Rising levels of hate forcing women out of Swedish public life, says equality agency
Well, you know, maybe.
The 2025 politicians’ security survey, carried out by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, found that 26.3% of female elected representatives reported being exposed to threats and harassment last year because of their position. The equivalent figure for men was 23.6%.
Ah. It’s not quite as much as a genderdly thing as being suggested then, eh?
That .03% is really crucial, unless of course it refers to ‘women’ and not women…
Don’t see the problem. These Scandi countries are all about equal representation.
In fact it should be celebrated.
Does the article make clear that the “threats and harassment” are coming equally from blond blue-eyed vikings, as well as the “new swedes”?
Using Google Gemini and it’s numbers for elected representatives it seems that approximately 44 males and 42 females have been been so exposed.
English summary of the report in english: https://bra.se/download/18.12e33db019a0f6db78d2e146/1762355244611/2025_17_The%20Politician%E2%80%99s%20Safety%20Survey%202025.pdf
Imagine supporting offensive and ruinous policies and getting Shouted At on occasion…
Doesn’t help that the Greens in general also happen to have the highest percentage of Perpetually Offended in their midst..
“This is a policy area lots of Swedes consider very important,” she said. “Women and men’s views tend to differ slightly. Women are more positive about receiving refugees and men are more critical. But women are more silent in this debate. It’s possible that this is one of the reasons why we don’t have more diverging views.”
Maybe they should stop being stupid whores then. Being “positive” about subsidising foreign rapists with itchy feet and a sad story is just as antisocial as shitting in the water supply. It shouldn’t be tolerated and I’m delighted Swedes aren’t putting up with it anymore.
Calling for a “clear culture change” around online behavioural norms, she added: “A big part of the problem is that we have for far too long accepted violations in digital environments.” She also called for social media companies to take “greater responsibility for stopping hate and threats”.
“The government has taken action, including by strengthening protection for elected officials,” she said. “But more must be done. Particularly to protect women who are more vulnerable than men.”
Letting them vote was a mistake, and now it’s time to erase that mistake.
Tim, you of all people should know the prime rules of statistics.
1) Numerically higher in the right direction is REAL.
2) Numerically higher in the wrong direction is not statistically significant.
3) Statistically significantly higher in the wrong direction is because the right voices are silenced/marginalised/oppressed/genocided.
No, that is the prime directive for *journalists faced with Statistics*.
*Any* statistician will tell you that you cannot prove anything with statististics (it is just, and only just, possible to disprove a few outrageous falsehoods). That is why they talk about “statistically significant” and “not statistically significant” – the latter could easily be due to random noise in the data, the former merits investigation.
I’m not much inclined to believe self-reported “facts”. It’s a bit like reading much diet/nutrition research where the only evidence they have of what people have eaten lately is people’s own claims. Even when people keep a “food diary” I doubt if the method is usefully accurate: if they don’t keep a diary I’m confident the data will be hopeless.
See also eg ‘Studies show that prison does nothing to stop reoffending’
Then you look at the study and you find some social scientists have asked 100 criminals whether prison stops them reoffending.
Well, the forcing out may be gendered while the hate is almost equally destributed.
Consider the impact on Anthony Joshua of some git he’s never met threatening to punch him in the face and the impact on Antonia Smith of a similar threat…
There is a case for prosecuting those making threats (in England they would be guilty of behaviour liable to lead to a breach of the peace as someone’s husband could justifiably take it upon himself to exercise his rights to defend his wife).
Consequence? Odd word. It would appear the surveyors specifically asked, “Do you want to limit social media activity?” We don’t know if they asked that AFTER they panned social media. Gamecock suspects that it was the purpose of the survey.
Note that “social media” says nothing; people say things on “social media.” The commies don’t like it that people can say things on social media they don’t like – they want it stopped.
That’s “deep pockets social media” to you. “Block speech we don’t like or we’ll sue you!”
Thanks to Musk and Trump, American social media companies don’t try to actively manage content. Not their job. They are just the soap box in a town square.
Too much about social media in the article. Talk about threats to women is appeal to pity. The article isn’t about what people said; it’s about their being able to say such on social media. I’d say Ms Bryant doesn’t actually care about the women; they aren’t her real focus.
BTW: Do all Swedish women have thick legs? Maybe it’s just the lens the photographer used.
Just the ones on Pride marches? The comfortable shoes factor?
Would also have to ask if the rise is from Swedish men or ‘Swedish’ men?