— Expressen Debatt (@ExpressenDebatt) October 2, 2017
On 2 October, Swedish newspaper Expressen published an opinion piece by a Swedish feminist, on why polygamy isn’t such a bad thing. The article comes a few days after the news that two books, aimed at small children have been published in Sweden, and excepted by their libraries. Titled Grandpa has four wives and Grandma’s no ghost, the books are supposed to be suitable for 3- to 6-year-olds.
The feminist in question, artist and writer Ulla Lundegård, proposes to do a little thought experiment, asking:
“Why is it so terrible that a man is coming to Sweden with three wives and a bunch of kids?
Is each individual in the family more plagued than the rest of us? Have not these people the right to a dignified life and the right to be a resident of Sweden? Why do we place so much emphasis on that this man has three wives? And why there is talk of disgust that the municipality must obtain an apartment large enough to accommodate them all? They probably also have the right to live, right?“
Of course, this is all done at the taxpayer’s expense. And why wouldn’t they, after paying, at least have the right to “talk in disgust” about having to pay for this? It is very easy to assume rights for everyone and then, between the lines, tell people who might have a few comments to shut up.
Proceeding her argument:
“How is the situation in our beloved family land, which is based on the traditional twoseomeness, marriage, the holy sacrament, instituted by God? If we take this little Sweden’s pulse, we can conclude that Mr Nilsson gets it together with Mrs. Nilsson, who has children with Mr. Olofsson, who in turn gets it on with Miss Lindstrom and they are not married.“
Savour the irony here. This is what professor Göran Adamson, who was fired for criticising multiculturalism, when he said: “A reactionary ideology does not become more radical just because ‘progressive’ journalists, politicians, and academics are cherishing it.”
Lundegård, faced with the breakdown of traditional marriage – because that is what she describes, even though she tries to hide it – caused as much by feminism and the fight of the ‘progressive Left’ as anyone else, in effect calls for the acceptance of Islamic morals to combat the ills her own movement caused. So the fight against Western Patriarchy has brought us a Feminist defence of a system more oppressive to women than Western Patriarchy:
“None of us in a glass house should throw stones. If this creative idea can be unleashed without prejudice and locked tradition-bound standards, maybe it could even be produced in this way. The children have three mothers with different characteristics and ages who can step in when needed. They can even share their love for a man and live in the same house! (…) It may even be that they live a much more interesting life than many Swedish couples have after thirty years in the industry. Women have perhaps even in communion with each other. (…) Most violence against women occurs within couples, so why do we still cling to the idea of the nuclear family as the only salvation for humanity when it really has cracked long ago?“
Lundegård’s reasoning goes as follows: ‘A traditional Islamic marriage is no problem, because if it can be stripped of all its cultural context, it might be nice and answer to this Utopian idea I have of it. So I will criticise my culture and country, because it does not answer to this ideal and ignore everything about the actual case that is inconvenient.’ Cherrypicking 101.
A day after this opinion was published, the news came out that:
“This summer a 19-year-old woman from Västmanland was taken on a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan – against her will. Her solicitor, Gunilla von Wachenfeldt described during trial how her father controlled the 19-year-old’s life: ‘He has subjected her to abuse for three years, after she had a boyfriend she was intimate with.’ (…) The 19-year-old herself told me that her father hit her several times, pulled her hair and called he a ‘whore’.“
“If this creative idea can be unleashed without prejudice and locked tradition-bound standards…” A big ‘if’ indeed.