Bafflement ensues upon noticing how younger (16-39) people don't want to work anymore, with many citing 'mental' problems--this is, in a nutshell, what socialism does to rich societies
25% of working Canadians are now on "disability"(mental) .I hear stories from business owners -after training a young person-within 3 months the trainee wants the employer to sign papers for "stress leave.'' Making working people Oblomovs-plays into the New World Order of able bodied workers dependant on Gov assistance.Thus inhibiting their independence.
'My' students are like that, too. I can't remember having heard much about one's mental health until a few years ago; now it's like every second student.
The Netherlands also has a massive workforce problem (and a resulting unfilled job opening tsunami), but the cause has been mostly diagnosed as wage depression (caused by mass migration, but this aspect is of course a taboo topic) combined with very comfortable social security/unemployment benefits, such that it makes no sense to apply for a job when one can live off benefits indefinitely.
Well that was weird. Got asked to sign in, then Substack recommended my own account to my own account and asked if I'd like to follow it.
Anyway.
About all such figures from Sweden: as you certainly know, they do not differentiate when it comes to origin. A norwegian woman living in Sweden would appear as "swedish" in the data you quote, so the sexual harassment rate is certainly - ahem - skewed.
Especially as the refuse to release demographic and geographic data re: police reports where the origin of suspect and victim can be gleaned from names, SS-number, and such.
Remember, this is the nation where three arabs with swedish citizenship can be arrested in Spain, and the media will say "three swedes"...
'Got asked to sign in, then Substack recommended my own account to my own account and asked if I'd like to follow it.'--Odd, but every now and then, this happens to me, too. On X/Twitter, too, but I suspect it's because of…whatever, perhaps someone clicking on 'report this person to the thought-police'.
Re the harassment: I only took Sweden as a proxy to illustrate the insanity of the 'argument' advanced by the chief medical officer of NAV: I don't know what the data is based on, and, yes, 81% is quite high, isn't it? That would indicate that, roughly, every woman in Sweden 16 and older is harassed (at least one? frequently? daily?), or something like that.
Perhaps I should enquire about the data input of this 'website of the EU'...
'Remember, this is the nation where three arabs with swedish citizenship can be arrested in Spain, and the media will say "three swedes"...' Well, given the noticeable increase of gunshots in Oslo last week, I suppose that sentiment holds true for Norway, too. It certainly does for the shooter outside the Israeli consulate in Munich, Germany, last week.
Part is allowing men with no respect for women or human decency in general to settle here, part is the legal definition of sexual harassment.
"I would like to have sex with you" said to a woman at a nightclub may constitute sexual harassment, even if there's no coercion, threatening manner, or grabby hands involved.
Notice I say woman. A man reporting a colleague for "rubbing up" against him in a suggestive manner - i.e. grinding her nethers against his crotch - will get his complaint deposited in the wastebin within hours.
Using far too generalist definitions is a very real problem with a lot of our social data nowadays, despite the raw data to make detailed accounts from is there.
As for gangers in Norway and Denmark: there's been a huge influx the past three-four years of "swedes" establishing their clans there, and starting to try and out-fight the local criminals. But as the danish and norwegian leadership are just as WEF-Woke-Bilderberg-USAenslaved as ours, the notion of establishing border controls where they stop and search "swedes" but not swedes. . . about as likely as von der Leyen to make public all records re: "vaccines".
When I was in 5th grade (that's age 11-12 in Serbia), I was groped by the boys in my class on a more or less daily basis. All the boys in my class did it. Even the one who was otherwise so polite that he stood out like a sore thumb in our class (he did it less than the others, but he still did it). I wasn't special. As far as I can tell, they did it to all the girls. And then, they miraculously stopped. In 6th grade, it was no longer a thing.
Yes, I would call this sort of thing sexual harassment. Honest question: do Swedish boys behave this way? (I don't mean an occasional badly behaved Swedish boy. I mean the typical Swedish boy.) How about Austrian ones?
ETA: I am genuinely curious! See, my mental model of the male brain is that something terrible happens to it at age 11-ish, goes away a year later, except for the occasional pervert who remains that way for life. Therefore, if you have a daughter, it's not a bad idea to put her in a girls' school around that age, while the boys get the brutishness out of their system. But what do I know, maybe it was only a pathology of that time and place, and is not universal to boys everywhere.
A swedish boy behaving like that today would get sent to Youth Psychiatry Unit, if it was a repeated offence. He would also face fines and a report to SS and CPS units.
The exact response would wary with the severity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it - if he is under 15, he cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution (though he can be fined, and the parents would be liable), and the matter is handled by CPS. If he is over 15, he can receive anything from a fine and community service, to imprisonment in a youth facility (the latter being reserved for actual rape and such).
Theoretically, he could be sent to a psychiatric care facility: if done so by order of a court of law, stay can be indefinite and undefined with no appeal. But that's so rare I can't think of a single case right now.
However, when I was in 5th (age 10-11 here back then), a boy groping and grabbing and other stuff like that would most probably have been beaten up by his friends. I recall one such instance, though it was in grade 8 - that boy, from my class, had been shoving his hands up under the shirt of a girl at a school dance, and had tried to pull into a shrubbery on the school grounds.
He got a solid beating. Nose broken, face rubbed into the dirt, whipped with a belt, that kind of thing. When he came back to school, his father had given him two black eyes too.
In mom's youth, the taboo against forcing yourself on a woman was so strong it could lead to the offender needing to be sent to the ICU.
However, there's a huge caveat or three to all this:
One: it pertains to swedish men and women, not migrants of any kind.
Two: if drunk, people are liable to be verbally abusive when spurned or scorned - goes for both sexes.
Three: women are expected to cry out if harassed, not to keep silent.
Four: women are not expected to lead a man on (I'm talking obvious "I want to have sex"-kind of signals, not just saying "Hello") and the shut him down; in essence, she is not supposed to use her protected status to mess with men trying to woo her*.
Five: the law does not make any difference between the sexes, though in practice police and courts do. When I have reported female colleagues for harassment, it went nowhere. I do not appreciate, at age 20-something, having a woman in her fifties trying to cradle my scrotal sack from behind. And since it was a woman, "elbow to the face" wasn't an option either.
I've included all this to try and give you some idea of both praxis, law, and cultural attitudes since they all mix together in what is often - to anyone not present when it happens - hard to adjudicate or prove.
Sadly, girls also harass each other in sexually suggestive ways by spreading malicious gossip. Often, the leader bitch will tell her coterie to spread the rumour that a certain other girl is "easy", to try and get the bad boys to go after that girl, creating a self-fulfilling spiral.
Speaking as a teacher, sexual harassment among students is an issue that you never - ever - handles alone; a student having been harassed is very vulnerable and may in a fragile state misinterpret concern for attention and cry foul out of fear. Hence, you never adress the issue alone (doesn't mean it's dealt with in public of course). Not taking accusations of such harassment seriously and reporting them to proper authorities is cause for termination, may be cause for having your license to teach revoked and may at the extreme end even result in criminal prosecution.
Interesting! I guess my mental model of the male brain was wrong. It really was incredibly weird, though. 5th grade: ALL the boys in my class, every single one, behaved like this. 6th grade: not a single one did (at least not to me, and I don't recall seeing them behave that way toward the other girls, either). Who knows what it was. Some sort of bizarre psychic contagion.
Could well be - if the leader boy starts and gets his crew to join in, and no adults puts them down hard and public, the "normal" reaction would be to take it as granted that the behaviour is allowed.
Why they stopped could be as simple as an older brother or father or uncle of a harassed girl talking to the father of the leader boy, and explain what's likely to happen unless it stops.
About putting children in child care from a very young age: true, it weakens family bonds, but I suspect it strengthens national/cultural bonds. (And I hear that Scandinavian daycare centers are of very high quality.) Remember, *you* are the immigrant, and the burden is on you to adapt. Your children being assimilated into their culture is part of it. As a voluntary (i.e. non-refugee) immigrant, you do, of course, have the option of packing up and leaving at any time if you don't like it.
I would offer the following counter-argument: nationalism was much stronger in the late 19th and early 20th century prior to both feminism™ and the sexual revolution; I'm not saying your argument doesn't fly, I'm just pointing out that it seems to depend more on the content that's disseminated (propagated) in schools, as opposed to merely being 'there'.
'Remember, *you* are the immigrant, and the burden is on you to adapt. Your children being assimilated into their culture is part of it.'--That is, of course true, and I assure that there's immigrants and then there's immigrants. My entire family speaks Norwegian, and, yes, certain aspects of a new country must be considered to be incorporated into daily routines, and the processes and dynamics of assimilation, well, I can only recommend E.A. Ross, The Old World in the New (1914) to indicate how (fast) things change:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924021182898 (it's a good read, too, so: please read it--in light of the virtual complete stop on mass immigration enacted in the wake of WW1, mainly to 'digest' all the various immigrants who came before).
Culture is not simply nationalism, and in fact, nationalism is not part of all cultures. Culture is a collective way of living that varies from one large-ish group of humans to another. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on Scandinavia (let alone Norway), but my understanding is that it's a sort of egalitarian individualism, with the individual given a lot of autonomy with respect to the family, but expected to conform to the community as a whole and to the state. Meanwhile, the state offers generous support to individuals, in return for high taxes. High quality childcare from a young age would seem to promote something like that. And that's "culture," regardless of whether or not they sing patriotic songs or what have you. That's not to say it has no downsides, but all the alternatives have downsides of their own. As Thomas Sowell said: "There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs." Culture is, in part, a choice of tradeoffs at a collective level. And yes, of course, different cultures choose different tradeoffs. Immigrating, especially with children in tow, means having to conform to your host country's choice of tradeoffs. Either that, or leave, which any voluntary (i.e. non-refugee) immigrant who has committed no crime may to do at any time.
And yes, having children means more pressure in this regard. Adult immigrants never fully integrate (though some obviously do so to a greater extent than others), and they are not expected to. A childless adult immigrant (such as myself) is under far less pressure: contribute more to the state coffers than you consume, commit no crime, learn the language, and you're basically good to go, the main risk being social isolation, which is your own personal problem. Children are a very different matter, both in the sense that they can, in principle, fully integrate (yes, your children might just become real Norwegians, and not just in terms of their passport), and because failing to do so can turn into a really massive headache for the host state and culture. People who immigrated voluntarily know why they did so. Even if they don't like certain aspects of the culture/country, they've made the conscious choice of moving to the new country, and then they made - and continued to make - the choice of staying, rather than packing their bags and going back to where they came from (which is, indeed, always an option). Not so with children, who never made any such choice. If they don't become properly acculturated, anger and all that stems from it is very likely.
Thanks for the book tip. Maybe I'll get to it, though I already have a large stack of books waiting to be read, and who knows how long that'll take me...
25% of working Canadians are now on "disability"(mental) .I hear stories from business owners -after training a young person-within 3 months the trainee wants the employer to sign papers for "stress leave.'' Making working people Oblomovs-plays into the New World Order of able bodied workers dependant on Gov assistance.Thus inhibiting their independence.
'My' students are like that, too. I can't remember having heard much about one's mental health until a few years ago; now it's like every second student.
The Netherlands also has a massive workforce problem (and a resulting unfilled job opening tsunami), but the cause has been mostly diagnosed as wage depression (caused by mass migration, but this aspect is of course a taboo topic) combined with very comfortable social security/unemployment benefits, such that it makes no sense to apply for a job when one can live off benefits indefinitely.
Same in Austria, too: if the hand-outs are that big, why bother getting up and work?
Well that was weird. Got asked to sign in, then Substack recommended my own account to my own account and asked if I'd like to follow it.
Anyway.
About all such figures from Sweden: as you certainly know, they do not differentiate when it comes to origin. A norwegian woman living in Sweden would appear as "swedish" in the data you quote, so the sexual harassment rate is certainly - ahem - skewed.
Especially as the refuse to release demographic and geographic data re: police reports where the origin of suspect and victim can be gleaned from names, SS-number, and such.
Remember, this is the nation where three arabs with swedish citizenship can be arrested in Spain, and the media will say "three swedes"...
'Got asked to sign in, then Substack recommended my own account to my own account and asked if I'd like to follow it.'--Odd, but every now and then, this happens to me, too. On X/Twitter, too, but I suspect it's because of…whatever, perhaps someone clicking on 'report this person to the thought-police'.
Re the harassment: I only took Sweden as a proxy to illustrate the insanity of the 'argument' advanced by the chief medical officer of NAV: I don't know what the data is based on, and, yes, 81% is quite high, isn't it? That would indicate that, roughly, every woman in Sweden 16 and older is harassed (at least one? frequently? daily?), or something like that.
Perhaps I should enquire about the data input of this 'website of the EU'...
'Remember, this is the nation where three arabs with swedish citizenship can be arrested in Spain, and the media will say "three swedes"...' Well, given the noticeable increase of gunshots in Oslo last week, I suppose that sentiment holds true for Norway, too. It certainly does for the shooter outside the Israeli consulate in Munich, Germany, last week.
Part is allowing men with no respect for women or human decency in general to settle here, part is the legal definition of sexual harassment.
"I would like to have sex with you" said to a woman at a nightclub may constitute sexual harassment, even if there's no coercion, threatening manner, or grabby hands involved.
Notice I say woman. A man reporting a colleague for "rubbing up" against him in a suggestive manner - i.e. grinding her nethers against his crotch - will get his complaint deposited in the wastebin within hours.
Using far too generalist definitions is a very real problem with a lot of our social data nowadays, despite the raw data to make detailed accounts from is there.
As for gangers in Norway and Denmark: there's been a huge influx the past three-four years of "swedes" establishing their clans there, and starting to try and out-fight the local criminals. But as the danish and norwegian leadership are just as WEF-Woke-Bilderberg-USAenslaved as ours, the notion of establishing border controls where they stop and search "swedes" but not swedes. . . about as likely as von der Leyen to make public all records re: "vaccines".
When I was in 5th grade (that's age 11-12 in Serbia), I was groped by the boys in my class on a more or less daily basis. All the boys in my class did it. Even the one who was otherwise so polite that he stood out like a sore thumb in our class (he did it less than the others, but he still did it). I wasn't special. As far as I can tell, they did it to all the girls. And then, they miraculously stopped. In 6th grade, it was no longer a thing.
Yes, I would call this sort of thing sexual harassment. Honest question: do Swedish boys behave this way? (I don't mean an occasional badly behaved Swedish boy. I mean the typical Swedish boy.) How about Austrian ones?
ETA: I am genuinely curious! See, my mental model of the male brain is that something terrible happens to it at age 11-ish, goes away a year later, except for the occasional pervert who remains that way for life. Therefore, if you have a daughter, it's not a bad idea to put her in a girls' school around that age, while the boys get the brutishness out of their system. But what do I know, maybe it was only a pathology of that time and place, and is not universal to boys everywhere.
A swedish boy behaving like that today would get sent to Youth Psychiatry Unit, if it was a repeated offence. He would also face fines and a report to SS and CPS units.
The exact response would wary with the severity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it - if he is under 15, he cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution (though he can be fined, and the parents would be liable), and the matter is handled by CPS. If he is over 15, he can receive anything from a fine and community service, to imprisonment in a youth facility (the latter being reserved for actual rape and such).
Theoretically, he could be sent to a psychiatric care facility: if done so by order of a court of law, stay can be indefinite and undefined with no appeal. But that's so rare I can't think of a single case right now.
However, when I was in 5th (age 10-11 here back then), a boy groping and grabbing and other stuff like that would most probably have been beaten up by his friends. I recall one such instance, though it was in grade 8 - that boy, from my class, had been shoving his hands up under the shirt of a girl at a school dance, and had tried to pull into a shrubbery on the school grounds.
He got a solid beating. Nose broken, face rubbed into the dirt, whipped with a belt, that kind of thing. When he came back to school, his father had given him two black eyes too.
In mom's youth, the taboo against forcing yourself on a woman was so strong it could lead to the offender needing to be sent to the ICU.
However, there's a huge caveat or three to all this:
One: it pertains to swedish men and women, not migrants of any kind.
Two: if drunk, people are liable to be verbally abusive when spurned or scorned - goes for both sexes.
Three: women are expected to cry out if harassed, not to keep silent.
Four: women are not expected to lead a man on (I'm talking obvious "I want to have sex"-kind of signals, not just saying "Hello") and the shut him down; in essence, she is not supposed to use her protected status to mess with men trying to woo her*.
Five: the law does not make any difference between the sexes, though in practice police and courts do. When I have reported female colleagues for harassment, it went nowhere. I do not appreciate, at age 20-something, having a woman in her fifties trying to cradle my scrotal sack from behind. And since it was a woman, "elbow to the face" wasn't an option either.
I've included all this to try and give you some idea of both praxis, law, and cultural attitudes since they all mix together in what is often - to anyone not present when it happens - hard to adjudicate or prove.
Sadly, girls also harass each other in sexually suggestive ways by spreading malicious gossip. Often, the leader bitch will tell her coterie to spread the rumour that a certain other girl is "easy", to try and get the bad boys to go after that girl, creating a self-fulfilling spiral.
Speaking as a teacher, sexual harassment among students is an issue that you never - ever - handles alone; a student having been harassed is very vulnerable and may in a fragile state misinterpret concern for attention and cry foul out of fear. Hence, you never adress the issue alone (doesn't mean it's dealt with in public of course). Not taking accusations of such harassment seriously and reporting them to proper authorities is cause for termination, may be cause for having your license to teach revoked and may at the extreme end even result in criminal prosecution.
Interesting! I guess my mental model of the male brain was wrong. It really was incredibly weird, though. 5th grade: ALL the boys in my class, every single one, behaved like this. 6th grade: not a single one did (at least not to me, and I don't recall seeing them behave that way toward the other girls, either). Who knows what it was. Some sort of bizarre psychic contagion.
Could well be - if the leader boy starts and gets his crew to join in, and no adults puts them down hard and public, the "normal" reaction would be to take it as granted that the behaviour is allowed.
Why they stopped could be as simple as an older brother or father or uncle of a harassed girl talking to the father of the leader boy, and explain what's likely to happen unless it stops.
About putting children in child care from a very young age: true, it weakens family bonds, but I suspect it strengthens national/cultural bonds. (And I hear that Scandinavian daycare centers are of very high quality.) Remember, *you* are the immigrant, and the burden is on you to adapt. Your children being assimilated into their culture is part of it. As a voluntary (i.e. non-refugee) immigrant, you do, of course, have the option of packing up and leaving at any time if you don't like it.
I would offer the following counter-argument: nationalism was much stronger in the late 19th and early 20th century prior to both feminism™ and the sexual revolution; I'm not saying your argument doesn't fly, I'm just pointing out that it seems to depend more on the content that's disseminated (propagated) in schools, as opposed to merely being 'there'.
'Remember, *you* are the immigrant, and the burden is on you to adapt. Your children being assimilated into their culture is part of it.'--That is, of course true, and I assure that there's immigrants and then there's immigrants. My entire family speaks Norwegian, and, yes, certain aspects of a new country must be considered to be incorporated into daily routines, and the processes and dynamics of assimilation, well, I can only recommend E.A. Ross, The Old World in the New (1914) to indicate how (fast) things change:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924021182898 (it's a good read, too, so: please read it--in light of the virtual complete stop on mass immigration enacted in the wake of WW1, mainly to 'digest' all the various immigrants who came before).
Culture is not simply nationalism, and in fact, nationalism is not part of all cultures. Culture is a collective way of living that varies from one large-ish group of humans to another. I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on Scandinavia (let alone Norway), but my understanding is that it's a sort of egalitarian individualism, with the individual given a lot of autonomy with respect to the family, but expected to conform to the community as a whole and to the state. Meanwhile, the state offers generous support to individuals, in return for high taxes. High quality childcare from a young age would seem to promote something like that. And that's "culture," regardless of whether or not they sing patriotic songs or what have you. That's not to say it has no downsides, but all the alternatives have downsides of their own. As Thomas Sowell said: "There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs." Culture is, in part, a choice of tradeoffs at a collective level. And yes, of course, different cultures choose different tradeoffs. Immigrating, especially with children in tow, means having to conform to your host country's choice of tradeoffs. Either that, or leave, which any voluntary (i.e. non-refugee) immigrant who has committed no crime may to do at any time.
And yes, having children means more pressure in this regard. Adult immigrants never fully integrate (though some obviously do so to a greater extent than others), and they are not expected to. A childless adult immigrant (such as myself) is under far less pressure: contribute more to the state coffers than you consume, commit no crime, learn the language, and you're basically good to go, the main risk being social isolation, which is your own personal problem. Children are a very different matter, both in the sense that they can, in principle, fully integrate (yes, your children might just become real Norwegians, and not just in terms of their passport), and because failing to do so can turn into a really massive headache for the host state and culture. People who immigrated voluntarily know why they did so. Even if they don't like certain aspects of the culture/country, they've made the conscious choice of moving to the new country, and then they made - and continued to make - the choice of staying, rather than packing their bags and going back to where they came from (which is, indeed, always an option). Not so with children, who never made any such choice. If they don't become properly acculturated, anger and all that stems from it is very likely.
Thanks for the book tip. Maybe I'll get to it, though I already have a large stack of books waiting to be read, and who knows how long that'll take me...