Swedish feminist party burn $13,000 of donations to make a point

Oh, Sheba, you failtroll.

Cyberwulf wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Still, way to give feminism a bad name, Swedish feminist party.

Don't do that, ZoZo. It doesn't suit you.

Poor choice of words. It was a pretty bad publicity stunt and poor PR is what I meant. I can completely see their point; I just wish they'd've spent it slightly better.

Still, it's nice that Sweden has a feminist party that commands a measurable proportion of the vote.

Psy-4 wrote:

stuff

No info on their criteria for an act of violence. No info on their definition of a violent relationship. No info regarding reciprocal violence as to whether it's something like, man beats shit out of woman for a week before woman stabs him with kitchen knife. Buuut you're absolutely right Psy, women have all the power in society now.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No info on their criteria for an act of violence. No info on their definition of a violent relationship. No info regarding reciprocal violence as to whether it's something like, man beats shit out of woman for a week before woman stabs him with kitchen knife.

D'aww, lookit dat skepticism. It's like Clark Kent, never seen together with information that supports your view.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Buuut you're absolutely right Psy, women have all the power in society now.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Welp.

You were critical and dismissive of the information that contradicts your view.

You downplayed the points that hurt your view.

You just put words in my mouth. Again.

Quick, make a condescending post, and my checklist will be complete.

Aaand we have another feminism wank!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I guess the point was to prove they're retarded? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

myeerah wrote:

Quote :

“This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.

Could that be because women are looked down on as dainty little things that big strong men couldn't possibly be harmed by, and if a man complains about it, he's just a big sissy?

What an excellent example of how patriarchy hurts everybody.

You dipshit. Cyberwulf was the one claiming that.

Mikey, honey, I love your avatar. That dog is adorable.

Lady Anne wrote:

Aaand we have another feminism wank!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you serious, or are you just Inkweaver baiting?

Er . . . isn't that a pretty significant chunk of change? Seems to me that in a country with so many political parties, each one would probably get less money than they would if there were only two or three major ones. Do we have any stats on how much money these guys get, total? I mean, have they just blown a quarter of their budget or something?

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Er . . . isn't that a pretty significant chunk of change? Seems to me that in a country with so many political parties, each one would probably get less money than they would if there were only two or three major ones. Do we have any stats on how much money these guys get, total? I mean, have they just blown a quarter of their budget or something?

Well, according to the article, it was a contribution made for the purpose of this (extremely stupid) stunt. So they didn't actually deprive themselves of anything, it was more a symbolic act. The jury is out on whether this makes it more or less failtastic.

gaijinguy wrote:

The jury is out on whether this makes it more or less failtastic.

Ugh, they could have made it some sort of big money give away to women workers, with a message of doing the job the government doesn't want to, or something like that.

This is just a publicity stunt.

It's also wasteful.

I hate wastefulness.

All this outrage over $13,000?
We're wanking talking about them, so they achieved at least that goal.

Yeah, it's wasteful. So is destroying a vintage sedan to celebrate the introduction of safety systems on new cars, spilling milk on the streets to protest against EU pricing policy, burning comic books to raise attention to their moral depravity. I now want to see you heatedly discuss these subjects, whether the advertising method failed (omg! there are less than 200 roadworthy Bel Airs left! they could have sent that milk to African children! Fantastic Four #1 is now worth millions!), and then derail into whether the message they are sending has a foundation in reality.

The only difference I see with using the money to plaster Sweden with "Men SUCK" posters is that the money failed to return to circulation - as in, being paid to the advertising company, the poster printer, and the town halls. This only leaves the milk example for comparison - the Chevy and comic books had to be bought for the respective stunts.

I think $13,000 is a smaller sum that what goes wasted every year when change falls into drains and bills are washed inside trousers, and if they had spent them on a conventional campaign, it would have been lost among the noise.

It only remains to see whether the reaction they've caused is the one they were looking for, and the rhetorical question of whether - given the message they are trying to convey - any conventional campaign they would make wasn't going to have the same result.

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Er . . . isn't that a pretty significant chunk of change? Seems to me that in a country with so many political parties, each one would probably get less money than they would if there were only two or three major ones. Do we have any stats on how much money these guys get, total? I mean, have they just blown a quarter of their budget or something?

Urgh, I KNOW I saw an article when I searched yesterday, about how their big campaign to get into the government a few years ago was saved by a gracious donation of 1 000 000 kronor from Björn Andersson of ABBA fame. Now I can't find it though, so I'll use this bit from the Swedish wikipedia entry to illustrate:

Quote :

Inför årsmötet i slutet av mars 2007 föreslog styrelsen att Feministiskt initiativ skulle verka som en "feministisk folkrörelse" och bedriva folkbildning utifrån en feministisk grundsyn. Partiet ansåg sig inte ha råd att ställa upp i framtida val, och beviljades ett statligt bidrag för folkrörelser på 400 000 kronor, där man i ansökan lovade att inte ställa upp i val under 2007.

-

Before the annual meeting at the end of March 2007, the board of directors suggested that Feministisk Initiativ should act as a "feminist social movement" and educate people on feminist values. The party didn't think it could afford to take part in any future elections, and were given a governmental grant for social movements, a sum of 400 000 kronor. In the application letter for the grant, the party promised to not take part in any elections during 2007.

So in short they get by from donations, and the government helped them keep afloat three years ago with a grant - and they just burnt a quarter of that grant sum yesterday.

The Unoriginal wrote:

All this outrage over $13,000?
We're wanking talking about them, so they achieved at least that goal.

Yeah, it's wasteful. So is destroying a vintage sedan to celebrate the introduction of safety systems on new cars, spilling milk on the streets to protest against EU pricing policy, burning comic books to raise attention to their moral depravity. I now want to see you heatedly discuss these subjects, whether the advertising method failed (omg! there are less than 200 roadworthy Bel Airs left! they could have sent that milk to African children! Fantastic Four #1 is now worth millions!), and then derail into whether the message they are sending has a foundation in reality.

The only difference I see with using the money to plaster Sweden with "Men SUCK" posters is that the money failed to return to circulation - as in, being paid to the advertising company, the poster printer, and the town halls. This only leaves the milk example for comparison - the Chevy and comic books had to be bought for the respective stunts.

I think $13,000 is a smaller sum that what goes wasted every year when change falls into drains and bills are washed inside trousers, and if they had spent them on a conventional campaign, it would have been lost among the noise.

It only remains to see whether the reaction they've caused is the one they were looking for, and the rhetorical question of whether - given the message they are trying to convey - any conventional campaign they would make wasn't going to have the same result.

Sooooo you're basically saying that since there's a lot of wastefulness in the world, particularly stupid waste is perfectly acceptable. Right?

Penguin wrote:

Sooooo you're basically saying that since there's a lot of wastefulness in the world, particularly stupid waste is perfectly acceptable. Right?

No, I am saying it's not like this type of protesting is unheard of. Hell, people commit suicide when they think it's the only way to make the world aware of their suffering. If that is not stupidly wasteful to you, then I don't know.

Meh, life is cheap.

gaijinguy wrote:

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Er . . . isn't that a pretty significant chunk of change? Seems to me that in a country with so many political parties, each one would probably get less money than they would if there were only two or three major ones. Do we have any stats on how much money these guys get, total? I mean, have they just blown a quarter of their budget or something?

Well, according to the article, it was a contribution made for the purpose of this (extremely stupid) stunt. So they didn't actually deprive themselves of anything, it was more a symbolic act. The jury is out on whether this makes it more or less failtastic.

Oh, the money was donated for the purpose? I missed that.

Bloody good stunt then. It's got us talking, hasn't it?

Perhaps this is a bit behind-hand, but this has been bothering me. I always hate people when they run around saying "There's so many better uses for these people's money!" when we're talking about this sort of thing. If we've got an organization dedicated to political lobbying, and they're not using their money effectively for that purpose, then the "better uses" thing is a valid criticism. However, when we're talking about an organization dedicated to political lobbying and people complain that this money could have been used to fund Habitat for Humanity or something, I really get annoyed.

1. Despite the fact that there are many people in the world who need help, no one group is responsible for solving every problem. Nobody is capable of that. And if they are, then any political group who uses their money effectively to fund politics rather than helping the homeless is just as bad as a group who uses their money poorly to fund politics rather than helping the homeless.

2. Just because there may be better or worthier causes in the world does not mean that the cause of a particular group is not good or worthy. It's a big planet and there's room on it for a lot of problems and a lot of people who think they have solutions.

Usually when I hear the "So many better ways line" what somebody is really trying to say is, "They shouldn't have done this particular action." And yes, that applies to everyone who's said it on this thread. We all agree that this particular action was dumb. But the point that the party is trying to make is an important one, which means that while there may arguably be better things to spend this money on, making this point is still a good one. Therefore, spending (or burning) this money to make this point is not dumb because they could have spent it on food to send to Somalia. It's dumb because the point they're trying to make is getting drowned out by the over-the-top and ridiculous nature of the demonstration.

ZoZo wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Er . . . isn't that a pretty significant chunk of change? Seems to me that in a country with so many political parties, each one would probably get less money than they would if there were only two or three major ones. Do we have any stats on how much money these guys get, total? I mean, have they just blown a quarter of their budget or something?

Well, according to the article, it was a contribution made for the purpose of this (extremely stupid) stunt. So they didn't actually deprive themselves of anything, it was more a symbolic act. The jury is out on whether this makes it more or less failtastic.

Oh, the money was donated for the purpose? I missed that.

Bloody good stunt then. It's got us talking, hasn't it?

Except it has us talking about the fact that they're fucking morons, not the injustice faced by Swedish women. They seem to have missed the part where drawing attention to yourself isn't necessarily the same thing as drawing attention to your cause.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Sooooo you're basically saying that since there's a lot of wastefulness in the world, particularly stupid waste is perfectly acceptable. Right?

No, I am saying it's not like this type of protesting is unheard of. Hell, people commit suicide when they think it's the only way to make the world aware of their suffering. If that is not stupidly wasteful to you, then I don't know.

But you don't understand, Unoriginal. This is feminists doing it for their favourite hobbyhorse, equal pay for equal work. Whoever heard of such nonsense?

PS hay Psy:

Females more likely than males to experience non-fatal intimate partner violence (full report)

Females three times more likely than males to be murdered by an intimate partner

myeerah wrote:

Mikey, honey, I love your avatar. That dog is adorable.

I like how he's smiling like he's saying "Guess what I just did that you're gonna HATE." [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The U.S. Republican Party pissed away way more money than that clothing the lovely lady seen in my avatar. It didn't seem to stop people from donating to them. Neither did the lesbian bondage parties.

At least these ladies were trying to make a point.

Alex89 wrote:

It didn't seem to stop people from donating to them. Neither did the lesbian bondage parties.

Obviously. Who wouldn't want to fund lesbian bondage parties?