International reporters have commented on the Feminist Initiative (FI) in Sweden. Gudrun Schyman, the former leader of The Left political party that shares power with the Social Democratic government, announced last week that she expects FI to establish itself as a new political party set to run in the next election.

One of the stated purposes of FI is to stimulate debate and discussion on feminism. The effect may have been stronger than expected. Discussion and debate is in fact taking place, so much so that the glass barrier against criticizing feminist beliefs has been broken.

It started out in the usual way. A line-up of self-absorbed man-haters yakked away while a few timid "opponents" tried to search for reason and compromise where none exists. A lone fathers' rights advocate pointed out that violence by women against men is just as common as the reverse and that the high statistics feminists quote regarding violence against women include mostly false allegations made during divorce proceedings. The man-haters responded in an angry huff. They "know" that all evil in the world is caused by men. Women are victims. Men should pay a special tax just for being men. (related article on the man-tax)

Political repercussions tilted the same way. Fearing loss of votes to FI, the Social Democrats have been tripping over themselves in competition for the party of women image. At one point, the prime minister announced that he would consider legislation to force husbands to do more housework.

But a new seed had been sewn. The plan was to insist - to demand that more men join in their struggle. One man asked, "What do you want us to do?" When the answer seemed to be that men should battle against men to eliminate maleness, more questions began to emerge.

The scene really started to unravel when the president of a national organization aimed at providing advice and immediate support to women known as Roks announced that men are animals. The comment was apparently not intended as an elementary biology lesson. It was no longer reasonable to ignore the never-ending hatred of "extreme" elements of feminism.

In a new televised debate, journalists and experienced social commentators seriously questioned entrenched feminists (women who make a living at it) about the beliefs upon which their political and social empires are built. The feminists seemed to babble a bit. They weren't used to facing such a challenge. Under serious questioning they could not defend their propaganda as part of a battle for equal treatment or justice.

In an article in Sunday's Aftonbladet, popular Swedish author and commentator Jan Guillou likened extreme feminism with 17th century witch hunting. Back then, he writes, the belief that women were more disposed to satanic evil was thought to be based on sound scientific evidence. According to "official" Swedish science today, men are more disposed to satanic evil.

In 17th century witch-hunts, the testimony of children played a critical role. In Sweden today, the image of men as satanic animals comes from the testimony of children taken by Uppsala University religious historian Eva Lundgren. In an extension of her "scientific" work, professor Lundgren also asserts that it is in the male nature to abuse women and that all men are guilty. Therefore, the political argument goes, all men are obligated to support the feminist cause financially and to take up the battle against all other men. In the face of a Swedish law against hate speech, male bashing was in, and more feminist legislation (and funding) on the way.

Even with such broad public exposure of the feminist hate cult, Jan Giullou's account is not overly optimistic. He describes typical media support for feminism and does not see a fundamental change in Swedish policy on the horizon. Government funding for Roks has not been questioned for example. Some hope has been created at Uppsala University where it has been decided that Eva Lundgren's "research" should be reviewed. He suggests as well, that she may not be qualified for the professorship in sociology that she now holds.

What is not taken up in Jan Giullou's commentary is the fact that feminism is an international cult. Feminist "research" pops up throughout the world claiming scientific support for the view that all men are evil and all women are victims. The credentials of these researchers, at universities, in government service, and in government supported private organizations, are often suspect.

The message typically arrives in the form of false statistical information about domestic violence. In the 1990s, promoting the "Violence Against Women Act" in the U.S., statistical claims kept going up until nearly every man was an abuser. Feminists testifying before Congress pointed at the members before them and made them out to be suspects. Congressmen understood that their guilt would be implied if they did not acquiesce to feminist demands.

Feminists in the U.S. fought for guaranteed lifetime alimony and lost. They quickly shifted their sites on increasing child support award levels to achieve the same end. It wasn't long before feminist researchers convinced a large portion of the population that all men are predisposed to abandoning their wives and unwilling to support their children. Many tens of billions of dollars have since been spent on child support enforcement with no actual statistical effect. The "scientifically sound belief" they claimed was just another myth.

In the U.S., Australia, and other countries, exposure of the child support myth has not produced policy change. Objective research has been done and perhaps most impressively; the results are in. Unbridled child support enforcement did not yield improvement. But politicians in the states continue to push new enforcement initiatives as though desperate to be perceived as members of the cult anyway. We have learned however, that it isn't the false statistics and goofy analysis of feminist researchers that drives the system. It's the money.

Roger F. Gay