Gudrun Schyman, former leader of the Left Party and current leader of the Feminist Initiative party, is looking for new and innovative ways to be a buzzkill. No, she’s not going to put 100,000 Swedish Kronas (over $12,000) on fire again because of an alleged pay-gap between men and women. This time, she’s out to put an end to clothing companies using healthy and attractive women in public advertisements.

In an article posted to the Swedish newspaper Metro, Schyman points out how the problem is not just how women are being objectified in ads, but also the fact that the women are “extremely skinny,” and therefore upsetting the feminist masses. She’s also upset that transsexuals and disabled people are not displayed in these ads sufficiently.

Look, I’m all for free speech, but if we’re going to start seeing ads of transsexual midgets posing in bikinis filling the streets I just might start singing a different tune.


They want to replace this with chubby, disabled transsexuals?

While the Feminist Initiative party is not really significant when looking at recent poll results, they certainly get the media spotlight even though they only managed to scrape together just over 3% of the votes in the election last year. Unfortunately, these opinions are not exclusive to this minor party.

The Social Democratic Party, which is the largest party in Sweden, and the Green Party were in unison before the election in 2014 that they too want to ban sexist ads. The Swedish Women’s Lobby, an organization founded on the initiative of the Swedish Government, also want to prohibit such advertisements. These progressive parties and organizations don’t shy away from criticizing and shaming Christian conservatives, but this time Schyman actually gives credit to Rome for taking action by banning sexist ads earlier this year.

While we can all easily see how this is an obvious case of limiting free speech, is it not also a case of limiting the freedom of the women working as models by destroying their livelihood? Schyman seems to only be concerned with the feelings of the unattractive women who feel like they’re oppressed because weighing 300 pounds is not what society deems attractive, and even if that was the case, they would probably complain about being objectified.

Why does she favor women in the second category? My guess is that the demographics of her followers are not fit – they’re fat. Schyman and her ilk only seem to be concerned with the feelings of the unattractive women who are provoked by a public display of a fit, feminine woman with the audacity to promote beauty.


Your body is not a temple, it’s a run-down Detroit house.

The Swedish advertisement researcher Nina Åkestam was quoted by Schyman in the article about her personal experience with seeing fit women wearing bikinis in public advertisements: “The first thing that happens is that I pull in my stomach. It happens automatically, by reflex. (…) Why did I eat that yogurt this morning, why did I slow down my pace at the end of my run?”.

These reactions are identical to that of motivation. You see something that sparks an emotional response that makes you want to work to improve yourself, whether it’s seeing an exotic car that reinforces your motivation to work on your financial situation, or seeing a shredded guy at the gym making you work even harder to attain similar results.

If you recognize that your lifestyle isn’t working and start questioning it, that should be regarded as positive, as it can be the first step toward progress. However, it seems like these progressives ironically don’t want to be bothered with the concept of progress and would much rather be comfortable leading a life of gluttony and escapism by banning things that hurt their feelings.

Economic implications

Coming soon to a magazine cover near you!

Coming soon to a magazine cover near you!

If we’d take a look at what economic impact a ruling like this would have on the Swedish clothing giant H&M, it would be nothing short of a disaster. The H&M stock is the most traded on the Swedish stock exchange, and H&M currently has over 130,000 employees and almost 7,000 of these work in Sweden.

Most of these employees are women, which means this is yet another case of feminists screwing things up not just for men if they decide to destroy this industry. If H&M would become known as the company featuring disfigured buttergolems in their bikini clothing line because of government regulations, no one would want to buy clothes from them anymore. The only option for H&M is to move to a different country, which would basically be economic suicide by the Swedish government.

One interesting thing to note is that Veronica Palm from the Social Democratic Party pointed out that nine out of ten young women saw something wrong with their bodies while looking at these advertisements and felt like they had to change something about their appearance.

God forbid that girls receive a spark of inspiration and motivation to improve themselves – let’s instead further the degeneracy of young women by applauding hamplanets such as Lena Dunham, Meghan Trainor, or Tess Holliday! When you try to encourage a positive change for women not just aesthetically but also in terms of health, it’s offensive and should be outright banned.

Upholding individuals who have let themselves go and live unhealthy lives is recognized as a noble and virtuous act. What I find most compelling about the manosphere is without question the focus on personal growth, and it’s ironic how feminists and the manosphere are such polar opposites in this instance. To be fair though, feminists do promote women who have had their fair share of growth as well.

Read More: The Final Verdict On Swedish Girls

Send this to a friend