot be avoided.

But more importantly;

• A social rule that forbids the verbal communication of this impossible situation.

Wilson says that it is ironic that we nowadays live in a society where homosexuals, women, immigrants and other minorities can freely demonstrate and protest their situation publicly, by for example, marching in the streets - and this is of course a good thing. However - for a man to even talk privately about feeling discriminated against, is not only politically incorrect, but unthinkable - a taboo, according to Wilson.

He says that it is because of this double bind that literally thousands of men and boys stagger directly from depression to suicide every year.

I am not trying to imply that women who attempt suicide do not suffer in any way. It is not my intention to cheapen their suffering - and neither do I wish to give the impression that suffering can be measured in any way. However - if one looks at Batesons model of the double bind one can easily see that a woman who finds herself in an impossible situation can "attempt suicide" in order to draw attention to her particular situation. This has been called a "cry for help". This is achieved by the suicide attempt which acts like a kind of warning signal to her surroundings.

The tragedy is, according to Wilson, that many men would also presumably like to send out a warning signal to their surroundings, but because they live in a society that either doesn't care or wouldn't listen, they go directly to suicide.

Wilson makes the profound comment in the article that "No group can feel well in a society that hates their guts".

I believe that this subject needs to be seriously addressed and discussed. I have a son as well as a daughter and I don't like the idea that he is growing up in a society where he will be, statistically speaking, 4 times more likely to commit suicide than her, just because he is male. I would of course be equally concerned if I lived in a society where she was 4 times more likely to commit suicide than he was - especially if this phenomena was also being deliberately hidden by the media for political reasons.

And therein lies the rub you see. If it was women who were committing suicide 4 times more often than men, then the subject would be discussed at great length and no cost would be spared to address the problem.

Or, on the other hand;

Would society's media and politicians choose to not look at the problem - and when forced to do so - chose to instead fixate and focus their attention on the fact that men were 5 times more likely than women to attempt suicide?

You decide....

Vargen.

Discrimination of women in the health service.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth".
Lenin.

Every so often the Swedish national newspapers go into over drive in order to highlight the "discrimination" of Swedish women in one form or another. Whether it is the so called wage gap that falls under the media spotlight or domestic violence - the bottom line is always the same - women are societies victims and it is men who are the oppressors. One particular area of "female oppression" that has become increasingly popular with the mainstream media lately is the so called discrimination of women within the Health System.

It is this area that I wish to focus on.

In order to propagate this myth, that women are literally dying because of discrimination, the media needs to spin the truth 180 degrees when it comes to men and women's health - both physical as well as mental - because the cold reality is the exact polar opposite (see the above post). I will talk about mental health in my next post. For now though I will concentrate on physical health.

When it comes to heart attacks, the fact that the average middle age man is about 4 times more likely than the average woman to have one, is never discussed in the media. It remains a social taboo that no-one ever mentions publicly or privately. The media in Sweden chooses instead to continually focus on the fact that men and women get heart attacks at the same rate and what's more, women are statistically twice as likely as a men, to die of their heart attacks. This "truth" is triumphantly held up by the feminized media as proof that the Health Service is discriminating against women. The implication is that women are being left to die.

But for those people who are willing to go that extra mile for the real truth instead of sitting back and allowing themselves to be spoon fed pseudo truths by an ideologically corrupted media, the explanation for this phenomena is both simple as well as logical. The real reason as to why heart attack mortality is higher in females than in males can be found on the website of the Swedish Social Services.

Because the average man who gets a heart attack is about 10 - 15 years younger than the average woman who gets hers - he is going to have far better options to increase his chances for survival.

For example a 60 year old man who has a heart attack;

1. Stands a far better chance of being resuscitated because of his relatively young age.
2. Stands a far better chance of surviving a big heart operation
3. Can be put on a fitness or rehabilitation program.

An 80 year old lady on the other hand who probably suffers from other ailments as well has far fewer options available to her after a heart attack, for example;

1. She has a lesser chance of being resuscitated for a start.
2. Heart surgery is presumably out of the question
3. Strong heart drugs would probably do her more harm than good
4. A fitness or rehabilitation program is also out of the question for obvious reasons.

But the media takes this simple and logical scenario and twists it 180 degrees into something dark and sinister. The statistical facts are then presented as yet another example of women receiving worse health treatment than men.

A perfect example of this kind of spin comes from the Aftonbladet national newspaper (the Swedish equivalent of The Sun) in a big article about the "discrimination problem" on the 11th November 2005. A serious complaint by two disgruntled female journalists (Fatima Johansson & Malone Norte) was formerly handed over to Health Minister Ylva Johansson ( a career feminist) in an obviously staged publicity stunt. The complaint went as follows;

"Equal health care for all should be a human right. However it is not, a fact uncovered by The Aftonbladet newspaper in its investigation of the Swedish Health Care system. As our newly appointed health minister you have the power to change this situation. We demand our rights: Equal health care for both men and women. Now".

This newspapers "extensive proof" that women are getting worse health care in Sweden compared to men was totally laughable. At the very least their evidence was extremely subjective and dubious. The newspapers article gave a couple of weak and vague statements that men with psoriasis were treated at the hospital or clinic while female psoriasis patients on the other hand were given ointment and told to rub it in at home! The concrete evidence of this extensive discrimination against women and the newspapers only example was "Joanna, 25 who asked for laser treatment at the clinic but was told that her psoriasis was not bad enough".

Other evidence of female discrimination in the Health System came in the form of other vague individual cases and sweeping conclusions such as; "men who ring for an ambulance are prioritized higher than women". Again one individual example is given as proof that this organized and extensive policy actually exists within the Swedish Health Service: "Maj Peterson, 81, called for an ambulance four times. When the ambulance finally arrived it was too late". The implication is of course that she became some kind of martyr to patriarchal oppression and that this scenario would never have happened had she been a man.

Other examples of systematic discrimination concerned ironically enough heart attacks. Heart attacks in females are apparently missed because "doctors are not knowledgeable enough about female symptoms". Now, I am no medical expert but are women's heart attack symptoms really that much different to men's? Again "proof" comes in the form of an individual example where "a doctor missed Camilla Palmgrens heart attack because he thought it was an asthma attack". Once again the implication being that similar mistakes never happen to male patients.

Further "proof" of discrimination comes when the article turns its attention to the drug industry. The argument being that most heart drugs are researched and tested on men and therefore better suited to men than to women. The newspaper demanded therefore drugs to have a "female friendly label". Once again, I am no doctor but I can believe that virtually all drugs tested on men and proven to be safe, would also be safe for women - both men and women belong to the same species after all - although I sometimes wonder.

But even if there are a few gender specific side effects that doctors hadn't anticipated, it still cannot be held up as proof of extensive discrimination against women.

By the way the reason that society tests new drugs on men first - and not women - is the same reason that society tests new drugs first on rats - and not human beings.

The article finished with the following question being asked;

"When can women feel as secure in health care as men".?

And the public reply from Ylva Johansson, the Swedish Health Minister was as follows;

"Women can feel secure in Health System today, but I cannot say that we in 2005 have a Health System which does not have gender discrimination. We live in a male dominated society and it is felt in all areas of society. This problem cannot be solved in the sweep of a pen here at the Social Department. But we shall however, do all that we can so that Society can strive to be as equal as possible".

I am of the opinion that these kind of vague anecdotes about discriminatory conditions for women in health care are just used to distract us from asking the important questions.

For example;

When it comes to heart attacks: If the situation was reversed, wouldn't society be at least a little curious as to why a middle age woman was 4 times more likely to have a heart attack than a middle age man?

Or;

Would society choose to fixate instead, on why men were "oppressed" based on the fact that an old man was statistically twice as likely to die from his heart attack than a middle age woman?

When one takes into consideration the fact that the Swedish society (government, health services, charities and the media) regards female health as far more important than men's and spend, for example, far more money on breast cancer research than they do on prostate cancer research - and that far more more money is spent every year on women's health care in general than is spent on men's - the statement of equal health care for all becomes a bit ironic to say the least.

Vargen

NATURE OR NURTURE?

"Fear not the path of truth for want of travelers there".

Unknown.

Many women and men in the western society believe the feminist inspired myth that women belong to an oppressed group. But if it were true that women are indeed oppressed, then women are the only oppressed group that actually outlives their oppressors. I don't know exactly how much longer western women live compared to western men but I believe that it is about 4 or 5 years in Sweden (the country in which I currently reside) and the gap is growing exponentially. Warren Farrell talked about this phenomena in his book The Myth of Male Power where he highlighted the fact that white women in America had a whopping 14 years longer life expectancy compared to black men! (Page 30).

The breakdown being as follows;

White Females - 79 years
Black Males - 65 years.

Like I said, no oppressed group has ever outlived their oppressors - period. This logic holds true whether one is comparing black people with white people in the USA, aborigines with white Australians, black South Africans with white South Africans, people living in third world countries with people in industrialized countries. This logic even holds true when comparing the life expectancies of rich and poor people in any given society.

Life expectancy is therefore, I believe, a very reliable indicator of how a particular group is doing in comparison to another.

Genetics can of course explain this phenomena to a degree. However, genetics cannot explain why the gap is getting bigger. Surely if this was only about genetics and had nothing to do with external circumstances then why would the gap be increasing? Wouldn't one would expect the gap to be stable over time?

Who, by the way, would try to argue that the reason for an aborigines shorter life expectancy in comparison to a white Australians, was genetic?

Anyway, to expand my point, a comparison between the aborigines living conditions in the Australian society (compared to whites) and the living conditions of men in any given western society (compared to women) makes for interesting reading.

I have used the living conditions of Swedish men in my comparison but I am fairly sure that the same would hold true for men in any given western society.

For example, aborigines have (and die of) heart attacks at the same rate as white Australians, however, statistically, the average Aboriginal male gets his heart attack about 10 - 15 years earlier than the average white male. The same is true when comparing aboriginal females with white Australian women.

What's interesting is that when one compares heart attacks in women and men in Sweden one sees that they too get (and die of) heart attacks at roughly the same rate, this of course, is something that the feminist inspired media in Sweden likes to point out. But, the average 50 year old man is about 4 times more likely to have a heart attack than the average 50 year old woman, statistically speaking. So the average male in Sweden gets a heart attack about 10 years earlier than the average female, this, on the other hand, is something the media chooses never to talk about.

Aborigines are statistically 20 times more likely to end up in jail compared to white Australians. Again, males make up 95% of the prison population in Sweden which means that they are also 20 times more likely to end up in jail compared to Swedish females.

Aboriginal people run a 4 times higher risk of being murdered compared to white people. The same is exactly true when comparing men to women in the Swedish society.

Aborigines are also 4 times more likely to commit a murder than white Australians. Again, one can see the exact same ratio when comparing men and women in Sweden.

Aborigines are statistically speaking 5 times more likely to commit suicide compared to white Australians. In Sweden men make up about 80 % of all suicides which means that they are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than women.

Aborigines run a 5 times higher risk of developing a serious psychological illness compared to white Australians. In Sweden it is said that about 95% of all acute psychologically sick are men.

Aborigines are about 5 times more likely to suffer from acute alcoholism when compared to white Australians. The same is true of Swedish men when compared to Swedish women. A quick look at the Social Services statistics in Sweden shows that men are about 4 times more likely to die of liver diseases or other physical ailments brought on by acute alcoholism, than women.

I don't have any statistics regarding heroin addiction among aboriginal people but I would not be surprised to find Aborigines over represented here also. In Sweden men are said to make up about 85 % of all heroin addicts. However there has never been a gender specific study done on this particular problem although I can imagine that quite a few such studies would have been done had women been over represented here!

Aborigines run a 5 times greater risk of being homeless compared to whites. The same is true for men in Sweden where about 85 % of all homeless people are men.

The comparisons when talking about the so called death statistics are many and the similarities are quite striking.

When one reads such terrible statistics concerning the living conditions of the Aboriginal people when compared to white Australians who live in the same society it is impossible to even begin to deny that these people live in a society which greatly favors white Australians and it is the Aboriginal people who are picking up the tab.

A common argument of feminists and something which they always imply, is that it is men's own fault that they are over represented in the prison statistics. But who would dare to imply that the Aboriginal peoples over representation in the same statistics was somehow their own fault?

Another argument I often hear coming from feminists when talking about men's over representation in murder and assault statistics goes roughly as follows;

"Yes, men are 4 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered than women but men are also 4 times more likely to commit an assault or a murder than women as well".

The implication is of course that men have only themselves to blame. But I wonder how those same people would interpret the situation if they were told that black men in America were 5 times more likely to get shot compared to white men. But the same statistics showed that black men were also 5 times more likely to shoot someone compared to white men.

Here's my main point though;

Yes, feminists can correctly argue that, as opposed to race, there are in fact clear and fundamental biological differences between the two genders which explain why men appear to be much more destructive and also more self destructive than what women are. But it is precisely here that feminisms confused logic and hypocrisy shows itself and leads those women into a philosophical dead end, because those very same feminists would - on another occasion - look you square in the eye and swear blind that there are no biological differences between men and women.

All of the differences between men and women are social - according to feminist dogma.

They seem to have very selective memories (Orwell called this phenomena "doublespeak"). Feminists like very much to highlight masculinitys destructive side (in relationship to femininity) as proof that men are in some way sub-human or incomplete. This, of course, paints a very white picture of women and a rather black one of men. These differences between men and women are in other words biological.

However what really irritates me is that even the differences between men and women that highlight masculinitys creative side (yes, in relationship to femininty!) have been hijacked and twisted into something dark and evil. These differences are denied and twisted into a huge conspiracy against women where men have rigged the game. These differences arent allowed to be biological of course. They are in other words, "social differences".

Notice that this, once again, paints a white and virtuous picture of femininity and of course a totally black picture of masculinity.

A feminist woman can now self righteously point out that men are biologically inferior to women and therefore sub-human or stupid just because they are statistically speaking far more likely to be found at the more destructive end of society, but a person who was brave enough to point out that there are always two sides to the same coin and that men are also somewhat over represented at the creative end of society too - would be told in no uncertain terms that these differences were social.

So we have a situation here where the person who is only trying to present a BALANCED and FAIR appraisal of men and women is quickly branded a sexist bigot by the very same woman who is herself a sexist bigot of the worst kind. The irony is incredible!

The situation is insane and reminds me of a quote by George Orwell;

In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

My point is that one can use these so called death statistics to show quite clearly that we most certainly do not live in a social structure that only benefits men and only discriminates against women because men are so hugely over represented at the bottom of the pile and like any hierarchy, for every one person at the top there are literally thousands at the bottom.

So, even if this theory of theirs was true (and it is only a theory), that it is social conditioning that is responsible for the differences in society between men and women, then one is still forced to admit, by sheer force of numbers, that those very same social conditions are far more favourable for the average woman than they are for the average man, statistically speaking.

Even if one ignores the multitude of men at the bottom of society (as feminists do) and just focuses on that minute 1 % at the top (as feminists also do) one can, even then, still not say that only men have the power. What about their luxury wives? Lets face it, all these alpha males have luxury wives, ladies of leisure who can swan through life with an economic safety net underneath them and who may or may not have a University degree that they have never even needed to use. What person in their right mind would describe these women as powerless and oppressed?

If a feminist starts talking about genetic pre-dispositions to explain away the unpleasant reality that it is in fact mostly men who are to be found at the bottom of the social pile, one can quite calmly enquire as to why it is only the biological differences that reflect negatively on men, that can be acknowledged - and never the ones that reflect positively.

The bottom line is this;

Either all of the differences between men and women are the result of social conditioning or they are all the result of biology.

It is not a buffet!

Either way - feminisms theory of a gender power structure, which only benefits men and only discriminates against women - falls down.

Vargen.