Basing Policy on Genitalia Doesn’t Work?

Here’s another sad example of collectivism leading to disaster. In Sweden, they decided to implement a ‘feminist strategy’ to snow removal. In other words, they decided to plow areas where women were more likely to frequent, instead of where most people (regardless of sex) travel.

A “feminist” strategy for clearing the roads of snow in Stockholm ended in failure as the city ground to a halt in recent days.

A new system, suggested by progressive politicians in the Swedish city, tore up tried and tested snow plow routes and diverted them to areas said to be used more by women.

But the inevitable consequence was that other spaces – like main roads – were clogged up for longer, and it became impossible to get around.

Imagine that.

The “gender equal” strategy came in last year after politicians in the Swedish Green Party argued that the old way of clearing major roads in central areas favours men, who are more likely to work in the city, and get there by car.

Fuck men. Their patriarchy is just getting in the way. We must have equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.

Instead, the plows were sent to clear out sidewalks and cycle paths – on the basis that women walk and bike often. They also focused on areas like kindergartens, which children and parents visit in the morning.

So basing the plowing on what genitalia the traveler happens to be born with doesn’t make for a good policy?

No one could have foreseen this. Throughout history we see how well collectivism works out for the populace. Identity politics and collectivism always works, except in the case of Marxist countries…but that’s only because it wasn’t implemented correctly, right?

And this happened despite a huge cash infusion meant to ensure this wouldn’t happen.

The disaster struck despite a $270,000 increase in this year’s snow removal budget meant to help the new system succeed.

Guess it didn’t help much. In fact, it created havoc for both men and women, because they couldn’t get to work or navigate any of the main thoroughfares. Even a week after the storm, the roads are still clogged and buses are having a hard time moving about.

Progressive politicians have gone on the defensive, with the MP who suggested it claiming that the snow plows hadn’t executed the “gender-equal” plan properly.

Despite efforts to defend it, the plan has become a laughing stock.

Even liberal publications like Stockholm’s Dagens Nyheter published  this mocking listicle of “9 alternatives to feminist snow removal”, including Satanic snow removal (“melt the snow with burning crosses”) and Neoliberal snow removal (“the invisible hand of the market will move it”).

There is no defending it. Basing policy on genitalia is madness and doomed to failure. They should learn from this but sadly, I doubt they will. It’s likely they’ll double down on their stupidity.

Stop with the identity politics already. Stop basing policies on genitalia, race etc. It doesn’t work and it only leads to disaster.

People need to start living in reality.

Advertisements

46 Comments

          • Interesting link, Ruth. Thanks for posting it.

            “The point is that the people who plan the work tend to be men who drive their own cars. When they decide where to clear first, they have, unconsciously and with the best intentions, considered their own needs (where do I drive? on what roads do I and my pals drive?) rather than considering the society as a whole.”

            So only men plan snow removal in Sweden? Do you honestly think that’s how snow removal companies operate? They just sit around and think about where they and their pals are likely to travel.

            “Joakim Boberg at the Stockholm Traffic Office explains that with as heavy a burst of snow as this week, the priorities are crystal clear.
            – Our main task is to ensure the key functions of society.
            This involves first plowing the thoroughfares, main bus routes and busy main routes.
            – Emergency vehicles is the first priority, then all focus is on public transport.”

            Seems like a rational thing to do. This is what they do here in Canada.

            Doing the sidewalks and cycle paths first so that emergency vehicles have to wait longer to get around would not be the best use of snow removal time. Your ambulance driver isn’t going to hop on his bike to come rescue you.

            • “So only men plan snow removal in Sweden? Do you honestly think that’s how snow removal companies operate? They just sit around and think about where they and their pals are likely to travel.”

              Actually, I don’t think that’s the point. I don’t think, having gone to the Green Party link about this that is a “feminist” law at all. It is a gender-equal law. In other words, prior to this law, perhaps because you and I don’t know, bike paths and sidewalks weren’t cleared in a timely manner, or maybe not even a consideration at all. So making it safer for people – not just women – who walk or bike doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. As you have so eloquently pointed out, half the people might not have been being served. There must have been a problem or this wouldn’t have needed to be addressed, eh?

              Second of all, it doesn’t say that they were experiencing any difficulty in keeping up with their duties of keeping main thoroughfares AND sidewalks and bike paths cleared until this massive snow dump at which time they abandoned the whole gender-equal approach and did the most necessary thing, which was to clear the main thoroughfares.

              No, the ambulance driver isn’t going to hop on his bike to come rescue anyone. Which is why they abandoned it in an emergency. It was the prudent thing to do. But in non-emergent situations, I see no issue with addressing bike paths and sidewalks with equal import as roads.

              • ” It is a gender-equal law. In other words, prior to this law, perhaps because you and I don’t know, bike paths and sidewalks weren’t cleared in a timely manner, or maybe not even a consideration at all.”

                They are generally the last thing to get cleared here in Canada. Not because of men, but because roads are more important to clear first, because emergency vehicles use them and people need them to get around the city.

                ” I don’t think, having gone to the Green Party link about this that is a “feminist” law at all.”

                Could you share the link?

                “So making it safer for people – not just women – who walk or bike doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. ”

                Of course they should be cleared but they shouldn’t be the priority.

                “As you have so eloquently pointed out, half the people might not have been being served. There must have been a problem or this wouldn’t have needed to be addressed, eh?”

                Why would you say that? Lots of things get addressed that don’t necessarily need to be addressed.

                “Second of all, it doesn’t say that they were experiencing any difficulty in keeping up with their duties of keeping main thoroughfares AND sidewalks and bike paths cleared until this massive snow dump at which time they abandoned the whole gender-equal approach and did the most necessary thing, which was to clear the main thoroughfares. ”

                So dumping the plan based on sex and going with the more rational plan of doing the most important arteries first?

                The winter is just beginning.

                “No, the ambulance driver isn’t going to hop on his bike to come rescue anyone. Which is why they abandoned it in an emergency.”

                So again, they went with the sensible approach to clearing snow over the one based on sex. You seem to be agreeing with me.

                ” It was the prudent thing to do.”

                Exactly. I totally agree with that.

                “But in non-emergent situations, I see no issue with addressing bike paths and sidewalks with equal import as roads.”

                So just because it’s not an emergency, you should focus on the things that aren’t as important first. Huh?

                Why not do the important things first in all situations, get it done as quickly as possible and then do the rest as quickly as possible?

                • Why not do the important things first in all situations, get it done as quickly as possible and then do the rest as quickly as possible?

                  Because clearly the vice chairman of Stockholm’s Traffic and Waste Management Committee thinks this is important. Just because you judge the import of things based on how there done “there in Canada” doesn’t mean that’s the way things are everywhere.

                  • “Because clearly the vice chairman of Stockholm’s Traffic and Waste Management Committee thinks this is important.”

                    I know. That’s what we are discussing.

                    ” Just because you judge the import of things based on how there done “there in Canada” doesn’t mean that’s the way things are everywhere.”

                    You mean basing them on reason instead of on what sex people happen to be when using specific transportation?

                    You mean not implementing sexist legislation?

                    In what universe is basing policy on sex a good idea? It should be based on people! Not the gender of those people. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

                    • “” It should be based on people! “
                      Yes, it should. You have clearly decided that half the people aren’t as important as they other half, regardless of gender.”

                      Hahahaha. Where do you get that from? Please point to where I said any such thing.

                      I have clearly said that sex shouldn’t matter. They should be clearing snow in the best possible way to ensure the safety of all citizens. Not basing snow removal on sex.

                    • This prioritizing of sidewalk and bike path snow removal for PEDESTRIANS be they men or women seems to be a problem to you merely because the PEDEDSTRIANS happen to be mostly women and that has been pointed out. Perhaps they should have just said PEDESTRIANS and BIKERS and you would have been a bit happier.

                    • No. I’d be happier if they didn’t prioritize based on sex at all. You’re the one happier that they’re basing snow removal based on gender.

                      Regardless, I see no point in continuing. We will have to agree to disagree.

                      Thanks for the conversation though. I hope you have a fantastic day. 😊

                  • “Why not do the important things first in all situations, get it done as quickly as possible and then do the rest as quickly as possible?”

                    You just admitted that clearing roadways is more important, yet you now say just because an authority figure says so that that’s that? You’re essentially disagreeing with yourself and thinking that’s a plausible argument.

                    • You just admitted that clearing roadways is more important, yet you now say just because an authority figure says so that that’s that?

                      No, you twisted what I said. That’s not what I said at.all.

                      What I said was, when there hasn’t been a massive dump of snow they can keep up with the demands of clearing bike baths, sidewalks, AND roadways. When that isn’t the case and they can’t keep up with those demands they do prioritize roadways for emergency vehicles. That happens all the time in emergency situations. Hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms, etc. There are municipal activities that go on just fine until there’s an emergency and then you prioritize differently. People in emergency management know this. If you don’t like it that in Stockholm Sweden they’ve decided not to neglect half of their population, which just happens to be women, I don’t really know what else to say.

                      Regardless, the premise that the measures have failed because…big snow storm…just isn’t the case.

                    • Under no natural emergency situation do they prioritize based on gender.

                      They always prioritize emergency vehicles.

                      Who said they prioritized based on gender in a natural emergency situation? You’re not making any sense.

                      I said in a non-emergent situation they are prioritizing citizens who walk, bike, and drive equally. In an emergency situation they prioritized emergency vehicles. How is that prioritizing based on gender in an emergency situation? It’s not even prioritizing based on gender in a non-emergency situation. It’s treating it’s citizens as equally important.

            • “We have seen that, today, snow clearing overlooks the most vulnerable groups, primarily women,” said Helldén. He added: “The city should be accessible to all, which it is not right now. Today, big roads are prioritised and cycle lanes fall far behind. It is easier for cars to get by in the city than it is for people.”

              “Since it is harder to walk or cycle in 10 centimetres of snow than it is to drive, we plow walkways, cycle lanes and bus stops ahead of big roads. This primarily benefits women since studies show that more women than men walk, cycle and use public transport.”

              Helldén told Svenska Dagbladet that one benefit of this kind of measure is that it can lead to a drop in accidents. He pointed to statistics that show that three times more pedestrians than motorists get hurt in the winter traffic, which in turns leads to large socio-economic costs.

              “You have to look at how a modern city functions today. There are completely different transportation patterns around. Pedestrians, cyclists and public transport-users must come first,” Helldén insisted.

              You see, I don’t think that it would have mattered what the gender was. He does point out that this policy would be more beneficial to women since they tend to walk and bike, but even if that were not the case, if it were reversed and more men did so, I think the result would be the same. It is for the safety and commutability of it’s residents.

              emphasis mine

              • ““We have seen that, today, snow clearing overlooks the most vulnerable groups, primarily women,”

                Women are vulnerable?

                This is called identity politics. Snow removal should be based on keeping as many people as possible safe. Sex has nothing to do with it.

                “He added: “The city should be accessible to all, which it is not right now. Today, big roads are prioritised and cycle lanes fall far behind.”

                Yes it should be accessible to all. Ruth, you just finished saying that clearing major roadways is the most sensible approach to doing this.

                ““Since it is harder to walk or cycle in 10 centimetres of snow than it is to drive, we plow walkways, cycle lanes and bus stops ahead of big roads.”

                It is hard to drive in 10cm of snow. I can walk through 10cm without much effort. I’m also travelling slower, meaning it’s less likely I’ll be injured.

                “This primarily benefits women since studies show that more women than men walk, cycle and use public transport.”

                I thought it was gender equal, yet here they are once again bringing sex into it.

                “He pointed to statistics that show that three times more pedestrians than motorists get hurt in the winter traffic, which in turns leads to large socio-economic costs.”

                How many fatalities between motorists and pedestrians?

                Could this have something to do with the previous policy of clearing roads first? Do you not think that if they clear sidewalks first that this statistic might reverse?

                “You see, I don’t think that it would have mattered what the gender was. ”

                No. That’s why he brought it up 2-3 times.

                “He does point out that this policy would be more beneficial to women since they tend to walk and bike, but even if that were not the case, if it were reversed and more men did so, I think the result would be the same.”

                Yes he did. See a trend?

                It wasn’t reversed and if it were, it would be just as stupid.

  1. Woot – next post idea!

    Basing Blog Posts on Information From One Biased Source leads to inaccurate, but Ideological Pleasing Conclusions.

    1. Stockholm had its snowiest November day in 111 years.

    2. Winter storm to be amplified by lake effect, or in Swedish “snow-cannons’.

    3. Quote from the article cited by your primary source – HeatStreet –

    “But on Thursday and Friday, the policy came under renewed criticism after the city was thrown into chaos by the unusually heavy snow dump, with buses and trains cancelled, and major motorways blocked.

    The policy’s apparent failure was celebrated with glee by anti-feminists on Twitter, with even the liberal Dagens Nyheter newspaper running a light-hearted article, titled “Nine alternatives to gender-equal snow-cleaning”.

    So, was the problem a snow dump of once a century proportions or the ‘gender-equal’ snow clearing plan?

    It would seem that a reasonable argument could be made that any snow clearing plans effectiveness would have been severely hampered by a once-in-a-century snow event. But I am sure that was top of mind engaging all necessary skeptical faculties while constructing this balanced piece. 🙂

    Also, Heatstreet as a primary source? A site that boasts titles such as:

    “Hamilton’ Actor That Lectured Mike Pence: All Cops to Blame For Black Lives Matter Deaths.”

    “William & Mary Offers ‘Thanksgiving Toolkit’ for Sensitive Students”

    “BREWHAHA: Fulbright-Winning Feminist Says Alaska Beer Promotes ‘Rape Culture’”

    Love the quotes around Rape Culture…

    Yeah, so if skepticism is a thing, one might consider the source and proceed with caution, even if does affirm certain ideology convictions.

    • “Also, Heatstreet as a primary source? A site that boasts titles such as:

      “Hamilton’ Actor That Lectured Mike Pence: All Cops to Blame For Black Lives Matter Deaths.”

      Strawman.

      “So, was the problem a snow dump of once a century proportions or the ‘gender-equal’ snow clearing plan?

      It would seem that a reasonable argument could be made that any snow clearing plans effectiveness would have been severely hampered by a once-in-a-century snow event. But I am sure that was top of mind engaging all necessary skeptical faculties while constructing this balanced piece”

      Certainly wouldn’t help. Does that mean you agree with the gender based snow removal then?

      From your own source: ““It’s obvious that it hasn’t worked, and the question is why,” Helldén admitted. “Is it the weather or the procedures which we in the city have put in place?”

      I guess we will find out. Either way, basing snow removal based on sex is stupid.

      Your basic point (you didn’t really address anything I said) is that it was the amount of snowfall that was the issue, but you seem to agree that basing snow removal on sex is okay, and that was my main point. Even if this incident hardn’t happened, basing your snow removal policies on genitalia is madness.

    • This is well said. It looks like this was just a case of anti-feminists waiting to complain. Also reading one of the articles that GC posted it seems that Sweden is simply using feminism in the true sense of the word in that they are prioritizing families and places where large amounts of people work and not necessarily favoring gender.

      In an unusually high volume storm especially one that might not have been well forecast this could paralyze any city. Before criticizing this plan one should be waiting for more data. By just using one case to denigrate the plan, it is tantamount to saying prayer works because one person prayed and got what they wanted. One data point does not a conclusion make. 🙂

      • “Also reading one of the articles that GC posted it seems that Sweden is simply using feminism in the true sense of the word in that they are prioritizing families and places where large amounts of people work and not necessarily favoring gender.”

        Where did it say this?

        The article I posted that defended the gender snow clearing said this:

        “Gender equal snow-cleaning is not to blame here,” Daniel Helldén, the city’s Green Party transport head told the Expressen newspaper, stressing that the policy, which prioritises cleaning pavements and cycle lanes over roads, did not even appear to have even been followed.

        “There is a lack of gender equal snow-clearing now, according to the reports I’m getting,” he said. “It’s still difficult to walk on the pavements — and it is important that snow-clearing prioritises walkways, public transport and cycle paths.”

        It says it favors cycle lanes and sidewalks over roads.

        Below that: “Men are statistically more likely to be drivers, while women are more likely to use pavements, cycle paths, and public transport.”

        Why would you base snow clearing on gender? Why wouldn’t you base it solely on where the most traffic is? In other words on where people are, regardless of whether that is male or female?

  2. Interesting report. I was especially interested in the to and fro with Ruth.

    My initial reaction was that this was another case of those SJW madness.

    Though it does cause me some pause that the news sources cited seem to be those who have an agenda to push.

    Leaving aside gender, anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that in any transport system the main roads need to be given priority.

    • A significant start to that endeavor might be to take such articles with a healthy dose of skepticism. I already pointed out the Breibart source as a HUGE red flag, that all the other stories come not from legitimate news sources but social media and blogs. This is also a HUGE red flag an d exactly the way fake news makes its disruptive impact.

      Living in reality is excellent advice. Carrying on from a post factual beginning – presuming the framing of the issue is correct by well known biased sources like this one – is hardly auspicious and certainly doesn’t follow but is in opposition to the very advice you give here.

      Smarten up.

      Stop feeding your bias and start looking to the facts, to good source material, source material that is better informed than the scribbling of well known enemies of what’s true, before jumping on the band wagon to vilify what your bias produces in spades: anti-enlightenment gullibility. Stop trusting your biased beliefs about reality and start letting reality arbitrate your beliefs about it. God forbid, that means YOU have to think and stop your urge to swallow this kind of underhanded framing.

      • “I already pointed out the Breibart source as a HUGE red flag”

        It was Heat Street. Not Breitbart. And Ruth looked up the Green Party which said the same thing as the article.

        “Stop feeding your bias and start looking to the facts, to good source material, source material that is better informed than the scribbling of well known enemies of what’s true”

        Translation: Only look at super Liberal feminist material that reinforces my bias. Ignore the actual Swedish news sources (linked in the article) and anything that might say anything about the serious problem of this ideology pushing for special treatment, like we saw in Canada.

        “God forbid, that means YOU have to think and stop your urge to swallow this kind of underhanded framing.”

        Ron strikes me as a thoughtful person. The only thing you’ve said here is that you don’t trust the source, any of the sources Ruth provided or the multiple links I provided, including ones that support the gender snow removal. You haven’t actually addressed the issue at all, and basically said you could only find the Breitbart source when you Goggle searched it.

        I mean, come on. That’s all you could find?

        I can type it in and find multiple sources.

        • That’s why I asked straight up if you honestly thought it made sense for a city to remove snow on the basis of gender preference. Seriously, GC: does that make sense to you? How would you even go about using this gender basis alone… census? Men and women tend to live in mixed states.

          It doesn’t make sense to me. In fact, it’s absurd. But that’s the way it’s being framed: gender based snow removal. It’s the FRAMING that slides perfectly into the Breibert style of creating fake news and artificially coming up with criticisms against anything that isn’t white, male, and Nazi. Because Breibert carried the story with this framing – just like you – you bet your ass I’m going to question its validity. That’s why the lack of any legitimate news sources matters here. No amount of blogging and social media links – from the US OR Sweden – matter a tinker’s damn – including Heat Street – when the framing of the issue is so patently absurd.

          If the city actually did try a different approach to its snow removal – and cities do this for various reasons all the time – then problems associated with a once in a century storm is hardly a reasonable standard upon which to measure it. It’s not reasonable to suggest that gender caused the problem, GC. That’s your take-away. And that’s my point: you’ve swallowed the misogynist framing hook, line, and sinker that appeals so much to the Breibert readership… and that alone should cause you to re-evaluate what it is you’re actually doing: vilifying gender considerations in social policies – rather than use reasonable skepticism about the framing we find here.

          And if you’ve followed Ron’s knee-jerk defense of Trump wholly on the basis of vilifying Clinton, you’d know that he’s not reasonable and not thoughtful when it comes to his own beliefs. In fact, he uses the identical reasoning of a climate change denier, the same as a dyed in the wool creationist. He believes… and therefore post factual considerations are paramount to him.

          • ” It’s not reasonable to suggest that gender caused the problem, GC.”

            I already said it remains to be seen. This wasn’t my main point though. My main point was you shouldn’t be basing snow removal on sex in the first place!

            “appeals so much to the Breibert readership… and that alone should cause you to re-evaluate what it is you’re actually doing”

            I have never even read Breitbart.

            But let’s use Huffington Post. They’re definetely biased, but that doesn’t mean every story they print is incorrect, which is why I provided several sources.

            Just because something is conservative or liberal, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

            Basing snow removal on sex is absurd, sexist and totally insane. Whether the snowfall was the real issue or not, that fact doesn’t change.

            • It’s my understanding that the policy was aimed to to make pedestrian traffic – rather than vehicular traffic – the priority. The problem is that the contracting they ordered did a piss poor job at this – they cleared but didn’t sand – and the number of slips and falls requiring medical attention rose significantly while traffic flow became choked and made getting this aid even more difficult. This priority shift is the issue, whether pedestrian traffic should take priority over vehicles. According to this experiment, it was a disaster.

              Fine. Live and learn.

              The gender framing for its attempt, however, simply doesn’t make sense except as a scapegoat. Whether more men or women use the cycling paths and sidewalks is not just irrelevant but impossible to rank… although it sure is politically handy to claim this to be the reason for the failed experiment. Obviously, gender has nothing to do with it except as a handy means to shift blame. It’s an absurd reason… one that I think deserves our highest skepticism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s