It’s interesting how people assume that heroin chic was a trend which died out. Did it really? Look at the fashion photography of today and tell me, is there such a big difference between the heroin chic models of the 90s and the models of today? No, there isn’t. Because heroin chic didn’t disappear. It became norm.

The heroin chic look of the 90s was often more extreme, with more focus on truly making the models look like drug addicts. The typical model today doesn’t necessarily look like she’s on drugs but the emaciated look and dead looking faces with empty staring eyes, is indeed inherited from the heroin chic look.

Even the original heroin chic aesthetic with models looking like they’re on drugs is still often used today. Take a look at this ad which I found on a big Swedish site today. Since I don’t want to be sued for illegally using a photography which doesn’t belong to me you’ll have to click this link to see the photo.

Tell me, how is that not heroin chic?

A incident which happened during my first year of junior high has stuck with me to this day. I have many memories of not speaking up while something bad was said or done and this is one of them.

Between classes me and a bunch of other kids from my class hung out in the classroom. One boy started writing a list on the blackboard. A ranking list of the prettiest to ugliest girls in the class. I wasn’t ranked as one of the prettiest girls but there were a couple of girls below me in the list. I remember that at the time that made me happy. At least there were uglier girls than me. There were several girls present in the classroom when that boy wrote the list and no one protested. The girl who was ranked the prettiest appeared to be pleased and the rest of us didn’t say much. We were used to the boys doing whatever they wanted to do. We just took it. That’s how it was.

That’s one of the moments I wish I could travel back in time to and change. I’d ask that boy, who was far from attractive himself, why the hell he thought he had the right to rank us that way. I’d ask if he really thought his opinion about our looks actually mattered to us. I’d also tell him exactly how far down he’d rank on my list of the prettiest boys in the class. I realize that would be sinking to his level but I’m of the opinion that if someone insults you there’s nothing wrong with insulting that person back.

This was seventeen years ago and I hope that boy grew up to be a man who don’t tell girls they’re ugly. The troubling thing is that there are in fact many grown men who do just that. I see it all the time in discussions between feminist women and anti-feminist men. These men tell women they’re only feminists because they’re ugly, can’t get laid, can’t get a man. Often they throw in something about a woman’s look into the discussion as a reason why they can’t listen to her. Apparently it’s impossible to hear an argument from someone you don’t find attractive. In many cases of hate against women the “ugly card” is played not because these men actually think the woman is the ugliest he has ever seen but more as the best insult he can think of. There’s this general idea that the worst thing you can tell a woman is that she’s ugly so they tell women just that for that reason.

And I wonder, why in the name of fuck do they think their opinion matter? Just as why in the name of fuck that boy in my class thought his opinion about our level of attractiveness mattered to us. And why in the name of fuck does a woman first and foremost always have to be her looks.

I’m so tired of the backlash against feminism. Every-fucking-where misinformed men spew out their hate against what they think feminism is. I’m so tired of it because when actual feminists tell them of their version of feminism, they simply don’t want to listen.

In their world “feminism has gone too far” and the “feminazis” hate all men and wants to take over the world. And of course feminists are all either fat, ugly or in need of more cock. Of course they make it come down to what we look like and how we because of that can’t get a man so we become feminists out of some kind of revenge.

The discussion in some parts of the internet (hello Flashback forum) is so full of misconceptions, hate and sexism that I’m filled with a mixture of rage and despair just reading them. Feminists try to explain their point of view but the wall of I’ve-already-made-up-my-mind-and-won’t-change-it-even-if-proven-wrong is too high for any argument – no matter how well explained and true – to climb.

Feminism is about equal rights for both women and men and the opportunity for both women and men to be whoever they want to be rather than being stuck within the norms of what’s considered ok for them to be and do based on their gender. How can that be wrong? How can there be so many misconceptions around such a simple wish?

You’ve all heard it. A woman criticises another woman and other women go “she’s just jealous of you”. This bugs me a lot since it’s used as a way to brush off criticism. Because of course criticism can’t be taken seriously when it’s coming from someone who obviously is just jealous and therefore is saying those things just to be mean because she really wants to be you.

This is especially used as a backlash towards a woman who criticises another woman who is more beautiful than her. Even if the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with her looks. If the woman being criticised is both more beautiful and more successful than the one giving the critique it even worse. It’s like women like those are untouchable.

Yes, sometimes people hide poor self esteem behind a nasty attitude to feel better about themselves. Yes, sometimes people criticise others because they are in fact jealous of them. Sometimes people can even be partly jealous of another person but still disagree with them and voice a critical opinion because of that.

Have you thought about how this is a phenomenon only used towards women? I mean, have you ever heard a man’s criticism of another man being shot down with “he’s just jealous of him”. At least I haven’t. But women are shot down like that all the time. Not just by other women because god knows there are men who are very quick to pull the “she’s just jealous of her” card.

Think about criticism of nude models for example. Haven’t we all heard men voice the opinion that women who complain about Playboy being sexist are just secretly really jealous of the playmates being so much hotter than them? Because a woman considered less attractive than those models of course can’t have an actual critical opinion about Playboy and the industry behind the objectification of women. Oh no, she’s just really bitter.

This whole phenomenon is part of the tragic stereotype that for women, looks overshadows everything else. This tragic idea that a woman foremost is her face and body. Everything else comes second. Her opinions, her moral, her entire personality.

It’s a sad, sad world we’re living in.

I just watched a TV-interview with Swedish singer Janet Leon. Aftonbladet (one of the biggest Swedish newspapers) brought her to a pole dance studio to interview her. The poor girl repeatedly told them “no, no, no, I can’t do this” and in the end of course didn’t have to try out pole dancing. That’s good! But what the hell were they thinking even bringing her to that place?

Yes pole dancing has become something people (women) do “for fun” or as exercise and was from the beginning a sport. Yes, that’s true. 1000 years ago a pole was used for various sports, for both men and women. But nowadays it’s mostly connected to striptease and not everyone is comfortable doing something connected to that.

Therefore it’s not ok to bring a singer to try out pole dancing while being interviewed. She has no connection to pole dancing. She was going to give a interview about her career as a singer. Would they have brought a man to a pole dancing studio to have him “do some moves” in connection to a interview about his musical career? Of course they wouldn’t.

Therefore I conclude, Aftonbladet, you suck.

I just read an “interesting” debate article on FoxNews. Some psychiatrist dude debates that men should be able to veto abortions if they can make a credible claim that the child a woman is about to abort is theirs.

I do understand how sad it must be for a man who really wants to be a dad to have his child aborted. I do understand that. Still, in my world, the woman’s right to her own body must go first. Before the man and even before that little embryo inside her which could become a human being. A woman should not have to be forced to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want.

If this veto thing had been an actual law I would have wanted to strangle the man who vetoed me to carry and give birth to a child I did not want. The horror to first go through nine months of pregnancy, making me sick, making me clumsy and forever changing my body and then through extreme pain give birth, potentially ripping my body, potentially scarring me because of a C-section, potentially even killing me. All against my will. I don’t think a man should ever have the right to force a woman to go through that if she doesn’t want to.

The abortion question will always be a hot potato with many opinions about the rights of women, men and unborn children but for me the woman’s right to her own body will always go first. That’s how human rights work in a democracy. You don’t make choices about other peoples bodies for them.

Few things provoke me like men who are of the opinion that the old gender roles are natural and don’t need to be changed. Of course they don’t see the need to change them. The old gender roles give men most of the power. I get so frustrated when I see debates when men go on and on about how “things have always been this way” and “it’s the natural order”.

Yeah, because there’s no such thing as progress. We don’t learn from our mistakes. We don’t learn new things. Society doesn’t evolve. People doesn’t evolve either. Nothing needs to change, ever. In fact let’s just all go back to the way things worked during the middle-ages if progress is that unnatural. Back then we had slaves and torture, democracy didn’t exist, poor folks were seen as lesser people and kings explained the fact that they had all the power with the idea that “god have given it to them”. We have moved on from that so why can’t we move on from the old gender roles?

Society has changed drastically and the old gender roles are outdated. Today many women wants to do more with their lives than being a full time stay at home mum or even being the only one staying at home with the new born baby. Why not share the care of children 50/50? Why can’t both focus on their careers, only taking turn? Share the household work? Both provide for the family?

Here’s a potential scenario pinpointing the skewed power balance in a relationship based on the old gender roles.

A woman choose to stay at home with the kids. She never goes to college and never gets a job. The man on the other hand goes to college and after that have a successful career. When the couple are sixty years old they get a divorce. The man continues with his work but the woman who never went to college and never had a job, she’ll have a very hard time now supporting herself. No one wants to hire the sixty year old woman who not once worked outside of the home. When she retires five years later her pension is dismal while the man gets a lot of money since he worked from the age of twenty-five to sixty-five. The only money the woman gets is 50% of what they own together. But that’s all. She is bound to loose.

Not only the woman suffer in this scenario though. If they get a divorce when their kids are still young the kids will of course live with their mother. Why? Because she is a stay at home mum and has spent much more time with the children than the father. He is bound to become a weekend dad.

Does the old gender roles still work? Is this equality? Should things really stay the way they “have always been”?