In Norway, a woman costs taxpayers NOK 15.6 million over the course of a lifetime. By comparison, a man costs NOK 3.1 million. This is what Nettavisen told us on 12 August. I note that the article was written by the person who is possibly Nettavisen’s most fearless journalist, Magnus Blaker. I have taken note of the name before. Blaker has published several articles that run counter to the consensus and political correctness, and is possibly Nettavisen’s only remaining anchor on the right.
The article offended so many people (mainly women) that Nettavisen had to publish a follow-up article on 16 August entitled «No reason for it to be interpreted as stigmatising women», written by the equally fearless Erling Holmøy, the man behind the «immigration accounts», who was reassigned by the then left-wing political activist and Director-General of Statistics Norway (SSB), Christine Meyer. Meyer had to step down from her position in the wake of the politically motivated reassignment of Holmøy.
There is no doubt that SSB remains a political tool of the left, but that is not what this article is about. I merely ask readers to bear this in mind every time they see «research» from SSB that supports the left’s political agenda.
What is striking about Nettavisen’s follow-up article is that it is filled with arguments that make it appear natural that women cost the public sector so much more than men. Some of the arguments are understandable, others are not.
For example, childbirth is used as an argument. Naturally, it costs hospitals money when children are born. In the past, women gave birth at home, often with the help only of relatives, and entirely free of charge to the public sector. The fact that childbirth is now attended to by the public sector is no bad thing. It has saved many lives, both mothers’ and children’s. But it is not «natural». On the contrary, it is the result of an enormous investment in women’s health, from which men’s health has not benefited. It is of course true that men cannot give birth. The public sector consequently cannot spend money on men giving birth. Men have a different function, as providers and protectors. Men take the dangerous jobs. But beyond stricter safety measures, there is little public investment in safeguarding men’s health and lives. 97 % of work-related deaths are men. This percentage is fairly stable throughout the West. For every krone spent on combating prostate cancer, eight kroner are spent on combating breast cancer. This is despite the fact that more men die of prostate cancer annually than women do of breast cancer (865 men compared with 644 women in Norway in 2025). Women have for many years been offered mammography screening. Equivalent prostate screening for men is continually postponed, with the argument that «it costs too much».
Another argument in Holmøy’s response to all the offended women is that women live longer and therefore cost more in pension payments. It is true that women live longer, but it is also an (unintended?) admission that men are grossly discriminated against. It is not, in fact, ordained by nature that women live longer. One example is the aforementioned childbirths. Nature has factored in that more women die in childbirth. Until 1920, women and men in Norway lived approximately equally long. But because of the enormous investment in women’s health (which, according to feminists, is never sufficient), women have raced ahead of men in life expectancy. Nor is it acknowledged that because men work more and pay more in tax, it is mainly men who finance women’s long lives.
For those of us who have lived a few years, a picture emerges. It seems as though the whole of society is geared towards making women virtually immortal, and nothing other than a very natural death at a very advanced age is acceptable for women. Women are also to be completely free from violence. Men can fend for themselves. As Bjørn Joachimsen writes in Mannsforum, «when equality becomes special treatment, it comes at the expense of men».
Perhaps this is the explanation for why women cost the public sector five times as much as men?
Personally, I am not provoked by the fact that women cost more than men. What provokes me is the lack of recognition that it is men who pay for the largest slice of the cake we all eat from. Not only are men neglected, they are demonised.
One example is the Ministry of Justice’s argument for why Ukrainian men are no longer offered collective protection. The Ministry states that it «is about Norway’s and Europe’s security». Ukrainian men are therefore supposed to «save Europe» from Putin at the risk of their lives, and consequently cannot be offered safety – in direct contravention of the principles of both the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act and asylum law. Instead of honouring men for their essential contribution to our security, they are punished.
«In the announcement, Minister of Justice Astri Aas-Hansen says that the restrictions (on collective protection, ed.) are intended to ensure that Norway does not receive a disproportionately large share of Ukrainians fleeing», NRK reported in February.
Is this the argument for granting protection only to women? It cannot possibly be legal.
– Several municipalities report pressure on local services and a shortage of housing. We are now taking action to ensure that municipalities are able to help people enter employment and take care of their own families, says Minister of Labour and Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng.
I do not believe for a moment that the arrogant Stenseng, who has been the biggest driving force behind overriding municipalities in order to receive refugees, is suddenly concerned about those same municipalities’ ability to receive refugees. I also believe that the best way to ensure that refugees can «take care of their own families» is to include the father. Refusing men entry is hardly likely to reduce the housing shortage, as I assume that the father lives in the same home as his family. We are talking about Ukrainians here, not Somalis with several wives spread across eight homes, both in Norway and Somalia.
One element of these statements is the lack of a grasp of reality, even from the Ministry of Justice: «it is about Norway’s and Europe’s security». Putin has never threatened Europe, nor Norway. This is, and always has been, a war between Russia and Ukraine. But Europe, including Norway and the EU, is bent on war. An unconfirmed rumour has it that EU bureaucrats have expressed a desire to «reduce the number of right-wing voters», that is, men, by sending them to war. As stated, it is unconfirmed, but personally I do not doubt for a second that the desire for war has such an agenda, among others.
The second is that the Ministry of Justice’s bureaucracy now has a majority of women. It is particularly provocative when women are allowed to deny men access to asylum and, on the contrary, send them to the front. To put it plainly – when it comes to war, in which only men are forced to participate, women should know when to stay out of it and shut up.
The third is precisely the conclusion of the Long-term Perspectives Report (perspektivmeldingen): Women cost more! It is therefore outrageously expensive for Norway to admit only women and children, without also admitting the balancing economic factor that men constitute. For every woman, we must also admit one (working) man. Anything else will cost the public sector dearly. Whether we should receive Ukrainian refugees at all is another debate. But we are doing so now, and then it must be all or none.
The great feminisation
But let us return to the starting point of this article. Holmøy had to write a follow-up article to the Long-term Perspectives Report, in which he attempted to calm readers after Nettavisen had received a great many complaints from offended women. He had to cover up the facts with lies to satisfy the offended. Here comes the familiar quotation, «we live in a world where the intelligent must remain silent so as not to offend the stupid», or something along those lines.
How did we end up here?
The American philosopher Helen Andrews attributes today’s woke society to what she calls «the great feminization». She witnessed, as did the whole world, the woke summer of 2020, when we saw mobs run amok against statues of historical figures they did not like, primarily historical slaveholders, but other historical figures whose opinions did not accord with those of the radical left were also subjected to attempts to erase them from history. Lecturers with the wrong opinions were cancelled left, right and centre.
Woke is not over. It has merely become more subtle than its violent, explosive start in 2020, according to Andrews. She investigated why this exploded precisely in 2020. The summer of 2020 was also the Covid summer, but there was no connection, according to Andrews; they were merely two hurricanes that happened to operate in parallel and in some cases merged.
Andrews instead suspected the feminisation of society as the cause of woke. She examined statistics and found that 2020 was the year in which women became the majority in major institutions such as law schools, among university students and at the New York Times (here in Norway, one might mention, among others, the Norwegian Police University College, which gained a majority of female students at around the same time), either precisely in 2020 or in the final years leading up to it. Suddenly, rational thinking disappeared from these institutions. Feelings became facts («I feel sorry for them, ergo it is morally, socially and politically right to admit thousands of migrants from MENA countries»), and impact assessments and debate became controversial. People coalesced around one-sided groupthink in favour of Covid vaccines, against Israel, against white men, in favour of blind faith in man-made climate change, etc., etc. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish who led the way, but politics and the media were in agreement with the mob. Andrews points out that the same feminine shift was also noticeable precisely in politics and journalism.
Icelandic Íris Erlingsdóttir argues in her article «Feminism and Idiocracy: Iceland as the Canary in the Coal Mine» that the glorification of women’s entry into all institutions is artificial and harmful, and that Iceland is suffering socially and economically under the matriarchy. As Iceland is one of the most progressive countries in the world, the signals from Iceland about what awaits the rest of the West must be taken seriously, hence the title «Iceland as the Canary in the Coal Mine». On woke, she further writes: «It is, in fact, feminine behavioral patterns institutionalized». In other words, woke ideology is the institutionalisation of female behaviour. This means that we will see a marked shift in a feminine direction in how policy is formulated, how education is conducted, how the police operate and how the law is administered in courtrooms, to name a few arenas. We are already seeing these signs.
A macabre and highly topical example of the feminisation of legal practice is the ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, who strangled her three children, the youngest of whom was only eight months old. Outside the courtroom, hundreds of women are «hearting» Clancy. They believe she must be acquitted. The arguments range from postpartum depression to claims that it was the children’s father’s and even the grandparents’ fault (none of them was present during the killings. Clancy even sent the children’s father out on an errand so that she could murder the children in peace). There are dozens, if not hundreds, of videos related to this trial on YouTube. I have myself been active in some of the comments sections, and the support for Clancy is overwhelming. Sympathy for the children is virtually absent among those who support her, of whom I would estimate 95 per cent are women.
These are undoubtedly the same people who believe that abortion up until birth should be legal. Nor do they have any mental barriers against feeling that a mother has the right to kill children who have already been born.
I would argue that it is not men who have been radicalised, but women. Men have stood still. Women have (not all, but as a group) moved further to the left. That is why what was previously conservative and even centrist is today classified as far right.
One might now argue that these women outside the courtroom can simply carry on shouting. The trial is not over, and Lindsay Clancy will receive the punishment she deserves. But can we be sure of that? It is not the first time that the public and the media have influenced the outcome of a trial. Presumably, both the judge and the majority of the jury will be women. A just outcome cannot be guaranteed. What we must fight for is to prevent feelings and misplaced sympathy from gaining a foothold and the opportunity to displace justice. Another glaring example of misplaced sympathy is the support for Gaza.
But back to Andrews and Erlingsdóttir. They do not mince their words. Feminism is not merely one of the causes, but the principal cause, of the social upheavals we see today and against which the right is fighting.
Feminism is spoken of as an E.L.E. (extinction level event) for the West, based on women having children too late and therefore having too few children to sustain Western demographics. Women are told that the most important thing is to realise themselves first. They are also indoctrinated to hate men to such an extent that they opt out of cohabitation, and even friendship with men. Men have now also begun to react to the years-long demonisation of them as a sex, and they are beginning to withdraw from the dating market. The West is therefore caught in a vicious circle in which men and women mutually avoid one another. It is not sustainable for the Western way of life and standard of living, and feminism is to blame.
Andrews argues that the feminisation of society, although celebrated by many, is artificial, driven by social, legal, political and ideological quotas for women. If we remove this artificial engine, development will occur naturally, and the feminisation will most likely be rolled back, according to Andrews. It is not about putting women back in the kitchen, but about everyone having equal opportunities on equal terms. Andrews envisages that women would then continue to dominate in certain areas, while men would reclaim the areas in which they are naturally meant to dominate.
One may support Andrews in this or not. But we cannot ignore the fact that the future of the West depends on confronting and rolling back feminism. Perhaps the movement should therefore become a bigger target than it is today.
Personally, I believe we must classify feminism as the harmful movement that it is. It is not our friend, either men’s or women’s. Do you notice feminist tendencies in a friend or relative? Confront them. Do you notice the same in a politician? Make sure you vote for another party.
