~ archived since 2018 ~

Swedish Universities Axe Affirmative Action

jalam1001

January 25, 2010

72 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://counterfeminism.info/2010/01/swedes-axe-pro-male-affirmative-action/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Swedish Universities Axe Affirmative Action
Author	jalam1001
Upvotes	72
Comments	12
Date	January 25, 2010 2:32 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/atpnr/swedish_universities_axe_affirmative_action/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/swedish-universities-axe-affirmative-action.1051078 https://theredarchive.com/post/1051078

Comments

[–]exlex 14 points15 points16 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 9 points10 points11 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I can answer why the men won't stand up to this.......

Like any egalitarian or progressive-type movement, the majority of men and women in any society are supportive, up to a point. For example, the rights of gays to marry is acceptable to most, with the exception of the extreme right nowadays. But if gays wanted additional rights that extended beyond those of heterosexual couples, if they wanted special treatment of sorts, people, both liberal and conservative, would lose sympathy. Past supporters may even become hostile to the movement, a tragedy that puts past progress at risk.

What I sense has happened in Sweden is that the feminist movement crossed an egalitarian (or reasonable) line some time ago, and locally, it's in many ways lost the respect of both the males, and even many progressive women in the society. By crossing the "reasonable-line," the movement has lost the ear of people both on the right and the left of the political spectrum.

Because of this, you won't see the Swedish men stand up and protest against this, because they really don't care - they've tuned out the feminist movement some time ago, and would prefer to think/do other things. Each absurdity of the movement may sadly create further rift between the sexes - that is if anyone is paying attention any more.

[–]Trashie 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, they did cross a line. I remember exactly when it happend.

It was 2005 and our equivalent of the BBC aired a documentary called könskriget (War of the sexes, loosly translated) where they examined the radical feminism mainly based around the "national organisation for womans shelters".

They had very strong ties to a number of leading politicians, many more or less subscribed to SCUM etc. It was quite shocking. Hearing someone sit there and calmly say "Men are animals."

Translated wiki article

Now this is law is NOT pro-male affirmative action, it's affirmative action. It works both ways. It even works for ethnic minorities! The law have been tried in our equivalent of the Supreme court and they deemed it illegal. 4 years ago! It's just not viable to keep it, the universities will keep getting sued.

Besides, how the hell does it help to have a higher number of male vetrinarians and kindergarten teachers help anything execept the statistics.

What we SHOULD look at is WHY we have this situation. We should treat the problem, not the symptom.

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ih8registrations 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DCMurphy -13 points-12 points-11 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DCMurphy 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DCMurphy 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand how my views could be seen as being anti-MR. I assure you, that is not the case. One can be for a cause and only support 90% of their goals; my indifference towards this policy is simply a matter of circumstance.

Do I disagree with this policy? Absolutely! Am I mad about it? Not really.

It is possible to support something without agreeing with it 100%. Simply agreeing with something because the whole of the organization is doing it is foolish. What's more, just because one finds a fundamental flaw with an action does not mean that he needs to get up in arms about it.

I believe that the MR community as a whole has bigger problems than this. The injustice of rape trials, domestic assault victims, society's view of man, etc, are much greater injustices to me.

Furthermore, let's really look at this article. What facts does it present?

Swedish Universities are about 60% (or 2/3, I didn't know which of the two figures they presented was correct and there is a difference) female. He does nothing to note the demographics of the Universities ten or twenty years ago, or any time before 2003 when the AffAct rules were put in place.
He mentions that men were discriminated against, but will not be discriminated for.
The 7th paragraph is completely speculation. He presents a logically flawed argument here:

It would seem from this move that what the Swedish government wants is a female majority not of 60% but rather 70 or 80%. After all, if the current rules are being used in favor of males and the student body is still mostly female, the number of women can be expected to do nothing but grow once the rules are changed.

He does nothing to address the facts of how many women vs. men are applying, or comparing their performance, or anything. It's entirely speculation.
They are eliminating the policy. They realized what happened. They gave preference to one group, they started outnumbering the other. They gave preference to the other group, they started coming in droves. Now, instead of regulating who gets in based on sex, it will be a purely merit system! God forbid the end of sexism in this case!

I went and checked out his credentials in the "Who is Porky" section. Am I the only one who bothered to read that? He's a food critic with a B.A in Environmental Science, not a sociologist.

tl;dr This is a good thing; no affirmative action means nobody is "special", and we're all equal. Isn't this what the whole thing is about?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link