In what way are women's rights different to that of other Western Nations?

Is it easier for anyone to get an abortion done in Sweden than in any other country? Even if they are not a Swede? I heard that they passed a law stating this.

Is it true that in Sweden there are more classifications for what is deemed as rape than in any other country? So what would be considered molestation or just bad behavior in one country would possibly pass as rape in Sweden?

In Sweden do women have more maturity days following child birth than any other country?

In Sweden is the wage gap to men closer than any other country?

Are there more women in Positions of power than in other countries?

Is it true that the F! (Feminist initiative) tried to pass a "Man Tax" (a tax that only men would pay)? If so, why? Is it largely supported in Sweden?

In Sweden, if a man is accused of rape or sexual misconduct, without evidence to support the claim, do most Swedes automatically believe the woman? If the accuser is proven to have lied, does the falsely accused get forgiven do the general public (employers, school boards, peers, folks in general)? Or would this person forever be tarnished by one false accusation?

In Sweden it is socially acceptable for women to classify you as a 'gubbe' (old geezer) just because you want to listen to Steely Dan every once in a while. If that is not the hallmark of an oppressive society I don't know what is.

Yes that is certainly the case, a law from 2005 reclassified rape which means that a lot of crimes that used to be sexual misconduct etc are now considered rape.


Not really, I mean sure one of their founding members floated the idea that one time but they have never had any sort of power to pass anything. And it is not likely this is something they would try if they could, I believe that idea was quickly abandoned. The popular support is, I assume, negligible.



It's difficult to say, certainly people believe in the accuser more often than they used to, but if this means they do more often than not is doubtful. Obviously if the accusation is proven to be false the accused is "forgiven" (weird choice of words), however this very rarely happens, if lets say someone goes to trial and is found not guilty than this doesn't neccessarily mean the accusation was false, only that it cannot be proven well enough for a conviction. I don't think there's a general rule as to what happens after that, certainly there has been some very publicized rape trials where there was a massive uproar of protests after the defendants were found not guilty. This appears to be more pronounced if the defendants are immigrants or second generation immigrants.

Yeah but.. Steely Dan..

This is coming from someone who loves Deep Purple, the Rolling Stones, Queen, Led Zeppelin etc, almost all of the "gubbrock", but Steely Dan? I'd say it's a fair assessment.

You were on such a roll, I kinda hoped you would tell her about our newest law and how it has been discussed here.

What's the newest law?

Why thank you. Honestly I didn't think of it. It's relevant but for now kind of difficult to say what effect, if any, it will have.


It's about consent. Having sex with someone without their consent is now rape. Obviously that used to be the case aswell but now there's an obligation to make sure there is consent. I'm not sure if the law has had any effect yet, or if it will at all, but I suppose it kind of shifts the starting position from "assume everyone wants to have sex with you until they indicate otherwise" to "assume noone wants to have sex with you until they indicate otherwise".

The reasoning behind the law is that a common (and perhaps justified) way to deal with rape accusations is to admit to sex but saying that you assumed the victim was a willing participant. Now it won't be enough to assume that any more. I'm not sure it will make an actual difference though, you can always say there was explicit consent and we're back where we started.

Definiera "indicate".

Det där är väl en myt? Vad jag vet så har Sverige samma definition som t.ex. USA. Det som tidigare i Sverige inte klassades som våldtäkt i Sverige var t.ex. att fingerpulla en sovande tjej; det var ett sexuellt övergrepp men inte våldtäkt. Numera klassas det som våldtäkt, precis som det gör i USA.

Well that's part of the problem isn't it. I can't.

It's worrying to say the least that this law was accepted, despite the harsh critique of the legal counsil.

I'm not familiar with the law you're talking about, unless it is about making all healthcare more easily accessible to non-citizens (or I think specifically people without documentation).

However, in Europe most countries have no restriction on the reasons for abortion, our law is comparable to the vast majority of europe, the exceptions are:

A) countries with a total ban (abortion is illegal even if the life of the mother is at stake): Malta and the Vatican, possibly also other microstates like San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein.

B) countries with restrictions (abortion legal only if the mothers health is at stake, including mental health in NI): Poland, Ireland and Northern Ireland

then there's a handful countries with some restrictions yet you are allowed an abortion for socioeconomic reasons (as well as health obviously), those would be the UK, Cyprus, Finland and Iceland.

All the rest have no restrictions, currently, though Macedonia, Croatia, Italy, Russia and Hungary seem to be moving in a more restrictive direction.