Feminism and Tea

International Women's Day 2011: Women and Democracy

2011-03-08T17:18:00.000Z

Last year on international women's day, I wrote a blog post on what the 8th of March is and what it isn't. I felt that was needed; a surprising amount of people want to congratulate women or bring them gifts or congratulate them for being women. Why this is completely wrong you can read there.

This year I want to focus on something recent, something beautiful, but something still troubling. I wrote a while back on women in Egypt's revolution and how they had been made invisible. Lately, the media has started picking up on the importance of women in the front lines of the revolution, demonstrating side by side with the men, women from different religions, backgrounds, with different stories, but the same goal. Even Naomi Wolf wrote a piece on it for Al Jazeera and it involved no rape apologia (!) even though it was far from original.

As the revolution has spread to Libya and other countries, women are still out there, they are still shouting and they are still fighting for freedom and democracy. These women are very much a part of bringing about a freer and fairer society with the hope of being a part of that as well. I did express my worry in the above blog post on women not being properly included in a reconstruction of an Egyptian society, and I stressed the importance of making sure that they were included in order to guarantee a fully free and equal society. But as it seems, sadly, the women were welcome as long as they were needed to further men's goals and needs, and are today being pushed back to their traditional roles - a pattern that is all too obvious in conflict and upheaval where women are expected to participate or support but later return to their assigned duties when it is all over.

Today, these women are once again braving the streets, in a country where it is estimated that 80% of the women have been sexually harassed and much of it takes place in public places, to demand their rights and recognition for the role that they played in overthrowing the Mubarak regime. As this post is being written, there are reports of harassment and violence targeted against the international women's day protest in Tahrir Square, Cairo. (I will update with a proper news article when I find one.) What is said to have happened is that men have entered the square, harassing women and using violence to stop them from demanding their rights. In essence, it is an anti-feminist, anti-women's rights counter protest. The women have served their purpose - they helped overthrow the regime - now when the men have reached equality and freedom, we can go back to the status quo and continue harassing and oppressing women.

Women for Women are organising an event today called on the bridge standing in solidarity with all the women around the world whose voices are not heard, calling for peace and an end to violence against women. They are standing with the women from Afghanistan who continue being excluded from reconstruction processes; with women from Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where rape is used systematically as a tactic of war and terror; and with all other women trying to make a difference, like the women in Egypt today, and the women in the Ivory Coast, where women have been killed today in a protest.

Today it is international women's day. It is a day when we are supposed to celebrate what we have accomplished in the past in terms of women's civil and political advancement. It is a day to celebrate the present and all the brilliant women and men who work so hard to include women and make their voices heard. And it is a day to try to change the future, to shout to be seen and heard and included. The violence and harassment against women who are simply trying to demand what should be theirs already - respect, autonomy and being heard - is sad.

These events, the violence against women and the violation of their rights of assembly and walking down the streets without being sexually harassed, shows the importance of this day. This day is important, because today, and only today, the spotlight is on the women. Media all over the world are reporting on events, protests and have in depth analysis of women's movements, women's rights and all things women. For years, women in Egypt have not been able to walk the streets safely, as they are not today, but today the world is watching and crying out in sheer horror. These women and their bravery have always been beautiful, but today it is visible too. Today, these kinds of events are allowed to be seen and heard and discussed.

It has been 100 years since international women's day was established. We have done a lot of fantastic things but, as today's events show, where women are not even allowed to protest for their rights, we still have a long way to go. Don't quit just yet.

Tory MSP: Rape Survivor Has Herself to Blame

2011-02-13T19:50:00.000Z

I think this will be my first post commenting on Scottish politics, but I thought this very relevant to bring to people's attention as the Scottish election is coming up in May.

The F Word UK reports how Bill Aitken, MSP has implied that a woman who was raped on Renfrew Lane here in Glasgow might have been a hooker because

“Somebody should be asking her what she was doing in Renfrew Lane. Did she go there with somebody? … Now, Renfrew Lane is known as a place where things happen, put it that way.”

This is a completely outrageous statement! What does the woman's line of work have anything to do with rape? Can she not be raped because she allegedly sells sex? If it is true, and the woman is a sex worker, it doesn't matter. Sex workers deserve the same access to rights and protection as people who are teachers or bus drivers or politicians or unemployed or whatever. They are people, and they have rights. The views of people like Bill Aitken are downright dangerous to the well-being of these people and feed into a wider stigmatisation of sex workers where it is seen to be acceptable to rape, abuse and treat them however one likes.

Furthermore, what is really problematic, apart from the obvious victim blaming that the F Word UK have already pointed out, is his view of who can and cannot be raped. Not only is there an implicit assumption that sex workers can't be raped because they voluntarily (although, not always voluntarily as Bill Aitken should know) sell sexual services, is the obvious moral assumptions on the part of Aitken. By stating that the woman a) was in the wrong part of the town at the wrong time of night, she must b) be a sex worker or something like it, he is stating that only certain women can be raped. In his view, it seems, a virtuous woman would not be seen in Renfrew Lane or thereabouts at certain points of the day; thus, this woman must be morally inferior or corrupt in some kind of way. (That sex workers should be morally inferior or corrupt is, to begin with, a stupid assumption). In Bill Aitken's world, good people do not get raped. This, in itself, gives rise to very interesting questions on how he would take it if someone he viewed as "good" actually was raped. Either they must be inherently evil or the rape would not have taken place; or they have not been raped and are either exaggerating some sort of consensual sex or they are lying, which would make them liars instead. This is such a backward way of thinking it does not belong in the 21st century.

What is even more outrageous is that this man sits on the justice committee that helped formulate the policy on rape! This man, who wants to blame the rape survivors for putting themselves at risk of rape, is actually forming policies on the matter. I suspect it shall not be long until he issues another statement saying that the most efficient way to prohibit rape is to put all women (because in Aitken's world, I suspect only women can be raped) in a cage and throw the key away. After all, in that case women cannot walk on the streets where they might get raped. But we have to remember that we cannot put this cage in someone's home, because as Aitken might know (but have forgotten) the majority of rapes happen in the home or by someone already familiar to the survivor. Uh oh, would not this make it even worse for women who are now caged up for the familiar men (in worlds like Aitken's, men are perpetrators and women are victims) to use at their whim?

I suppose, then, that Aitken has come up with the golden middle-way in this scenario. Because women cannot safely be protected, in the case of rape, we shall just blame them. Because we all know that women incite men to sexual violence, and especially sex workers who flaunt their genitalia and their sexuality. Because as we all know also, if you have agreed to sex one time, your consent is indefinite - the person is yours for the taking.

What Bill Aitken is managing to do through his statements is placing the responsibility of rape onto the survivors and every single potential victim. He is also implying that if you are raped, you are a slut, and therefore you provoked the act of rape.

People like these should not be close to power. Other people that should not be close to power are people like Annabel Goldie, leader of Scottish Conservatives, who refused to condemn Aitken for his statements. It is people like these who make the streets less safe because they feed into a culture where the responsibility lies with the victim, and the perpetrator walks free from it. It is not outright encouraging of rape, but it is pretty damn near.

The Average Human and Changing the World: What We Can Learn from Egypt

2011-02-12T22:31:00.000Z

If you have missed what has been happening in Egypt for the past three weeks, you must have had your head buried in the sand. The people of Egypt followed suit from the people of Tunisia and overthrew the man who had been oppressing them for 30 years. It was a revolution organised by the people and made possible by the people who for 17 days refused to give in before the man and his collaborators stepped down and handed over the power to the people.

Similar protests have occurred throughout the Arab world, with the most recent being Yemen and Algeria. Jordan recently had its government fired by the king (see Guardian article on Algeria) and there have been rumours of unrest in Iran. Added to this the Iraqi Prime Minister promising three years before the next election not to run for a third term. This is all because the people of these countries have become fed up with being oppressed, fed up with not having a job to go to, not having enough money and living in fear of having their human rights violated.

This entire process of change and democratisation would not be possible if it weren't for the people. If the people, men, women and third gender people together, adults and children, academics, housewives, manual labourers and unemployed youth, did not come together and shout with one unified voice this would not be possible. It is impressive and it is glorious how these people manage to do that, the resolve they have shown. It is inspiring and it is beautiful.

I think there is definitely a lesson to be learned from this for people living in already democratic societies. In the past few decades, voter turnouts have plummeted and people have started experiencing a political apathy. Democratic participation today is not what it was fifty years ago, and this contributes to a downward spiral. People are disgruntled because the politicians do not do their jobs and therefore do not vote, but politicians cannot do their jobs properly if the public does not clearly state what it wants (usually done through a vote, but arguably more civic republican measures such as citizen panels could be beneficial). It is a vicious circle and it benefits no one, apart from perhaps non-person entities such as corporations, which can creep in in the widening gaps that are growing between citizens and their representatives and insert their policy preferences there. There is little that phase us nowadays, and if one does not have a stated interest in politics, or a certain area of society, then there is usually little patience for politics and the power players.

There has been talk about a decline of political capital, one of the famous authors being Robert Putnam and his book about the decline in the American social capital, Bowling Alone. While I do not agree with some of his theories (let's face it, the man is a little outdated when it comes to his slandering of the internet and its potential), he does have a point in that we are not nearly as good at coming together and discussing politics and the state of society. There is just so much else to occupy our minds: TV, the internet, the million various offers of "fun stuff" that are made available to us every day through advertisements. There is so much amusement out there, and we forget about the politics, we forget about the society and we forget about what part we play in it.

This is why the Arab world can be such an inspiration to us in democratised countries. We got the democracy and many of us became lazy. We expect the world to turn out in a certain way, but we also expect it without clearly stating what we want, how we want it and why we want it. We just expect certain things to exist, and when the flaws show, we complain, which is our right and duty as citizens, but we often do not bother to become involved.

If there is anything the past month in Tunisia and Egypt has shown us it is that we can make a difference. We can become the catalysers for change as long as we organise, we mobilise, and we get the message out there. Things will not happen straight away, and neither did they for the people of Egypt and Tunisia, where discontent had been brewing long before the actual protests took place. It seems strange that, in a democracy where we have so many more channels of expression than non-democracies, we would not make use of these and try to express our thoughts and feelings about politics and society. Some have done it, and some have made headway, such as the feminist online movement through, among others, Sady Doyle at Tigerbeatdown with the campaigns #DearJohn (about the proposed legislation in the US House of Representatives that will effectively stop a lot of aid to women who need abortions) and #MooreandMe (when Michael Moore gave into conspiracy theories and told people to never, ever believe someone who accused someone Moore likes of rape).

We need more of this! We need more of people who want to stick their noses out, who will come out and say "Hey! This is wrong because such and such and such." We need more civic participation and less whinging and whining. Keep on pointing out things you disagree with, but do something about it, even if it is just to invent your own twitter hashtag for it, as in the case of Tigerbeatdown.

These Arab revolutions should inspire us and they should make us want to act. Yes, we have democracy, but no, everything is not great, there are always things to be done to improve things. So look at the videos in this Al Jazeera article and feel inspired. It is never a waste of time standing up for something you believe in.

Books mentioned in this post:

The Whole Woman by Germaine Greer

2011-02-09T20:41:00.002Z

Before I opened this book, I went to Amazon to read the reviews of the book in order to get some kind of inkling what this book was all about and what Germaine Greer, a person I've never read before, could possibly say in it. As I have said, there is no one feminism, but several feminisms and one feminist writer does not represent them all, so I wanted to know what kind of feminism I was going to encounter in this book. The reviews were interesting, it was everything from the types where Greer is claimed to have completely changed someone's world to accusing her of hating all but homosexual women. Both are quite expected when dealing with feminism, but I was happy to see that it was a provocative book as these usually make for interesting reading. I was not disappointed.

The book is structured in four sections called "body," "mind," "love," and "power," each section dealing with topics that, not so surprisingly fall under those headings. I shall structure my thinking according to these sections below in order to get some kind of coherent text instead of loads of brain splatter.

body

I think my favourite part of the book, and the one that was thought-provocative in a way that I could grasp was this section. In it, Greer discusses everything from body ideals to abortion and female genital mutilation (FGM). Actually, one of the things I had read about this book before I read it was how Greer had been under heavy criticism as it comes of as if she is defending FGM in this book, and I will explain why I disagree with this assessment.

In this section, Greer talks about manmade women, plastic surgery and the strive to look as unnatural and unwomanly as possibly can. From the position where Greer stands, all this shaving, use of make up, obsessive striving to become thinner than is healthy and the consequent widespread use of plastic surgery to look as 'perfect' as possible, is nothing but a result of mainly male thinking that the female is not female enough and so has to be altered in order to fit their imaginings of the female. She rightly argues that a woman is a woman in her natural state. The armpit hair, the leg hair, the often asymmetrical breasts and the body fat is all woman. A woman is never more woman than before she alters her appearance, because that is what the woman is - nothing more, nothing less. No one can be more woman than woman herself in her natural state. It is an interesting thought and one that a lot of feminists have argued, but one that is nevertheless important to be reminded of. Women themselves take part in the reproduction of this culture, Greer argues, but it is imposed by men.

This ties into where people have (perhaps mistakenly) argued that she is a proponent of FGM. In the section talking about plastic surgery as a self-mutilation, Greer mentions FGM. Why is it, she asks, that in our culture we accept that women go through vaginoplasty (plastic surgery on the vagina) to ensure that they look like what they think is culturally appropriate and acceptable, while we do not accept this argument with people in non-Western civilisations? She not only draws parallels to vaginoplasty, but also other forms of plastic surgery like breast augmentation. She invokes the argument of cultural relativism to prove how absurd this entire plastic culture has become and reminds us that we are really morally opposed to it. Of course, Greer fails to acknowledge that plastic surgery is legally supposed to be done to an adult with her consent, but FGM is done by adults to children, which makes a helluva difference. With regards to health risks, distorted body ideals and the danger in trying to fit a narrow description of 'perfect', she is, however, right.

It is also in this section Greer tries to rally up feminists not to accept trans people as female, arguing that at the end of the day, trans people can never be female because they do not have the sex chromosomes for it. This argument really surprised me as generally feminists are very pro trans people out of a very simple explanation - feminists believe that gender is a social construct, that is to say that femininities and masculinities are something that we are taught, something we are socialised into, rather than something that is biologically determined. Therefore gender is fluid, and the key issue is what gender someone identifies as, not what they were born as. If someone who was not born biologically female identifies as a female, this person will be female to most feminists. That Greer, who has been one of the most prominent feminists for a long time, would fail to make this separation between sex and gender is just unbelievable. As the book goes on, however, it is not so shocking anymore, as Greer seems to take a more "back to nature" stance with sex and genders, putting much emphasis on woman as a sex and gender as well as gender as a social construct. To me, the extent to which she focuses on the female sex in the first section somewhat contradicts her thoughts on gender in the social later on. But it does raise an important point even though it perhaps does not explicitly say so - the point of the third gender, or rather the lack thereof everywhere but in Australia.

I will not go through the entire section, because even though it's a non-fiction book, I don't want to recount everything for people that might possibly want to read this book. Suffice to say that the section deals with most things that have to do with the female body and in a very interesting and thought-provoking way.

mind

This is also a section where Greer focuses heavily on the difference between men and women, both biologically and socially. In her chapter on oestrogen, she questions the need for it in menopausal women and also questions why there is only chemical contraception for women and not for men. Greer argues, and I have heard this argument elsewhere as well, that there are ways to create chemical contraception for men, but as this would emasculate them, this is not done.

I also enjoyed the chapter on soldiers and violence as this is what I am currently writing my dissertation on and something I am considering looking further into when I will hopefully study gender further. (Fingers crossed that I will meet my conditions!) I will not go into this as I have written about gendered violence before.

love

Here Greer writes about women's capacity to love, and women's apparently insatiable need to be loved back. She writes about how women always love but are never loved back, beginning with the relationship between the daughter and the father and continuing on in later life up until death. Greer claims that a woman will never receive the amount of love back that she gives; to a father, to a partner, to her children. Interestingly, she also claims that mothers will always love their children unconditionally but implies over and over again that it is their sons that will receive the attention, not the daughters. If this is because mothers, according to Greer, cannot love their daughters as much as their sons, or if it is due to a girl child's apparent utter disinterest in their mothers, she fails to make clear. In either case, it is a contradiction. Either mothers love their children more than they will ever be loved back, as Greer claims at one point, and this will include their daughters; or they are not capable of the unstoppable, indefinite love that she claims that they are. This is one of many times where I feel Greer is more out after glorifying the female species rather than understanding why things are as they are.

There is nothing wrong in aiming to increase the status and view of women - on the contrary. This is one of the things that I really enjoyed with the Whole Woman; the attempt to view woman as a beautiful being instead of an incurable, screwed up, weak mess that deserves to be stomped on and forgotten. All human beings deserve to be seen and heard and loved, but all human beings are also at the same time flawed in that beautiful way that makes us who we are. We are capable of being both at the same time. Making out one gender to be above the other or worthy of being viewed as 'perfect' is not beneficial to any human being. That is what got is into this whole mess with gender roles and gender hierarchies in the first place.

I really enjoyed how Greer put sex in the "mind" section, pointing to the bond between the mental and the physical that often exists in sexual relations for both men and women. This mental bond does not have to include love, that is not at all what I am saying here, but it does have to include trust and respect for it to be enjoyable for both or all parts. Her critique of the quick jumping to penetrative sex is exquisite. She raises some really good points in that section, but what they are, I shall leave for you to find out.

power

This brings us to the final section which deals with the structural inequalities in society and Greer continues to be controversial and thought-provoking up until the last page. Here she deals with the somewhat irrational fear of male violence, arguing that society has led us to constantly fear male sexuality, male violence and male aggression when we often do not have to. This disproportional fear gives men more power and control over women. Liz Kelly in Surviving Sexual Violence argues much the same. The disproportionate fear by women of men leads to women not daring to act in certain ways and do certain things in fear of the possible consequences which happen in a minority of cases. This is comparable to the victim blaming that all too often happens after rape, where women are cautioned they should have been more careful, and that next time they should think before they act/dress themselves/speak lest they get hurt again. Women's fear of men is an oppression in itself, and while men are partly responsible for it, not all of them are, and women are actively reproducing these fears as well. At the same time it is quite interesting how Greer at one point in the book makes all men into sexual predators through saying that a father's love for a daughter will inevitably become inappropriate at one point or another (a claim I am not even going to discuss because that's how little I agree with it - don't feed the troll).

As always, I am always happy when masculinities are discussed, and Greer delivers in this area. She talks throughout the book about the gendered pressure on men, like that on women, that exists in society - the pressure to perform sexually, the pressure to act aggressively, to protect, to earn money etc. Once again we are back to gender as a social construct. Although, Greer points out in the very last few pages that her aim is not to order people to be in a certain way, but rather for herself and others to feel comfortable in their own skin, in their natural beauty - both internal an external. She wants to make the Whole Woman. That is an aim I can relate to and that I will support.

------

These points made above are just a tiny piece of all what is thought-provoking, controversial and wise in Greer's book. It is a book of 425 pages dealing with everything female and women. There is a lot that I disagree with that I haven't brought up, a lot of arguments that I still need time to digest before I can make up my mind on them, and a lot of arguments that I will remember, use and be grateful to Greer that she reminded me of or pointed out to me. It is definitely a book that requires an open mind; there is no point in reading it if you already have your opinions set in stone. If you are, however, curious about feminism, this particular feminist, or are someone already immersed in the gender debate who wants to explore and find out more, I would recommend you read this book! It should be noted, though, that this book is kind of a sequel to the Female Eunuch, Greer's debut book written in the '70s. I have not read this, so I can safely say that you do not need to read it before you read the Whole Woman, but if you want a bit of background on Greer and the arguments she expands in the Whole Woman, I am sure it is interesting reading.

Books mentioned in this post:

This book is registered on BookCrossing.com. Here is the journal for it. As more people read the book, the journal will grow with their thoughts and reactions to this book.

Tea Musings: God, Creation, and the Missing Third Gender

2011-02-07T19:29:00.002Z

This time brought to you by a special blueberry/grapefruit Earl Grey blend called "Grandpa's Mix," bought as usual at Tehörnan in Umeå

I am absolutely not alone in this, I know, but I have to question, why is there an assumption that God inevitably and unquestionably has to be male? Apart from the references to God in the Bible as a male pronoun, where does the assumption come from?

The Bible is, after all, whether one believes in the message, the literal wording, or just the plain fact that the book exists, a manmade creation. Even the Bible says so. It is written by chosen people who are, in some way, conveying God's message to be spread to the people on Earth. It is easy for people to mix up pronouns. The debate around and the lack of a proper pronoun for the third gender tells us so.

In Genesis, we are told that God made us in his image. It says:

"Let us make man in our image... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

God is the Creator. God is what some people assume created Earth and everything on it. But woman is also Creator. Woman, through her possession of a womb, carries the same ability as God; she can create life. She is what nourishes, carries and sustains a life for (optimally) nine months before that child leaves the safe haven of the womb to face the world. If God is Creator and woman is Creator, then why, if God made us the image of 'him', is God referred to as a 'he'? Would it not make more sense to think of the Creator as a woman, the way she was so beautifully depicted in pagan religions? If God were a man, why did 'he' create the Paradise as a brilliant metaphor for the womb where Adam and Eve were nurtured and loved for a time before they were borne into the world?

Granted, woman needs man to create a life. Or rather, woman needs man's magic seed to create a life, but without the male species it would not be possible to create life (although science is at this very moment challenging those assumptions). Both woman and man are needed to create life. Woman and man together are the Creator. If man cannot create without woman, and woman cannot create without man, why is the Creator referred to as a 'he'? Would it not make more sense to think of God as of both genders, or perhaps genderless?

If God is omnipotent, as God is said to be, and can do everything that man and woman and all people accomplish together, would this not make God both man and woman and neither at the same time?

Religion as an institution has long discriminated against women and LGBTQ people, and even though it is getting better in some countries, it is still not good. It is far from good. The discrimination against everything but the narrow definition of male that Christianity subscribes to has its roots in history and is as such a culturally rooted phenomenon. The supremacy of the male is recorded in the Bible, but the Bible also follows the assumption that God is male, even though there is no evidence but a personal pronoun to prove this. The Bible is also written by human hands, with human minds and so also was exposed to human limits and flaws.

Human minds are limited by the language we use. If the language is not broad enough, there will be no room for interpretation or accurate definitions. Instead we are confined to the language that is at hand at the time of recording any event in history. If we think of the world in terms of two genders, it will be two genders that are present in our historical recordings. If the world today only has one country that has gone so far as to adopt a third gender, the assumption is that the world was hardly thinking in those terms at the creation of the Bible.

If God is both male and female and at the same time neither, is this discrimination against everything but the narrowly defined male a mistake due to the non-existence of the third gender at the times the Bible was written?

Naomi Wolf, Wikileaks and Inconsistency

2011-02-04T22:45:00.002Z

Naomi Wolf has written a piece on the Huffington Post about the "lost cojones" of America's journalists who refuse to defend Julian Assange against the American government in the Wikileaks leaks issue. This post does not discuss the alleged sexual crimes Julian Assange is said to have committed, so I don't really have much of an issue with this post, in fact, Wolf and I are in agreement when it comes to a lot of this. She rightly points out that he is wanted for very similar things to what journalists often see as their work - exposing secrets of the government, acting as the watch dog against the powerful and the mighty in society, ensuring that they do not abuse their power.

As always, there are people who would be in disagreement with this view of the media's role, but the media can be an effective tool in exposing power abuses. The problem in that is that media in and of itself becomes a power player holding the sole power to expose scandals and shape the opinion of the people. Media, too, can become too powerful. Just take the Murdoch imperium, for instance, which owns a significant amount of the media in the US as well as the UK; media which is quite well known to engage in a lot of right-wing rhetoric and opinion building (Fox Entertainment Group, is one example).

But enough about that. Let's get back to Naomi Wolf.

After arguing about the hypocrisy of all the American journalist (apart from herself, I suppose), she asks the question:

So why do all these American reporters, who know quite well that they get praise and money for doing what Assange has done, stand in a silence that can only be called cowardly, while a fellow publisher faces threats of extradition, banning, prosecution for spying -- which can incur the death penalty -- and calls for his assassination?

A valid and interesting question, but not nearly as interesting as the answer she herself offers immediately after:

One could say that the reason for the silence has to do with the sexual misconduct charges in Sweden. But any serious journalist in America knows perfectly well that the two issues must not be conflated. The First Amendment applies to rogues and scoundrels. You don't lose your First Amendment rights because of a sleazy personality, or even for having committed a crime. Felons in jail are protected by the First Amendment. Indeed the most famous First Amendment cases, the ones that are supposed to showcase America's strength and moral power, involve the protection of speech most decent people hate.

Say what, now?

Once again, the frustrating woman has done what Jessica Valenti has criticised her for earlier: claiming not to read the internet, but somehow still find out all the criticism against her and then utterly fail to engage with it in her next piece but somehow try to correct it anyway. It is just that the woman never faces the criticism. She just ends up arguing against herself, as she is in this case as well.

Naomi Wolf has over and over managed to make Wikileaks and the rape charges against Julian Assange synonymous, which they are not, as I have written about over and over. I will try it one more time. Wikileaks the organisation is not Julian Assange the person, and everyone would do better in understanding this, supporters of Wikileaks just as much as the US government who are seizing the opportunity to bring Julian Assange to trial for completely unrelated accusations.

Back to the point. So Naomi Wolf is now criticising all the journalists in the United States of America for not being vocal enough about the horrific things that the US government might do to him (which they should criticise) because of their incapability to separate the sexual assault accusations against Assange from the organisation Wikileaks, while she has herself not been able to do that throughout the entire debate. I don't know if I should be happy it seems she has taken criticism to heart, or frustrated that she does in no way try to correct the blatant rape apologia she has been spreading. To be honest, I think that this new insight on her part will only last as long as it doesn't suit her purpose to write a provocative article again. As soon as the trial for extradition starts, I am sure she will be back to her rape apologetic self, calling the women jealous, petty and liars again.

What is more, and what is really, really relevant seeing as Naomi Wolf is a self-proclaimed feminist who has been held in quite high regard in feminist circles is her use of cojones in the headline. Cojones is a vulgar Spanish word for testicles denoting courage. While this word is relatively accepted and mainstream when it comes to talking about courage, much like 'balls' is, it is a word that refers to the male genitals meaning that females cannot in any possible way have these, i.e. courage. It is a word that is grounded in male/female gender roles with the male as the courage, active protector of the weak, passive, incapable female. Females cannot have cojones, nor can they have balls in the sense that they are being used synonymously with courage. Cojones and balls are not female, they are male, and exclusively so by biology. Courage is male, by biology, it implies, and it is physically impossible for women to gain it. It does not take a deep level of gender analysis to see this, and that Naomi Wolf has failed to do so is nothing but embarrassing. Granted, the headline could have been set by someone else, as often happens when articles are published, but in that case I really do hope that Wolf engages in a very long and heated lecture on why this particular word is inappropriate to use.

Someone mentioned in relation to her previous pieces and appearances on rape and Wikileaks (both separately and in relation to each other) that she is arguing what she is arguing in an attempt to revive a down-spiralling career. This latest addition seems to say so too. Unfortunately for Naomi Wolf is that if she doesn't engage with the criticism she is receiving, and respond to it appropriately, she is unlikely to gather much support. Judging from her performance on BBC World Have Your Say three weeks ago she is not likely to engage with anyone criticising her soon, but rather keep on patronising and ignoring them. It seems she is digging her own grave.

Tea Musings*: Bodies

2011-02-02T23:37:00.001Z

Tea of the night: A berry flavoured rooibos called the Queen of the Forest, bought at Tehörnan in Umeå.

Recently I have started reflecting over something. A year or so ago I started losing weight. I found myself not to be happy with my weight or the future implications it could have on my health if I continued in the same way. I was not overweight, but my clothes did not fit as well as before and I started feeling uncomfortable in them, so I took to the gym, I started eating more healthily. I dislike diets and would not call what I did a diet, it was more of a cleaning up of my diet; less processed foods, saturated fats, junk food and snacks; more fruit, vegetables and balanced meals with less carbohydrates and more proteins, unsaturated fats, vitamins and all those other essentials that my body likes.

The change was noticeable, both in mind and in body. Clothes quickly went back to fitting well again, and after a while they were too loose; I had more energy during the day and, above all, slept better at night, which is so valuable if you are, what I call a 'stress sleeper', like me. (For some reason I have a hard time going to sleep and that is usually the time of day when I am the most stressed out, which in its turn makes me even more stressed out - vicious circle.) Other people started noticing the change too, and I got comments on how well I looked.

It is interesting how once someone starts losing weight, people immediately comment on it. It is regarded as a nice thing to do, a recognition of the supposedly hard work that someone has put in to shed those extra kilos, and people mean well while they do it. It has struck me, though, how this seems to be one of the most flattering compliments out there, and you can tell that people always take great care in conveying their noticing your weight loss to you. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice thing to compliment people, regardless on what it is on, but I think this says a lot about society.

People take such great care telling me that I look 'amazing' or something like it, that I cannot help but feel it is a way of validating me in the eyes of society. I know that these compliments are not meant in this way, but the amazement and the pat on the shoulder type comments are a way of implying that I have done well, that I am striving towards the elite of those untouchable modelesque women and men who cover the glossy magazines and enjoy higher status in the spheres of society - that superficial elite that so many people would give a limb to belong to. I have become more valid in the eyes of society, I am on my way towards becoming a person now, not one of those undefinable lumps of flesh that we see everywhere. If I just do a bit more work, put in those extra hours at the gym, I will reach that separated sphere of unrealistically thin and beautiful people and I will be someone who matters.

This whole attitude makes me confused. I am just the same as before, perhaps a bit more energetic, perhaps my mind has become a bit quicker because I feel more alert, but my personality has not changed as far as I am aware. I feel just the same, so why should I not be just the same? Or rather, why should I not be treated just the same? It is interesting, because I don't seem to be alone in this feeling of being treated differently. People who have lost more weight than me also report being treated very differently, see this forum, for instance, or this. People are friendlier, they smile, they see you, and they see you in a good way. Your existence is not nearly as provocative to people as before, or perhaps they are just more likely to notice you.

It is interesting, that. Even if it weren't so that people were provoked by anything above a size medium, what is it that justifies that people who are a medium and below deserve more attention, more smiles, more acceptance? What is it that makes them so much better than the rest of the people? A letter on a label on the inside of their clothes? Their compliance to the incredibly impossible standards of celebrities who do not even manage to look like they are represented so they have to be airbrushed into a 'better version' of themselves added onto all that expensive make up applied by professional make up artists? Whatever standard it is that validates those people is too damn hard for them to reach even for themselves. It is a twisted ideal that focuses on completely the wrong things. What have I, or anyone else, achieved from being thin? Apart from health, that is, but people that are larger than a size medium can be healthy too, and it is certainly not without risks to both mental and physical health to strive for a 'size zero'. Besides, how does any of this, in any kind of way, justify treating people differently? Hint: it doesn't.

I want to point out again that compliments are nice, and most people, including me, appreciate them, even (sometimes in other people's cases especially) when they relate to weight loss. I am not in any kind of way suggesting that people start giving less compliments to others, I am just trying to share what I have noticed. In general I am in favour of much more compliments to be distributed to other people, as long as they are honest, and perhaps relating to more things than weight or other appearance-related things. Surely there must be more things that people are good at than looking good?

* A friend of mine complained a while ago that while there is a lot of feminism in my blog, there is no tea. There is no better way to incorporate this than to show how I keep myself fuelled while writing. This is how my ideas are conceived, baked and carried out - tea is nearly always involved.

Egypt: A Revolution With Invisible Women

2011-01-29T18:16:00.002Z

Egypt is going into its fifth day of protests against the Mubarak regime today. It is following the example of Tunisia who successfully toppled their government and replaced it with a new one that has said it will respect civil and political liberties to a greater extent than the previous government.

Interesting in violent uprisings like these is how the women are largely invisible. Firstly, this is because men are the primary perpetrators of as well as participators in violence in political uprisings (see The Gendered Society by Michael Kimmel as well as Cynthia Cockburn (2001) 'Gender in armed conflict and peace processes',
in The Cyprus Review), but it also has to do with the focus of conflicts and violence as male.

There is coverage of women in the revolution, for instance this piece on women in the Egypt revolution or this shorter piece kindly given to me by Twitterer @trishzanetti. The major news outlets' coverage of women is, however, shining with its absence.

I have mainly been watching the Al Jazeera coverage of the Egypt revolution because of its presence in the region and the availability of a live stream of video coverage rather than text, but I have also followed the news on various web sites, such as the Guardian's live blog as well as the BBC's live blog. What has struck me as really obvious is the lack of women in the commentary on the revolution. While Al Jazeera has had women reporting on the revolution, the experts and commentators from the ground have been heavily over-represented by male views. The Guardian's coverage is mainly by men, and in the expert comments provided on their live blog through Reuters three out of four are male.

In coverage of revolutions and violent clashes like these it is important to point out the absence of women. Militarism and violence are both attributed to masculinities by female and male masculinist and feminist scholars alike (again, see Kimmel above); it is a male system built on a male perspective that ironically relies on both males and females for its continuation. Males take an active part in violence, both in war and political revolutions, and females take over the male responsibilities while this is going on, added on to their usual continued responsibility for the family sphere as well as the bearers and rearers of culture (future and present children).

What is more is that males and females experience conflicts differently (see Caroline Moser, 'Victims, Perpetrators or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence') in their respective roles. In a period of civil and/or political unrest and during violent conflicts, gendered violence, including domestic violence, increases (see any of the references above, as well as official UN documents on conflict) and this violence is perpetrated by men toward women.

During situations like this revolution in Egypt, women's movements tend to organise and join together for peace and progress in society (Cynthia Cockburn has written extensively on women's organisations in conflict). Where is the coverage of this? Where are the representatives of these organisations, and why are they not invited to comment on the revolution? Peace-promoting women's rights organisations have been organised for decades, and they are represented in the Arab world, so why do we not hear their voices?

United Nations Resolution 1325 stresses the importance of including women in (re)construction of societies in order to ensure that women are being sufficiently represented and that their concerns are voiced, included and implemented in social policy. This resolution has been drafted in the way that it has because it has been recognised that women experience conflicts differently and that they are heavily underrepresented in the (re)construction of a society, leading to their exclusion from the (re)constructed society in the wake of a conflict. Resolution 1325 is supposed to be a way to ensure that women are being considered and included in a society that is going through (re)construction, because a society cannot be fair and equal and guarantee people their rights if the entire people is not heard.

While what is going on in Egypt presently is not a war in the classic sense, it is hopefully an end of an oppressive regime into one where the people's concern is taken into consideration. Considering that women are also people, it is surprising and disconcerting that their voices are not heard more in the media. If 85% of the speakers, commentators, experts and news anchors are male, all sides of the conversation is not covered. It will inevitably become a skewed coverage working within a framework of male perspectives. The female perspective is invisible - it exists, but it is not heard. Consequently, what is heard is not the people's voice, it is the male voice.

I have written over and over about the importance of rhetoric. This includes the inclusion and the exclusion of voices as well as the normative framework one chooses to operate within. If this revolution is to ensure the Egyptian people's rights, it needs to include women too. Media can start by helping out to bring them onto the agenda, instead of allowing them to remain invisible.

Update
These links to women in the revolution were posted in the comments section:
A Facebook album of women participating in the protest
The Humanitarian Space has also raised concerns over the invisibility of women in the Egypt revolution, with more specific references to women's movements in Egypt.

Feminist Fantasy? Elantris by Brandon Sanderson

2011-01-23T20:51:00.002Z

This post will contain minor spoilers, so if you do not wish to know anything about the book, please stop reading here.

Having been a fan of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time for quite some years now, and having been a fan of fantasy for as long as I can remember, I was not able to resist picking up a book by Brandon Sanderson when it became clear that he was to be the one to finish Jordan's epic fantasy series after Jordan's death in 2007. Luckily, I found one of Sanderson's free-standing fantasy novels in the sale when Borders closed down (yes, I remember where and when I bought every book in my bookshelf), the one called Elantris. As I had barely heard of Sanderson before his involvement with the Wheel of Time, apart from a note I made when still in high school that I should read his Mistborn series, I was quite curious to see how this author, who has done such a great job with the Wheel of Time, would hold up on his own. There was no doubt in my mind that he would be great as Jordan's wife and editor had personally picked Sanderson out to finish the book series which at the time had grown to 11 books, with more planned.

Before Christmas, I finally got around to reading Elantris and was surprised quite early in the book. There is one thing to fantasy books that is both frustrating but partly what makes it so compelling: it is built around medieval worlds. Medieval worlds in all their glory with shining armour, magic and the occasional dragons also bring with them a rigid set of gender roles. Women are women who dress in dresses, cook food and while there might be women who are awesome at points and defying the normative confines of gender through, say, slaying a nazgûl, they usually do it in the disguise of a man.

Robert Jordan is not exactly known for using fluid concepts of gender in his books, and while he arguably has strong female characters, there is a constant raging battle of the sexes taking place within Rand-land where women are poised against men and the dividing line of gender seems to be based on the notion of biology rather than cultures, so that women can co-operate over the boundaries of culture but will always, no exception, be confused by men's ways of thinking and vice versa. There are inherent qualities ascribed to the genders in the Wheel of Time that are not challenged. (More on gender in Wheel of Time from Swan Tower.)

So when I picked up Sanderson's Elantris, I was not only pleased to find that he did not use such a rigid concept as Jordan had in his Wheel of Time, but Sanderson actually experiments with gender roles in this book in a way that is seldom found in the fantasy genre. Two of the main protagonists, Sarene (a woman and Teod princess) and Raoden (a man and Arelish prince) seemed from the outset to have broken the norms of gender to such a degree that I could not help but suspect that this book was, among other things, very much an intended experiment in gender. Sarene, the princess, feels she has been denied love and being viewed as a woman all her life for being so opinionated, blunt and political, while her betrothed Raoden is a character who bases most his decisions on irrational trust, emotions and empathy. Both these people, however, operate within a world where women are oppressed and forced into passiveness while the men enjoy all the power and most of the freedom of being and movement which is what makes it so interesting. This is a world that is built much like other fantasy worlds, but one in which these particular characters challenge the norms.

I started off by loving these characters. There is nothing that peaks my interest as a clear break and challenge to our non-fantasy real world's norms, even if it is just fictional characters in a book. I loved it how Sarene would be forceful and scheming and how Raoden would use his inherent belief in the goodness of people, a totally irrational assumption, to argue for his political beliefs. I kept cheering these characters on - at least until it became dull. Sarene continued her scheming, manipulating and to completely discard any kind of human feelings, basing everything upon rationality. She was breaking her gender roles as a woman, but instead dressing in those of a man. Now, while this shows that assumptions of inherent qualities in women might very well be wrong, it is hardly a breaking of rigid gender roles. Instead of challenging women's gender roles, Sarene just assumed another pair of them, albeit the antonyms to her own. Same thing with Raoden. He seemed to rely on empathy and caring to the degree I started wondering if he was modelled upon the stereotypical view of mothers and motherhood. Instead of being the stern but loving father of his people, he started becoming the loving and nurturing mother of Elantris. There is nothing wrong with these qualities in people, but from a gender challenging perspective it is not so interesting. It is more about switching gender roles than actually challenging them.

Fortunately, as the book carried on, at least one of the characters started becoming human. Sarene, in all her cynicism, hardness and political scheming started thinking about how she yearned for the great love, that she was afraid that no one could love her for her ways because she was a woman with personality traits like those she had. There was a lot of thoughts on how she had tried to change, but would not become as silly as the ladies in the court in her home country and her adopted country. She was content with the person she was, that was clear, but she felt it unfair that she should have to sacrifice such things as love and a family because she was intelligent. These types of considerations are very important lest the character shall become a cliché; one of those women in fantasy who challenge the norm to the degree where they adopt the ways of the other gender and refuse all traditional gender traits. Once again, this is not challenging the gender normativity, it is just buying into another side of it, consequently reinforcing it. A woman who has to assume male gender roles to be taken seriously is not challenging the system, she is reinforcing it through proving and thinking that she has to adopt masculine roles to gain power and be taken seriously.

This, unfortunately, is where it started to go wrong. Instead of Raoden starting to question his irrational belief in empathy and emotions, he kept going in the same direction even though there were several opportunities for him to question his belief. In a way, this could be a sign of unwillingness to develop personally or, if he weren't so intelligent, be a indicator of naïvete. However, with him eventually becoming something akin to a demigod who would not only be the most powerful such, but also the most controlled and wise such, it hardly offered any opportunity to question his perceived superiority. His beloved princess would show human flaws and stay human, he himself would not, and become a powerful demigod of a king. Added to that, when Sarene strives from her expected gender roles she is severely disliked, almost shunned by men and women alike. Raoden, on the other hand, breaks gender roles and is described as "loved by all." The symbolism is quite striking.

Elantris actually had several other themes that were interesting from a political and/or sociological standpoint. There was this constant view of 'otherness' displayed by Elantris, and especially after the transformation when its inhabitants were shunned and feared. The moral story and implications of this was interesting and important as well.

The politics in the book was also interesting; a guide to how to not build a nation. It can definitely be read as a criticism against capitalism with the portrayal of Arelon's nobility being silly despot merchants and the social status in the country being dependent on one's private property holdings. The religious differences and the portrayal of how it affected societies in their various different ways, as well as the inability to coexist side by side was really interesting if one considers our own human history. It is enough with one religion wanting to eradicate the others for oppression and civil wars to come about.

All in all, it was a really interesting book. A great approach to a social experiment that points out a lot of social ills and challenges quite a few social norms; it is a book that is riddled with implications of the choices people make socially, economically, religiously and politically. It was a novel that I found really interesting in the way that it was as much a good story as a well-thought through social experiment. It is clear that Sanderson has given this world quite a lot of thought.

Although I found the depiction of gender somewhat lacking, I really enjoyed the attempt to walk away from narrow gender confines that are so often found and reproduced in the fantasy genre. I would most certainly recommend people to read it, and I will read more of Sanderson in the future. It gives me hope to think that there can be such a thing as feminist fantasy.

Banning Guns, Yes, But Rhetoric is Also Important

2011-01-20T11:53:00.000Z

The Economist writes in last week's edition (technically still this week's until tomorrow) about the blame game, saying that opportunists should not focus on the rhetoric of American politics, but on the gun laws themselves.

There is no doubt that banning guns in America would contribute a great deal to keeping armed violence down domestically - it is simple logic, less guns, less opportunity for violence and gun accidents. To completely dismiss the rhetoric, or almost completely as in this case, is to isolate only one part of the problem, albeit the biggest one, and ignore the others.

As the article notes, and as people have noted when writing about the Loughner shooting, what is commonly known, is that the right to bear arms is a part of American culture, at least in some circles. It is a part of the constitution (although the interpretation of said amendment can vary and it could be argued that much stricter gun laws could be put in place without violating the constitution) and an issue that has created social movements to ensure the protection of the second amendment and the gun laws that have come out of it. For some people, it is an essential right to own guns and to be able to use them to protect oneself and the family.

The issue is, though, that in a society, or parts of a society, where people have a tendency to invoke violence instead of diplomacy when faced with a threat, or people threatening to use violence through weapons, it creates a hostile environment. There is a reliance on guns and what is seen as the inherent right of every citizen of the United States of America to bear arms. This is as much a problem as the actual fact of owning guns. If people see it as their right to bear arms to protect themselves, they also see it as their right to use them. If a violent rhetoric is then used as a deterrent or as a threat and is combined with the notion of an unalienable right to bear arms, this could lead to trouble.

That it is a problem that guns are so easy to come by, is not something I would deny at all. That the gun control laws are not working the way they should be when Loughner, who allegedly should not have been able to buy a gun because of previous army troubles, can do so anyway, is not something I would argue against at all either. In fact, being Swedish and not understanding why people would at all want to keep weapons in their house that can kill other people, not to mention be used against themselves, I would absolutely argue that legislation that allows this is nothing but counterproductive and idiotic. Why would any state want to give its citizens the easy access to weapons to kill each other, or for children to be accidentally shot to death? It's beyond me. Point being, I do not have a problem with the Economist's call for banning guns. I think it is a sensible argument.

It is when the legislation becomes separate from cultural and social influences that I start seeing a problem. Guns allows for violence, that is true, but there are also other ways of assaulting people. Perhaps it would be harder to kill politicians if there were no guns as personal body guards would probably stop any person trying to lay hands on a politician, but the problem here is that the average person does not have body guards. If a violent rhetoric still exists in society there will still possibly be a problem with violence, because a violent rhetoric in the way that primarily right-wing politicians in the US are using makes it acceptable, in fact, it is an indirect encouragement of violence. If violence becomes normative in discussions about politics, or about any action in society, people start seeing it as something acceptable, and once that happens, what is to say that there will not be people exercising violence against average citizens demonstrating for a cause that the perpetrator(s) do(es) not agree with? This happens in societies where guns are not nearly as readily accessible.

When violence and politics are seen as something that go together, it becomes a problem. A democratic society is no longer democratic where people are silenced through violence, by any means. Violent rhetoric can contribute to a mainstreaming of violence within politics, and it does not matter if it is guns that are being used in visuals, like Sarah Palin and her famous crosshairs, because it is the violence in the rhetoric that is dangerous. If that type of rhetoric is used and people do not have access to guns, they will find other ways to use violence; other means of violent protest. Banning guns is a fantastic idea, but the rhetoric is also very important to watch lest it leads to violence becoming the norm in political debate and discussion, or that violence starts to be associated with politics.

I have said it before: violent rhetoric does not belong in a democratic society, it is counterproductive and may lead to an undermining of democratic principles. Implications and consequences of using a certain type of rhetoric needs to be watched out for. If rhetoric were not important, then politicians would not need nearly the enormous amount of staff and resources that go into politial PR, spin, speech writing etc. Words do matter. So does legislation, but banning things will only work insofar the public is on board with the idea. If the rhetoric persists while guns are banned, violence might still be used in politics. Banning guns is a good start, but there needs to be work done on the rhetoric too.

the United Nations and Human Rights Male Normativity

2011-01-16T20:01:00.002Z

This semester I am taking a course called "Human Rights in Global Perspectives." As opposed to the class I took last semester on the politics of accessing human rights, this course is actually on the theory, philosophy, rhetoric and implementation of human rights internationally, and to a certain extent, on state level.

As part of the course work, I have had to read different treaties and agreements on human, civil/political and socio-economic rights. Tonight I have read the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All three are quite short reads and fairly repetitive, so if you want to have a look through them, I would recommend that you do.

What struck me to begin with is that these arguments are such blatantly male-centric documents, probably because they are written by men and for men. Remember, CEDAW - the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women - came later, as it was widely viewed that women's rights were not sufficiently covered by these previous covenants.

And no wonder that UN, member states and women's rights groups felt the need to create a separate and complementary agreement referring specifically to women and women's needs after these, so called, universal rights documents had been produced. The covenants are literally teeming with male-centric language and rhetoric. In every single instance, when referring to an individual in the documents, "his," "him," "he" is used. Even if the use of the gender neutral plural pronouns were not widespread at the time, it would not have taken much energy and effort to add a corresponding female noun there to make sure that the female gender was represented as well. Although, it should be noted that this would probably not be accepted practice today anyway, as there are people who do not define as either gender and are thus not covered by these gendered nouns. Unfortunately, this thinking had not come as far in the 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was finalised, nor in 1966 when the two covenants were.

If it were not blatantly obvious in the way that any other genders but the male gender are excluded, it is certainly obvious in the very first article of the UDHR, which states

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The word 'brotherhood' implies that either we are operating under a male normative set of rules, i.e., all people, women, men, all human beings, should act and operate under the rules for something which is defined as 'brotherhood', implied by the name to be a set of rules set up by males for males. Even if this would be an inclusive set of rules, welcoming all genders, it would still be referring to a specific set of male normative rules. If it is not inclusive, then it means that all genders, apart from the male one, would not be included in this 'spirit of brotherhood', which is a human right. Women and other people not identifying as male, would thus be excluded from human rights. This is set out in the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As if this was not enough, the sacrosanctity of heteronormative culture is also inscribed in the Covenant on Civil and Policial Rights (1966) in Article 23. I quote (my bold):

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

There is so much wrong in this article, but let me just start out by saying the natural and fundamental group of society? In this part of a sentence, the UN and its signatories have assumed that the heteronormative family is a biological fact and that it shall not be threatened. By what? Gay marriage, probably. Assuming that blood bonds are very strong is not in itself a wrong, but not defining what they mean by 'family' is. I assume, however, that in the 1960s, when this covenant was agreed upon, it was quite self-evident what was meant with 'family,' as homosexuality was still illegal in many countries. Point 2, also indicates that this was the intention, as "the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and found a family..." probably means to each other and not to whomever they so wish.

That fact, alone, should make all of us question the intention of universal human rights. Or shall I say universal as long as one conforms to the white male heteronormative society in which families are the untouchable cornerstones of society and women are not a part of being human to the extent that complementary agreements have to be made to ensure that they, too, are covered by human rights. (If you want more information on either of these topics, just look into the two of big debates within human rights 'are women human?' and 'are human rights Western?')

International debate and treaties made by international organs like the UN are riddled with gendered language. If there is one thing that I have learned while reading for my dissertation on the discourse around women in conflict, it is that. While there seems to be a will to mainstream gender into organisations, which essentially means making sure that gender has been taken into consideration at all times, there is a disconnect between that and the implementation of gender-neutral policies. Not to mention that gender mainstreaming as an approach has been severely criticised, among other things, for 'streaming' women away, neglecting women's particular concerns that may exist.

So when I am reading documents like these, the fundamentals of human rights, which are supposed to be universal, and women are supposed to be included, but the language is so blatantly male-centric, it is hard to believe that things will get better. The problem is that the entire framework within which, and upon which, human rights implementation, discourse and philosophy are based, is gendered. Regardless of what improvements we do in the future, there will always be the male-centric original documents that to a certain extent neglect or exclude women and other people who do not identify as male. Added to that, it also excludes LGBTQ groups that wish to exercise, what is supposed to be a universal right to marry whomever they wish.

As long as our rights are based on a male perspective, we will be excluded in one way or another - through implementation, in the rhetoric (which is a severe problem), in the discourse (which is slightly different from the rhetoric), in the philosophy, in the politics - in all aspects. Human rights cannot be universal until everyone is included, and according to the Western thought on human rights, they are. Human rights may be inalienable and universal, but the implementation and thought certainly do not ensure this. It could even be said to hinder the universality of human rights through its exclusionary nature. If human rights are to be universal, rhetorical issues like these need to be paid attention to. Ignoring gendered aspects of human rights is not benefiting anyone, apart from the white male.

Perky Boobs Part of Your Uniform

2011-01-13T22:30:00.001Z

Another gem from my twitter feed.

Apparently an airport security firm have gone to court over dress codes for their staff, including underwear. Women will from now on be forced to wear bras to work, all "to preserve the orderly appearance of employer-provided uniforms." Yes, that sounds about right, because the first thing you think about with unsupported breasts is "disorderly"? Perhaps asymmetrical, saggy, small, or imperfectly shaped boobs are such an offence according to this airport security firm that they have to have a standard for the breasts so that they fit into the uniform.

Interesting is that this whole fight for the women to wear a bra as a part of their uniform tells quite a lot about the intentions for it. I mean, there are bras and bras. There are bras without padding, which are essentially no bras at all, or at least to the onlookers eye, there is little to no difference at all, because the bras do not lift, nor do they shape. They just sit there as an invisible support for the woman's comfort. Externally it cannot be seen whether the woman is wearing a bra or not, which probably means that they would not qualify as a part of a uniform for this particular airport security firm, as they do nothing to add to the orderliness required. If they are against no bras at all, the logic follows that they would also oppose bras that do not add anything particular.

There are also bras which are strapless and do not add much of a support, but can be comfortable to wear for women who wear strapless dresses or do not want their bra straps to show. They are not particularly great for health reasons as they do not usually give the back the support it needs for those women with larger breasts. Would these qualify as acceptable bras under the uniform standard? Possibly, since they could add to the uniform looking more orderly. What the difference would be, I do not know, perhaps the nipples would not be so obvious if the airport is a bit chilly?

But if this whole disagreement is because of the firm not wanting their workers to be looked at in a sexual way, then padded bras and especially push up bras should be banned too. Both make the breasts look larger and more artificial, which can be seen as 'sexier.' They also usually offer better support, but this really has to do with getting a bra that is the right fit rather than anything else. A bra, no matter if it is a Wonder Bra or a H&M bra will give you the support you need if you do not have your correct measurements, so in this case no bra would be just as acceptable. But, as the airport firm has itself argued, this is not for health, it is for orderliness.

Implied in this silly argument of orderliness is an expectation on how women's breasts should look to be deemed appropriate. If they are not perfectly round (as a padded bra must be used in order for it not to look like the woman is not wearing a bra), sitting at a certain level, exactly the same size, they are not acceptable breasts; they are abnormal, ugly and inappropriate for any professional person. It is a great insult to any woman out there and a completely absurd argument that violates a person's right to be. Asymmetrical, non-round breasts are not a sign of bad hygiene, the way that dirty hair can it be, nor can they hurt anyone or hinder a job, the way that long finger nails can. This is nothing but an attempt to sexualise women further and make the absurd society ideals a part of women's working uniform. What were the judges thinking? Are they now regulating breasts?

Ironically, in their search for the perfect breasts, this airport firm has effectively hidden everything that is natural about breasts. They are no longer allowed to be breasts, but rather the padding of an underwear garment.

Sarah Palin and the Consequences of Free Speech

2011-01-12T17:49:00.002Z

Sarah Palin has done it again, said something of such utter stupidity that the clocks start ticking backwards. Today she has posted a video accusing journalists and other people criticising her violent rhetoric of blood libel, a term most often used (according to above article) "to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term, which is centuries old, referred to anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews." Rep. Giffords, who most people are aware of, was shot a couple of days ago in what seems to be at least a partly politically motivated action and her condition is still critical, perhaps not so surprisingly as she took a bullet to her head.

I don't really want to discuss the details of the violent rhetoric of the US right, as there have been others who know more of the subject and can express it better among them Melissa McEwan at Shakesville. Suffice to say that the right wing in USA have been using, condoning and, some might even argue, encouraging violent rhetoric in the form of gun imagery when talking about their political opponents. While it has been fairly clear that this imagery has not been meant to really hurt someone, it is distasteful and horrible. What I really want to discuss is Palin's call for protection under free speech in the face of this horrible event.

Free speech is good. Free speech is great. A lot of productive discussion can come under free speech and democracy and the progress of society would be impossible without it. No person, or few persons, alone can take on the development of a country and its inhabitants. While more voices might sometimes be confusing, it is definitely a benefit for the greater good. That is not to say that rhetoric is not important. I have argued consistently, both here and on my Swedish language blog, that rhetoric is key to how policies are interpreted, implemented and constructed. After all, we all act within the references of what we know, and rhetoric shapes much of our perception of society, which it is also such an important thing to challenge normative rhetoric and the (inappropriate) use of it.

Under free speech, the notion is that you can say nearly whatever you want, as long as there is no direct hate crime or slandering of another person. Fierce opposition is common and encouraged among politicians, especially in today's media hyped society where the harshest words make the best newspaper heading. But with great freedom, comes great responsibility, to paraphrase Spider-Man's uncle. If you are allowed to say nearly whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, you should also be prepared to take responsibility of the consequences. I am not saying here that Palin and her buddies are responsible for the horrible shooting against Rep. Giffords and the other people, but it can most certainly be argued that their violent rhetoric could have inspired the shooter. This is something that Palin should recognise and own up to. She needn't apologise for the shooting, because she did not hold the gun, but she should at least recognise the possibility that her rhetoric and her imagery have or could have contributed to political violence. If she uses violent rhetoric in politics, there is a possibility it could lead to political violence.

When violent rhetoric becomes the norm within certain political circles, politics will be associated with violence. From putting crosshairs over political candidates, to threatening that people will start picking up their guns if the political outcome is not in their favour, as Sharron Angle did, there is a hazy line to resorting to violent tactics. When violent imagery and euphemisms are used in such political contexts, it indirectly condones such behaviour and might even encourage it. The use of such rhetoric is nothing but irresponsible.

People are not accusing Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle or any of the other users of violent rhetoric, of having pulled the trigger and fired the gun at Rep. Giffords, they are calling for them to take responsibility for abusing words and imagery. Being a person in power, you have to be careful of what you say and how you say it, because people listen to you. That is the whole point of power, you can influence other people to do what you want them to do. If you start talking about picking up guns, or if you make political representatives targets on your website while in a power position, you cannot completely turn your back to the fact that people might act on it. The reason why this rhetoric was used in the first place was to make people passionate about politics, Ms. Angle says. Did it not cross your mind, then, that perhaps making people passionate about gun violence and politics in the same sentence was not such a great idea?

Enjoying the freedom of speech does not mean that you are automatically immune to all criticism, regardless of how harsh it might be - it means the opposite. Now people are using their freedom of speech to make Palin et. al. realise what it is that they did wrong, because in a democracy, violence and politics should not be associated with each other - not from the state against its citizens, nor from the citizens against its state.

Let This Folly Stop Now!

2011-01-11T23:44:00.003Z

Assange's lawyers have today come out with another outrageous defence argument. This time, they are arguing that he should not be extradited to Sweden because he might be sentenced to death in USA. I suppose this makes sense if you also believe that Sweden is a feminist state that is really run by the CIA and that sex by surprise is actually a crime in Sweden, and not some awful euphemism for rape used to trivialise the crime.

First of all, even if one would buy the lawyer's claim that Assange might be tried and sentenced to a death penalty (this is indeed one of the crimes punishable by capital punishment in the US, according to deathpenaltyinfo.org), the country he is supposed to be extradited to, Sweden, did away with capital punishment in 1921 and the country itself is a driving force against capital punishment everywhere (Page in Swedish). That Sweden would therefore extradite a man they even consider risks a capital punishment would be very surprising to say the least. Not only because of the current government's commitment against it, but there would be a public outcry in Sweden if this happened. (Strange, since we all know that Sweden is really USA/CIA, right?)

Secondly, as has been said before, but is apparently worth pointing out again experts think that it would be very hard to extradite Assange from Sweden to the US. Not only are there problems with the extradition treaties that would possibly not allow him to be extradited, there might also be a problem with it having to be a tripartite negotiation. Not only does Sweden have to agree to an extradition (which is unlikely if they think that Assange's human rights will be deprived, as argued above), the UK also has to be in on it. As the UK also has abolished capital punishment, albeit a bit later than Sweden, in 1998, it seems unlikely they would condone such a punishment.

This whole situation has been handled exceptionally badly both by Assange's lawyers and by Assange himself. Instead of publicly issuing statements requesting that this be dealt with in court (whether it regards fighting the extradition or facing allegations of sexual assault), a load of utter BS has been uttered to reduce the credibility of the Swedish legal system, Assange's accusers and the Swedish government. There has been encouragement by Assange and his lawyers to dismiss these rape charges as lies, and fair enough, denying such an accusation is his right and if he believes himself to be innocent he should rightly do so, but to claim it is part of a 'honeytrap' is only to undermine the credibility of the women, and serves nothing but to damage them in the public eye which is hugely unfair. It is fully possible to claim innocence and not attempt to set up a public trial and encourage harassment at the same time. (Yes, it is encouragement, because Assange and his lawyers are hardly blind to what is going on and that the women are targeted and harassed, that their names, addresses and phone numbers have been made available on the internet for the purpose of harassing them. To not realise this would be to be intentionally ignorant and naïve.)

I have consistently called for this to be a trial within the Swedish system of justice, if it even goes so far, Assange might, after all, not be extradited to Sweden in the end. Also, he is only wanted for questioning at the moment, there has been no trial set. I am not in favour of Naomi Wolf's tactics of naming and shaming rape/ sexual assault survivors, and neither am I in favour of doing so with people that have gone no further in the process than being accused of sexual offences. That the Assange case went public to begin with is a very sad thing, indeed, but that does not make right the treatment of the women by Assange and his lawyers, especially when it cannot be proven that they were the ones leaking the rape accusations in the first place. That they are now capitalising on this scandal at the expense of these women who, according to themselves, have been victims of a crime, is appalling and unjustifiable. If it turns out, on the other hand, that these women were the driving force behind the leaking and have secretly been orchestrating a hate campaign against Assange, of course they should be held responsible for that, but until this is proven, one has to assume their innocence, precisely what that Assange's supporters are calling for with regards to the rape accusations against him.

If these women are expected to take responsibility for accusing one of the world's most loved and hated person, then he should rightly take responsibility to act like an adult when he is accused of a crime.

Alcohol Problems Are Not Shameful

2011-01-09T14:55:00.001Z

I've written some on this over at my Swedish language blog, and I suppose it was just a matter of time before the topic made its way over here as well.

An old Independent article caught my eye today when someone I follow tweeted it. In it Simon Carr explains how he has gone from 30 bottles a day to one bottle a day, but even though the amount the drinks classes him as a person with an alcohol problem, he refuses to call himself an alcoholic or even think about whether or not he does, in fact, have an alcohol problem. Although his drinking would be classified at least as risk behaviour for becoming an alcoholic, I am not interested in discussing whether or not he drinks too much, should cut down, or should keep on going the way he is. If he has an alcohol problem, it is on him to first realise it and then admit it, because if the person who allegedly has an alcohol problem refuses to do something about it, nothing can be done about it. A general rule is, though, that if someone in your close vicinity thinks that your drinking is a problem, then it is a problem. To you it might not be, but to someone else it is, and therefore it should be taken seriously and discussed.

What really upset me about this article is how Carr makes it out to be something shameful to have an alcohol problem. Alcoholism is a disease, it is classified as such - both a physical and mental as it affects both - and what is more is that it is a very cruel disease that not only affects the person who is an alcoholic, but friends and family who are usually caught up in an enabling position, made possible through the hiding and keeping quiet so as to avoid the ugliness that is attached to being an alcoholic.

Media have discussed over the past five years, or even more, about the alcohol behaviour in Europe, that alcohol consumption has risen pretty much all over Europe, and in Scotland, my current home country, new laws were passed just last year to curb binge drinking and lower the overall alcohol consumption. That we are consuming too much alcohol as a society is no news, and that it would be beneficial to all of society (apart from perhaps the companies profiting from the increased alcohol consumption) health-wise, economically and socially, if overall drinking would be lowered is something I am going to hazard to guess most people would agree with. Not all people have a problem, and if it is not a problem, then, by all means, go ahead and continue your alcohol habits. I am not proposing a complete ban on alcohol here - it would not be possible in our society today. Besides, adults should enjoy the responsibility of choosing how and when they consume alcohol.

What needs to be done is to stop this hushing of drug addiction, both alcohol and other drugs. When a person is stuck in an addiction, their behaviour alters radically. Did you know, for instance, that liver cirrhosis affects your brain when the liver cannot break down the chemicals it would if it were healthy? The tissue dies and scars and becomes hard and because of the decrease in healthy liver cells that would normally digest and take care of different toxins, it cannot, and so these toxins rise to the affected person's brain and physically affects the behaviour of the person. Liver cirrhosis is a fairly common disease in people with long-term alcohol problems, and the only cure for it is to stop drinking period. (Of course, there are other ways than drinking that can result in liver cirrhosis, Hepatitis C is one such example, but alcoholism is by far the most common cause.) Addiction also leads to a lot of lying, manipulating and aggression, which can be unrelated to liver cirrhosis as that disease comes from a long abuse of alcohol substances and the manipulation and lying often starts early on in an addiction (the hiding of bottles, lying about amounts of alcohol consumed etc.). When in an addiction, nothing matters more than the next hit (of alcohol, of other drugs), including family and friends. It is sad, but it is truth. A person with an alcohol addiction might want to change their habits, but they literally cannot. It is a brutal and cruel disease to all people involved.

Lying and hiding another person's addiction only enables that person to continue on with their habits. Often it is done out of love, because the person hiding and lying wants people to see the addict for the person that they really are, not the addiction. Sadly, this is a problem in society, where alcohol and other drug addiction is associated with something dirty, weak and ugly. There is nothing weak about the person becoming an alcoholic, anyone can become one, although genetical predisposition and environment contributes to people getting caught in an addiction. There are alcoholics that function perfectly in their work environments (one of the most common myths, that if you can manage our job, you're not an alcoholic), who are intelligent, charming, powerful - all in all, great people. Where it often shows is the social sphere, and not necessarily only with friends or acquaintances, but family and close friends. That is where an addiction becomes the most clear. The first people to realise there is a problem will be the close people, and the first one to deny it will be the addict. Even if the family and close friends will hide the problem from the outside world, there will be a problem, and it will be very present and real to some people.

The greatest service you can do to anyone who is an addict is to be honest about it - to them, to yourself, to all people. You do not have to tell anyone if you do not want to, but don't make excuses for the addict's behaviour. There is nothing shameful about someone being an addict. That person is a person with a problem, but the key thing to remember is that it is a person. It is a person who might not behave the way that they do if they had a different option, and often to an addict, it seems that they don't, or they might do, but they do not want to change or they cannot. The fact still remains that there is a person in there, hidden behind manipulative behaviour, lies and all other sorts of crazy things addicts get up to. This person needs to be seen, needs to be heard, and needs to get the opportunity to break free from the addiction in order to take control over their own life. Because when an addict, there is no control, there is only being controlled by the substance abused.

The best way to achieve this is not to continue hiding alcohol problems or to be offended when someone might indicate that you have a problem. If someone thinks you have a problem, you should seriously listen and consider if you do, because if someone tells you you do, there is a great possibility that you might have an alcohol problem.

News flash to Simon Carr: Dying from liver failure is not quick and painless. It is a painful process in which both you and everybody surrounding you will suffer. It affects your entire body and it costs the health care system lots and lots of money. You might get diabetic, requiring insulin on a daily basis. Often, because of the scar tissue in your liver squeezing your main blood vessels, the blood is trying to squeeze itself through your smaller vessels which inevitably become more fragile and these bursting is one of the main causes of death for people with liver cirrhosis. These are called varices, and if your bleeding is caught early enough you can be saved through a massive blood transfusion and surgery, both of which cost the health care system. Apart from that, there is the severe organ failure. When your liver can't digest the toxins you put in your own body, these toxins will travel to other organs and affect them as well, leading to a complete organ failure. Other unpleasant symptoms include vomiting blood, itchiness, loss of sex drive, insomnia, breathlessness and memory loss and confusion. These are just some of the things that might happen when contracting liver cirrhosis, most of which can be treated to some degree by drugs and continued medical check-ups.

Alcoholism is no disease to dismiss offhand and take as an offensive accusation. It is a serious and real disease and it affects so many people around the world (relatives and friends included). It is a cruel and brutal disease and it should be taken seriously. It should not be hidden and lied about. And above all, former, current and future addicts should not be stigmatised. The stigmatisation of alcohol addicts only lead to less people seeking help for this brutal disease and that is a tragedy to all people affected.

More on liver cirrhosis and alcohol problems: NHS - alcoholic liver disease, NHS - cirrhosis, NHS - cirrhosis symptoms, Alcoholic Anonymous for more information on alcoholism, Al-Anon for families and others whose lives are affected by someone with an addiction, Down Your Drink - a UCL based informational site on alcohol consumption.

Sexual Assault Survivor? Suck it up, or go public.

2011-01-07T23:35:00.002Z

Tonight I listened to the BBC World Have Your Say where Naomi Wolf was a guest talking about her recent article in the Guardian arguing that rape survivors should take a moral responsibility when they accuse someone for sexual assault and therefore be outed in the media - voluntarily or involuntarily. (See yesterday's blog post for commentary on the Guardian article.)

First of all, I want to say that World Have Your Say had chosen a brilliant person to argue against Wolf - Helen from Belfast but currently in London (that's how the host kept on talking about her), twice rape survivor and a brilliant debater. She refused to be patronised when Wolf started with her condescending and belittling way as described in this blog post by a blogger who went to a lecture with Wolf when she was at Oxford the other day. Wolf even at one point said "Bear with me, I know there are many new thoughts here" to Helen from Belfast but currently in London, upon which she retorted "I have been thinking about this for many years now," a brilliant answer from someone who refused to be patronised and talked down to the way Wolf tried with everyone who put her on the spot, including the host of the show.

There was much said by Wolf in the show that probably will give me nightmares for days to come and much that made me lose whatever respect I might possibly have had for Wolf as a feminist, at least concerning this subject, but perhaps everything as I have a hard time taking people with such an attitude seriously. It was quite obvious that Wolf argued the way she did because she wanted to get to the perpetrators. The argument went as such that if the perpetrators were outed in media, they would not be so keen on sexually assaulting another person. It would also lead to the the forced realisation of the assaulted people that it is not ever their fault that they are sexually assaulted, that the perpetrators always bear the full responsibility for a sexual assault. Also, the open talking about sexual assault by survivors would, according to Wolf, decrease the stigma and victim blaming attached to being a sexual assault survivor.

The problem is that Wolf is going about it backwards. I, too, wish that one day men and women alike could speak about sexual assault, consent and boundaries in an open and productive way, much as was attempted with the Swedish Talk about it campaign where men and women were encouraged to discuss both crossing boundaries and having boundaries crossed by another person. Men and women talked about being the (sometimes unintended or unknowing) perpetrator and about being sexually assaulted, but also about how threat of sexual assault sometimes is used as a tool of coercion or power. Although there were some (as always) who were trying to make the campaign out to be ridiculous, it lead to a lot of productive discussion and media in Sweden wrote about it quite a lot.

Encouraging people to speak about sexual assault, both as perpetrators and survivors is a great way to eradicate stigma and victim blaming and also define boundaries and consent. Talking about it encourages a respectful ever ongoing discourse in a relationship to make sure that both (or more) parties are comfortable at all times. Boundaries and consent may change at any time and therefore it is important to continue discussing them. What Wolf wants to do, however, is not to encourage people to talk about it, which would be productive, but to force people to come forward as sexual assault survivors, which can be downright destructive. At one point in the show she even said that, according to her, there were two options: press charges and come forward as a sexual assault survivor willing to talk to the press about it or to keep silent about it and live with it. In other words, the options Wolf gives survivors of sexual assault is to put oneself at the risk of victim blaming, threats, force and psychological hardship or to suck it up.

Not only is this suggestion ridiculous and very offensive, it also brings with it a series of problems. As Helen pointed out, because of the appallingly low conviction rates for sexual crimes (that Wolf claims to want to battle through forcibly outing sexual assault survivors), there is an infinitesimal chance that the perpetrator will actually be convicted for the crime he or she has committed. If then, one were to be sexually assaulted twice, as happened with Helen, and the previous case had been dismissed or ruled in favour of the perpetrator, and this was at the same time discussed ad nauseam in media, she (in Helen's case) would forever be "the girl who cried rape." Tell me how this would not do more harm to a sexual assault survivor than it would do good.

Wolf's faith in the media as the almighty defender of sexual assault survivors is also ridiculous. She stated at one point in the show that because institutions have failed in the past to protect sexual assault survivors, media would take on that role. As it has in the past, she means? Media - the defender of women who accuse powerful men of sexual assault. Sounds just about right, doesn't it? Or not.

What is more is that Wolf bases her argument on public trials for sexual assault crimes on her notion that if one wants to bring a case into the public sphere, one should be prepared to defend themselves publicly. Well excuse me, but where was the public when the crime was committed? Bringing someone into court is the only (legal) retribution that a sexual assault survivor may receive. Is she proposing going back to the olden days when brothers and fathers handled situations where a woman's honour had been violated? Perhaps she would think it more appropriate to settle the dispute with fists rather than going through the legal system which actually has the mandate and power to punish people who break the law. Or perhaps she thinks that media should be holding the public trials? Perhaps in an entertainment show kind of way? Yes, perhaps we could bring in Ricki Lake!? That sexual assault survivors are anonymous to the public does not mean that they are anonymous to the police and the judicial system, where these matters should be handled. That media, through publishing information on sexual assault cases, should be able to keep police and the judiciary in check is doubtful. Media are not exactly known to be without their own political agendas, not to mention that most media are funded through earnings, which means that they will publish what sells, and often in ways that make things sound more scandalous than what they might be.

Media does not need to know every little thing about individual sexual assault survivors, neither do we, the public. If women and men who have been on either end of sexual assault wants to come forward and talk about it, they should get the opportunity to. They should be encouraged by all means to do so, but they should not be forced to talk about it. Furthermore, if a wrong has been committed, the person whom it has been committed on should have the means to receive some kind of retribution, they should not - never ever - be told to suck it up. And just because it helped you, Naomi Wolf, and possibly lots of other women and men, to come forward and talk about being sexually assaulted, just because it made you stronger, does not mean it will to everyone at any time. You had twenty years to prepare what to say and think about it before you talked about it. Allow other sexual assault survivors the same courtesy. Forcing them to talk about it prematurely might only do more damage than good. Please, please, Naomi Wolf, stop patronising every woman and man who has ever been sexually assaulted.

Let's Crucify the Rape Survivors

2011-01-06T21:32:00.000Z

Naomi Wolf does it again. This time she has written an article in the Guardian calling for a forced outing of the accusers of Julian Assange using the stigma attached to sexual assault survivors as the reason for doing so. While there are some valid points to Wolf's argument, for instance that not identifying survivors feeds into the rape myths about how sexual assault/rape survivors should look like, act, be, et cetera, she seems to completely neglect the other side of the argument, that sexual assault/rape survivors should not be involuntarily outed because they need to be protected against, say, the mob. Instead Wolf talks about taking moral responsibility, facing the accuser and changing the perception of rape as a crime.

The real issue, however, becomes quite clear when Wolf starts talking about Assange and him being dragged before the public eye and voicing worries about this case, because of geopolitical tensions, standing little chance of actually being free and fair. These worries are very valid, and a lot of people who call against rape trivialisation are worried about exactly the same thing. There is little doubt in most people's minds that this is a politically precarious situation where the Swedish judicial system will have to seriously guard its integrity against the pressures of political giants like USA, but perhaps even its own government. These sexual assault allegations are being stretched to the point of distortion from both Wikileaks supporters and Wikileaks opponents to further their own political agendas. (Key here being Wikileaks opponents and/or supporters of the organisation which is, as argued before, separate from the person Julian Assange.) Making sure that the trial is, therefore, free and fair and without political motivations (meaning keeping the trial to the allegations made, not ones possibly made in the future) is essential not only to supporters of free speech, but also to feminists and other people against rape trivialising around the world.

Wolf has previously complained how these rape allegations have been made to further a political agenda and that the women doing so should be ashamed of themselves. She, along with other self-proclaimed feminists have called this entire case a slap in the face against all rape survivors, basing this on the fact that because rape accusations have in the past been made against politically powerful people, this case must be the same. As I have written before, just because states and other power players can benefit from this situation does not mean that they have orchestrated it. The logic saying it inevitably has to be so is severely flawed, indeed, there is no logic behind it at all. Powerful states, people, organisations or any kind of players have always benefited from unconnected situations that happen to play neatly into their agenda. They can simply be capitalising from a situation that occurred simultaneously. Is it a big coincidence this is happening at the same time? Yes. Does it mean that Julian Assange cannot be a man who sexually assaults and/or rapes women? No.

This entire article by Naomi Wolf is nothing more than to further her own agenda. She is obviously a strong believer in Wikileaks and what it does. So am I. The difference between us is that I will not crucify potential sexual assault survivors just because of it. I can still believe strongly in free speech and not trivialise rape. In fact, I think it is contradictory to do what Wolf does. These women deserve to be heard, they deserve to be taken seriously - they deserve to be able to exercise their rights to free speech without being ostracised, bullied and crucified for it. That Assange became a victim of the press who published the leak of these allegations (appreciate the irony here) does not mean that it is right to bring these women to a public trial as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, as it is said.

What still baffles me, though, is how Wolf fails to understand that what she is doing is just as much a slap in the face to rape survivors all over. She has consistently said that rape allegations should not be used to further political agendas, and she is correct. That states are using these accusations as some kind of proof that Assange (read Wikileaks) is a bad man (organisation) is nothing but wrong. That does not mean, however, that these accusations are false or that these women are simply pawns in some greater political game. These accusations could be true and these women could be used to further political agendas at the same time. None of those statements are mutually exclusive. What Wolf does when she completely dismisses these accusations offhand is to feed further into the rape myths. She is doing exactly what she claims she wants to prevent: she is setting the terms and boundaries of who can and who cannot be rape/ sexual assault survivors. Apparently, Wolf has decided, to qualify as someone who can be raped or sexually assaulted in another way, the accusations must be made against someone who does not have political power. Because if these accusations are made against someone in political power, especially someone working as a rogue self-proclaimed hero of the average person, that being noble and all, it inevitably means these accusations are false. I wonder what Wolf would have written if these accusations would have been made against some powerful political player who works within the nation-state apparatus?

It is just as important today as it was a month ago to be able to hold two thoughts at the same time. Using these accusations to further a political cause related to Wikileaks is nothing but wrong, and that goes for both sides. The beautiful irony in this entire series of debate articles that Wolf has written against states using rape accusations for their own purposes is that she is doing exactly the same. She is no better herself than the states that she is criticising. What is more is that it becomes more and more obvious for each article she writes. What is sad is that she is losing credibility among feminists, but perhaps it is all for the best. If Wolf is to continue trivialising rape and feeding into rape myths she may as well stay far away from feminism and the feminist base, as far as I am concerned.

Moralising Sex Work

2010-12-28T16:00:00.001Z

With the recent murders on sex workers in the UK (see previous blog post), BBC has published this article which discusses possible solutions to make sex work safer for the men and women in that line of work.

Currently in the UK, it is not illegal to sell sex, but brothels and selling sex on the street is illegal. There may be one person in one building selling sex, but no more. While there are justifications for this legislation, such as worries about facilitating human trafficking if brothels and street prostitution were to be decriminalised, and that street prostitution can be very unsafe, this legislation ends up offering little protection for sex workers.

The consequence of legislation that does not allow sex workers to meet customers on the street or in a brothel is that they either need to rent a room, hire a space or bring the customers to their own homes. The first two options could be expensive in the long run unless the sex worker would charge the client for rent or room hire, but the way that the market dictates business, the price increase could lead to a loss in business. The third option is just simply unsafe. Sex workers are at a high risk for sexual violence and other forms of violence as it is. If the sex workers would then be forced to reveal where they live to their clients, they could face serious danger, not to mention fear of being visited by the authorities and other people that would wish to make their opinions known about sex workers.

My personal fear is that our moral views impair our thinking when it comes to sex work and lead to unsafe legislation for the men and women voluntarily involved in that line of work. (As said before, trafficking is always, and should always be, viewed as a crime as there is an element of coercion/threat and/or debt bondage. More on that here.) Instead of providing them with safe places to run their businesses, the legislation punishes them because they are in a line of work that people do not agree with morally, and that people perhaps would not choose for themselves. So what we do, instead of working with these people, is to work against them.

Regardless of what view one has of prostitution - whether it should exist or not, or whether the need for it should exist or not - it exists. The reality is that people sell sex. The reality is that there is a market for selling sex, and people will sell sex. To legislate in a way that punishes these people and make their line of work highly unsafe and a high risk for violence in different forms is not going to change this - sex will continue to be sold. It is one of the very oldest trades and it will probably continue to exist for a long time yet, whether governments choose to let the trade operate in the open and regulate it, or keep it in the dark.

The focus therefore needs to lie on making this line of work safe for the people within it, rather than punish them or robbing them of their rights, or keep legislation in place that has proved itself not to make the situation safer for sex workers. Just because many people disagree with this trade does not mean that these people do not deserve the same rights to safety and freedom from violence and other abuse. It is a good thing that the police are putting a lot of focus on uncovering trafficking networks and trafficked people, but that does not mean that it is justified to neglect the people who are in the sex trade voluntarily. They are at high risk for abuse and sexual assault and should be offered protection accordingly. There is still a wide-spread belief that sex workers cannot be raped because they sell sex, but any sexual advance that has not been negotiated or agreed upon is still an offence regardless of whom it is done to. Unfortunately this leads to a stigma that is reflected in society and not even the police is safe from it.

It is a good thing that this is currently being discussed in the media, but let's make sure that it stays this way. Let's make sure that we do not let this topic disappear because we do not want to see the uncomfortable truths or that we want to pretend that these issues do not exist. Let's make sure that these people can also live safely without the fear of being used, abused and murdered, because all people deserve that right.

Passing Judgement on Sexualities

2010-12-26T16:35:00.001Z

An MI6 agent, Gareth Williams, is suspected to have been murdered, but all his friend can think about is to 'clear' his name from 'allegations' that he might have been gay. Talk about having her priorities straight.

There are no accusations or allegations that need to be cleared in this case. First of all, the only thing that has been said about Williams is that "detectives suggested the 31-year-old may have died at the hands of a mystery bondage sex partner he met on London's gay scene" (from article linked above). There are no speculations whether this was just a one time sex connection or if it was something Williams did recurrently or if he was sexually curious or bisexual or homosexual. There are no speculations about the man's sexuality, just a speculation of what happened to him and how he was connected with the person believed to have murdered him.

Secondly, even if he were gay, does it matter? Being gay is not something negative, not anything one needs to clear one's reputation from if it is false. The fact that this woman feels she has the need to go to media and set the record straight (pun intended) is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, she doesn't know everything about this man's sexuality or sexual feelings, no one knows, apart from him when he was alive. He might very well have had sexual encounters with other men while he was alive out of curiosity, because this was what he wanted, or perhaps he was doing research for a new identity. No one knows, and it doesn't matter. He chose not to talk about it, so neither should anyone else.

Talking to the media about the man's sexuality and trying to 'explain' that he was, beyond doubt, heterosexual is nothing but passing negative judgement on homosexual men. To feel the need is there to actually explain who this man did or did not sleep with is saying that homosexuality is below heterosexuality, that Williams was being accused of something, and an accusation, as we all know, is associated with making a wrong. Love or sex between two members of the same sex is not a wrong, but William's friend clearly believes it to be so. To flip the coin, would she, or most people, talk to media about a homosexual person allegedly having sex with a heterosexual person? Most likely not.

Many people claim that they have no problems with love or sex between two members of the same sex (or gender), but the rhetoric tells otherwise. If people keep on trying to 'clear' a supposedly heterosexual person's name of speculations of sexual or emotional relationships with members of the same sex (or gender), it is no different from saying that heterosexual people are more worth in the eyes of the society. This is not so surprising, perhaps, considering that the norm is heterosexuality, and as many of us know, breaking norms is not always viewed favourably. Just because something is the norm, however, does not mean that it should be, or that other groups, thoughts or people should be marginalised or feel forced to justify why they are the way they are, why they think what they think or why they hold certain opinions.

Feeling attraction to someone of the same sex is just as valid as feeling attraction to someone of the opposite sex. Furthermore, love is love and can be just as beautiful, loving and caring no matter of the sexes or genders of the people involved in the love, no matter how many people are involved in it. Being heterosexual and monogamous is no guarantee of a 'better' relationship (if there is such a thing) and statistics of domestic violence can testify of this. The fact that domestic violence occurs in heterosexual monogamous relationships tells that it is not necessarily the most optimal form of relationship for everyone. Being in a heterosexual relationship is no guarantee against being hurt, abused or stuck in a destructive relationship. Being in a homosexual or polyamorous relationship is not either. Love is love regardless of who is or isn't involved in it, and it can be constructive or destructive regardless of who is involved. That someone therefore should have to have their name cleared from being able to love in a way that strives from the norm is absurd. Norm-breaking love is no less valid than any other form of love, and there is no need to make excuses for love, as long as it is consensual.

I will never make excuses for my friends' or family's love - their love is just as valid as mine, regardless if it is between people of the same sex, people of the opposite sex, people where one or more genders are undefined. They need not have me or anyone else make excuses for their love. Neither did Gareth Williams. He lived and he loved, it should have been left at that.

Sex Work Stigma Kills People

2010-12-23T00:12:00.000Z

There is a great article in the Guardian today about sex workers and the vicious ways in which some of them are murdered and how a lot of them are in other ways violently abused.

I have written previously on my opinions on prostitution and highlighted some problems with legalising it as well as some problems with keeping various aspects of sex work illegal. This issue about violence against sex workers is one such example of why it is such an important discussion to have.

Sex workers are often stigmatised and ostracised from society. They are viewed as 'used' women, dirty puppets inevitably oppressed by the great big evil patriarchy and males' inherent uncontrollable sexual drive, leading people to believe that they are essentially flesh and blood rag dolls incapable of making their own decisions or having any kind of agency. There are many assumptions made about sex workers, about their motivations, about their lives, about their thoughts and about them as people; how someone must be, think and act to be a sex worker, as if they were all one and the same.

This homogenisation and association with uncleanness in appearance, manner and health leads to a huge stigma to be attached to sex workers. Because of these assumptions they are reduced to nothing more than second class citizens. If the view is not that they are doing something morally repugnant, the assumption is that they are not capable of civic virtues or performing civic duties and are thus in need of rescue. This is where we, the people who presumedly 'know better' have to step in and 'teach' these men and women how to live a life the way it is supposed to be lived.

There are several factors why people enter sex work. Where trafficking is the reason, it is clear that there has been a human rights crime committed, as trafficking per definition includes some kind of coercion or threat and some kind of debt bondage which severely impairs an individual's freedom to self-decision and movement. Trafficking is in every way a crime and should be prevented. But, trafficking does not equal all sex work, and the sooner we understand this, the better. There are men and women who enter the sex trade due to several different reasons, and these people do so voluntarily. If they later find themselves in debt bondage or under coercion and/or threat, it will classify as trafficking, but not all sex workers find themselves in this position, and some sex workers get out of such a position to pursue sex work independently anyway.

The problem with making a blanket assumption about the motivations and reasons why a person is in the sex trade whether it be moral (or as some people think, lack thereof), socioeconomic or other is that it does not make separations between the individuals and the people are all seen as one big lump of sex workers without agency, individuality or personal strengths/weaknesses. They are all made out to be one and the same, and often one and the same with one's own personal moral and philosophical feelings about the sex trade. We end up signing agency to them, or rather robbing them of it as we consequently make the decision (assumption) for them why they are a sex worker. The issue here being that society at large seems to have a great moral problem with sex for money, making the sex trade into a big taboo and so attaching stigma to it; a stigma which automatically follows with the sex worker and makes him/her out to be of less intelligence/capability.

When these assumptions are brought out into society, they become dangerous. People who are viewed as less in any kind of way (moral, intelligence, capability of decision-making over self and other things), they become less. These people are easy targets for violence and other sorts of human rights crimes, because they are not seen as fully human. Because a sex worker is already seen as dirty/dumb/incapable, it is more justified to violate such a person in any kind of way than it would be a person who was capable, or rather viewed as more worth. It would be a greater crime to violate someone who is valued as fully human.

These types of crimes, or rather power displays of people who believe themselves to have the right to assert power over other people they see as of less value stain our history. Race, religion, sex, occupation, bloodline - these have all been reasons why it is justified for one person of higher status to take advantage of or assert power over the one with the lesser status. Sex workers are no different, it is just another occupation, but also one that is seen as lowly, not worthy, only for people with problems/in poverty/of lesser intelligence, and the people in it can therefore be used and abused according to the ruling people's wishes, which in this case is anyone who enjoys higher status than a sex worker. Because sex workers enjoy such a low status in society, this means just about anyone.

People may have their differences about what prostitution/sex work represents, and whether or not it is selling your body or simply a transaction that involves sex, but the problems remain regardless: sex workers are used, abused and violated because they are seen as lesser, because people do not consider their full human value. This needs to stop. Sex work and sex workers need to be taken seriously and respected as human beings of a certain occupation, regardless of what anyone's personal opinions is about the line of work. Otherwise these people will continue to be stigmatised and reduced to second class citizenry where they will struggle to even access their supposedly universal human rights.

To finish off I will leave you with a quotation from David Wilson, professor of criminology at the University of Central England and the vice chair of the Howard League for Penal Reform, from the article above:

"There are always going to be a small but consistent group of people in our culture who will want to do the maximum damage to other human beings. They can't continue to do harm to other people … if they are stopped early enough, if the group of people that they initially targeted are valued enough in our culture for the police to take it seriously. We create the phenomenon of serial killing by not valuing this group of people enough."

Condom Confusion

2010-12-22T12:00:00.000Z

As most people will know, the Pope said a while back that it was not acceptable to use condoms for prevention of spreading of HIV, something he later changed his mind about and said that sure, it is okay to use a condom, as long as it is used for prevention of diseases. Most people did not doubt that this was a PR trick as a response to all the criticism that he had received in his unrealistic standpoint on HIV prevention.

Now, the Vatican has issued a clarification on the Pope's statement on condom use, confusing matters further. The Vatican, in response to conservative Catholics who worry, have issued another statement saying that it is still not acceptable to use condoms as a contraceptive. Contraceptives are not allowed to be used as contraceptives, but for the prevention of spreading STDs, how does this work?

If condoms are used solely not to contract a disease, it will inevitably be used as a contraceptive as well. Sex will be had for the sake of sex, not for the sake of procreation, and the condom involved will thus be used as a contraceptive. Even if you see it in the way that if someone has to have sex it is better to use a condom in order to prevent disease spreading, it is still a contraceptive unless it is a sexual act between two members of the same sex or perhaps sex with a prostitute, but this, according to the Vatican, is still morally wrong. The NYT article reads:

It said that condom use by a prostitute for disease prevention could not be considered a “lesser evil” because prostitution is “gravely immoral,” and that “an action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”

The whole matter is just really confusing, condoms cannot be used to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but to prevent disease, is it a matter of motivation, the reason for having sex? But regardless of how one twists it, even if the motivation is condom use for prevention of disease spreading, the sexual act is still not initiated to procreate, so the condom will also be used to prevent any possible pregnancies, because if a person who had HIV wanted a child but wanted to prevent spreading the disease to this child, he or she would probably adopt or try to conceive naturally which would mean a risk of spreading the disease. The whole condom use, according to the Pope and the Vatican is a lose - lose situation.

This all seems like a failed attempt to make the Pope more popular. The criticism for his statement on condoms and HIV, the one where he initially said it is unacceptable to use a condom even for the prevention of spreading the disease was so widely criticised, by Catholics, Protestants, atheists and other people alike, so he went out and condoned condom use in certain situations. This gave rise to a worry among conservative Catholics who were afraid that condoms would be used as a contraceptive against pregnancies, so the Vatican went out and 'clarified' the Pope's statement to appease these people, to solidify the Pope's popularity among that group, and inevitably contradicting what had just been said by the Pope.

The problem with this issue, the use of condoms, is that it is never going to be an issue where compromise can be made. Either you are for the use of condoms, or against it, because either you believe that sex should be had for procreation or pleasure or both. As long as there is even a tiny part of you that believes that sex should be used for pleasure, condoms will inevitably be used as contraception, because even if the major reason for using a condom is to prevent disease spreading, the purpose of the sex is pleasure. If you believe that sex is for procreation, there is no excuse for the use of a condom, because a condom will always partly be a contraceptive purposely used for the prevention of pregnancies, directly or indirectly. There is no compromise. Allowing people to use condoms as a disease prevention mechanism is to encourage, perhaps even condone, sex for other purposes than procreation, i.e. sex for pleasure. And this would open a whole can of worms, it would essentially say that prostitution can be acceptable as long as the circumstances are right, not to mention that it sexual promiscuity would also be accepted.

I suppose the only way to explain this confusing matter is that the Pope and the Vatican seems to think that sex for pleasure is acceptable, but there should not be any contraceptives involved unless there is a known disease in the picture. In that case, it seems that the evil of quenching potential life is lesser than the evil of sexually transmitted diseases. That, or just that the Pope is trying to approach a more mainstream audience and failing greatly.

Another Victory of Love!

2010-12-18T23:59:00.001Z

Some happy news: the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (previous posts here) has finally been voted through in both the Senate and the House and all that seems to be standing between letting gay people openly serve in the US military is an approval of President Obama and his top military advisers. Seeing as one of Obama's election promises was to do away with this policy, it should not be a problem.

I've blogged before about love being love no matter in what shape and how certain kinds of love should not be judged because they strive from the heterosexual norm. Love is love, and love is always good as long as one is not stuck in a destructive spiral. Everyone can love and everyone should have the right to love whomever they wish without being judged. Our world needs all the love it can get, and this will certainly add to it. This is most certainly another victory of love!

To the Marine Corps and Army combat units: Grow up and get over it.

Real men don't cry - unless they have problems

2010-12-17T20:39:00.000Z

While on my nightmare trip home for Christmas, I came across this article about the incoming House Speaker John Boehner. Apparently this man cries, not constantly and arguably not even in inappropriate situations (is there such a thing?), but way too much to be a man, where the expectations are that you don't cry. If your favourite sports team wins or if you go through a loss of a family member, then fine, cry away, but 'normally' men don't cry. Therefore, John Boehner obviously has to be an alcoholic.

Speaking generally, Dr. Robert DuPont, who served as the second White House drug czar and was the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, tells me that "alcohol reduces inhibitions. Whatever emotion you have, you're more likely to express it [when drinking]." DuPont added that alcohol reduces the functioning of the frontal lobes, and "the frontal lobes have to do with judgment, which is why [intoxicated] people do impulsive behavior."
Alcohol also "brings out underlying emotions," explains Dr. Michael Fingerhood, an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. "It generally is unmasking what is inside them."

This excerpt is from the article, and there are other discussions related to his assumed alcohol problems in direct relation to his crying. It should be noted that it is not Politics Daily that is accusing him, it's a discussion of the assumptions made of Boehner by other people, including his colleagues. Because he's a man and he's emotional and that's all fine for a woman, but because he's a man, there simply must be something wrong with him. If it's not the alcohol, it's probably depression or perhaps even an emotional problem, but there must be something awry or he would not cry. He could not simply be a man who cries, perhaps even has drinking problems, but who cries unrelated to his drinking. A man who cries and drinks must be crying because he drinks, it's as simple as that.

Now, if this were a woman, it would be seen as far more natural. Women cry, you know, especially during that time of the month. It's annoying, it's a hassle and it certainly speaks to the fact that they are not suitable for high positions - they're just too emotional, but it's fine to cry if you're a woman.

So remember all you men out there: If you're a man, you can't cry. There are no ifs or buts - you can't cry. And if you're a woman, you can, but you shouldn't. Because [insert whatever here] forbid that we would have more people honest about their feelings, what kind of world would we live in then?

Feminists Against Rape Survivors

2010-12-15T21:02:00.002Z

I didn't really know who Naomi Wolf was until this entire Assange rape accusation case stormed through the media and the woman, as many other women and men, went out and dismissed the sexual assault and rape accusations made against Assange. She wrote about it in the Huffington Post in an article entitled "Julian Assange Captured by World's Dating Police", arguing that because there was such a big ruckus about this entire case, it must be false and the accusations being made solely to further a political agenda, and this thus being a slap in the face to all rape survivors around the world. Why this post was entirely ridiculous and itself a slap in the face to all survivors of sexual assault can be read on Jessica Valenti's blog.

As if that was not enough, the woman went out a couple of days later, completely ignoring all the criticism people had given her and wrote that this time Interpol, Sweden, Britain and USA accuse rape victims world wide. In this article she invokes her knowledge about rape survivors and describes the entire thing as a "theatre." There is no doubt to a lot of feminists and other people that the hard crackdown on Julian Assange allegedly as a consequence of these accusations are politically motivated. That is not, however, because we automatically assume them to be false, as a lot of other people seem to do, but rather because a lot of us are aware that rape survivors and sexual assault victims rarely get due consideration and any form of sexual assault accusation is unlikely to lead to a verdict against the perpetrator. Instead, the survivor/victim often finds him/herself in the role of defending oneself from all type of accusations: why was (s)he walking there at that time of night, what was (s)he wearing, didn't (s)he know better than that!? There is a justification needed for every step of the way why this should be called sexual assault or rape, rather than something one just brought upon themselves. The survivor/victim thus finds him/herself in the role of the perpetrator; a nasty "bitch" who wants to bring down a man's reputation and resorts to falsely accusing men of rape as a tactical choice. The irony in the entire thing lies in the fact that because conviction rates are so appallingly low in most countries, it is a very ineffective way to "take someone down."

But I digress. Wolf points out, rightly, that rape accusations are seldom taken seriously nationally and internationally and it is a slap in the face to other survivors that one should have to accuse someone famous in order to get an accusation taken seriously. This does not, however, mean that we should bring these accusations against Assange to the level of other accusations, it means that authorities need to take all rape accusations seriously. This goes for everyday people as well, who because of different states' willingness to use these accusations to fit into their political agenda, automatically assume that these accusations are invalidated. Just because these accusations fit neatly into the US political agenda does not mean that they are orchestrated by the US government, CIA or any other US organ. It could be possible that the US is capitalising on events already happened without holding the strings. It should be possible to hold two thoughts in a brain at the same time, something which seems that a lot of people are completely incapable of, including Michael Moore and Naomi Wolf.

So today when Naomi Wold wrote another article bashing the Swedish legal system called "Sweden's Serial Negligence in Prosecuting Rape Further Highlights the Politics Behind Julian Assange's Arrest" I started wondering if she was just plainly ignorant. Wolf points out some pretty important criticism against the Swedish legal systems, the prosecutors in particular, saying that they are quite terrible at properly prosecuting rape accusations. There is an appallingly low number of cases that ever reach a verdict, and rape survivors in Sweden has to go through the usual amount of victim blaming and rape apologia from prosecutors and authorities that happens in every culture. So a lot of the criticism Wolf dishes out is very valid and something I hope that Swedish prosecutors, authorities and other people otherwise involved in rape cases take to heart. But then she goes on...

But none of the media outlets hyperventilating now about how this global-manhunt/Bourne-identity-chase-scene-level treatment of a sex crime allegation originating in Sweden must be 'normative' has bothered to do any actual reporting of how rape -- let alone the far more ambiguous charges of Assange's accusers, which are not charges of rape but of a category called 'sex by surprise,' which has no analog elsewhere -- is actually prosecuted in Sweden.

Wolf obviously has not done her home work. There still isn't such a thing as 'sex by surprise', and this is still not what Assange is wanted for or accused of! It's still a phrase used to trivialise rape, and has now been spread and reinforced by a self-proclaimed high profile feminist. What is more, Wolf blatantly ignores parts of the reports by BRÅ that she herself cites in the article. In their reports, BRÅ have acknowledged that Sweden has very high accusations of sexual crimes, and they have also asked why, something Wolf completely fails to do. The conclusions were that because of new legislation on sexual crimes clubbed through in the late nineties and onward, the definition for sex crimes, among them rape, have been broadened and now Sweden has a broader definition of some sexual crimes than other countries do. They also said that it cannot be concluded that sexual crimes are not on the uprising in Sweden, but it is hard to determine because of the widening of sex crime legislation. (Sift trough BRÅ's publications here, specific report here, they're generally in Swedish but some (most?) have summaries in English). By picking and choosing in the information and leaving out crucial parts, Wolf has made herself guilty of the same fault as a friend of mine accused Michael Moore for - one-sided arguments. As a journalist Wolf should be able to do better, and as a feminist, especially in this case.

It is a shame that high profile feminists are not doing their home work, not investigating this issue good enough and, as a consequence, start feeding into rape myths and rape apologia. I think that what Wolf is doing might ultimately harm rape survivors across the world more than the slap in the face they are receiving from governments for taking this case especially seriously to promote their own political agenda. Hopefully something can be learned from that - that sex crime accusations all deserve to be treated with seriousness, because they are serious accusations. What Naomi Wolf is teaching is that it is fine to disbelieve and dismiss rape and sexual assault accusers, as long as you strongly believe that the person accused has done something good. This is one of the oldest rape myths in the book - that a person that is well-known and well-liked cannot commit a crime, and Wolf is not even capable to see through it.

I'm Disappointed, Michael Moore

2010-12-14T19:20:00.000Z

Michael Moore, the well-known documentary film maker has stated publicly on his blog why he is posting bail money for Julian Assange. So far I'm with him, Wikileaks have done a great many good things and to want to post bail money for the front figure of the organisation is in no way a statement on being against rape and sexual assault accusations or saying that they do not deserve to be heard. I can understand why a lot of people think that Assange deserves to come out on bail and move about freely while extradition negotiations are underway as long as he does not try to escape the UK. It makes sense, people do not think he should be incarcerated before a crime has been proven. Swedish authorities have appealed this decision, according to Gemma Lindfield, representative of the Swedish authorities, because they believe there is a real possibility Assange might attempt to leave the country. A valid concern, I think, but perhaps not strong enough to keep this man locked up while the extradition is negotiated, a process that has been said could take weeks.

So when Swedish authorities appealed this decision to let Assange out on bail, Michael Moore tweeted the following:

I will be lying if I didn't say I expected better from this man, perhaps naïvely. Michael Moore has bought into these theories of a joint Swedish government/feminist and CIA co operation conspiracy. As a man who have produced documentaries that I have enjoyed immensely because of their capability of revealing things that have not been seen when looking at issues superficially, I would have expected him to do a little bit more critical thinking than that. Instead, it seems, that his hatred of the American government(s) and their power plays has made him automatically assume that this cannot be anything but a great puppet show with the US apparatus pulling the strings. I am disappointed.

I have said before and I feel forced to reiterate: serious accusations deserve to be heard and considered in an appropriate manner. Accusations of sex crimes, including rape, are serious, and therefore deserve to be heard. They do not automatically deserve to be believed without any critical thinking, but neither do they deserve to be dismissed as another one of America's great schemes in the plot to take over the world.

I can understand the willingness to defend Wikileaks and post bail for a man that has not been sentenced to any crime yet, but I cannot understand how a world renowned investigative journalist dismissed these accusations through such narrow thinking.

Decembrow

2010-12-13T18:11:00.002Z

Frida Kahlo, famous, among other things, for her self-portraits which always celebrated her glorious unibrow.

I had completely missed this! Apparently December month is the month where self-identified feminists and women all over the world grow a unibrow for a charitable cause of free choice, called Decembrow. It's been proposed by feminist site Feministing, a site that I frequent because of their good articles. The charitable brow growing serves dual purposes, because not only is it for a good cause, it also (hopefully) helps to get rid of the taboo of women and body hair.

Unfortunately my eyebrows are way too light to even show as a unibrow, even though they might fulfil the bushiness criterion. I just wish I had found out about it earlier, because then I would have had time to prepare to first of all choose a charity and then think a bit more about how to raise the money. Next year, I will definitely keep this in mind, perhaps I will follow suit from the Movember challenge and contribute to prostate cancer too? The possibilities are endless.

For this year, what I will do is attempt to make my brows extra bushy and root for all the women who have the courage to defy gender norms and participate in a bit of facial hair-growing. Good luck to all of you fantastic females with Frida Kahlo style brows.

Rape A Human Rights Issue?

2010-12-10T17:38:00.000Z

Today is the Human Rights day, so my blog post will deal with that. Human Rights Day is a day where all defenders of human rights are recognised, including ones that work on a personal level and in obscurity. Every single one of us who respects human rights and works for them should feel they deserve part of the creds of this day.

This article by Nina Fennell in the Australian news paper argues that rape is not only a feminist issue, but also a human rights one. Essentially, any sex crime, is a violation of human rights because it is an infringement on the human right of self-determination, as well as some other negative human rights, i.e. freedom from certain things.

Fennell argues that putting rape into a context of human rights rather than leaving it exclusively on the feminist turf will open up the debate and bring in people that feel alienated by the exclusiveness of feminism. In my personal letters to various universities, I argued that this is precisely what I believe is necessary for feminism - an opening up of the nuanced debate that occurs in feminist and academic circles to be brought out into a more accessible arena in order to avoid misconceptions and hostility towards feminists and feminism. I agree with Fennell that, sometimes, feminism is perceived as quite hard to relate to for a lot of people, especially, I think, men. Feminism is often viewed as this pro-female movement, which it in all certainty is. The misconceptions start where people believe that to be pro-female one must also inevitably be anti-male. For me, and a lot of other feminists, this is as far from the truth as can be (more in the above linked post and also here).

Would it be beneficial to view rape as a human rights issue? Yes, it definitely would. Using a more neutral ground for the discussion could possibly lead to a more inclusive debate and that would consequently lead to a more open debate around rape culture, rape myths and rape apologia. Debating these things in a non-feminist light could allow for these concepts to become more neutral, i.e. not seen as a feminist myth evoked to bring down the great evil patriarchy, or rather men. This would be very beneficial to all parts in society as these are prevalent problems and they have the consequence of leading to further misconceptions about rape, sex crimes and the survivors of these crimes.

But, there is a reason why rape and sex crimes lie so close to the heart of women. Most statistics point out that these types of crimes happen mainly to women, with males representing approximately 7-15% of the survivors (USA, Britain - more statistics are usually available through each individual country and are quite easily accessible). Because of this, it is often seen as a big part making up the encompassing subject of violence against women. Power in these situations are often a gendered issue with the dominance of a male being established over a female as a consequence of a sexual crime. Interestingly, UNFPA devotes an entire chapter on 'Gender roles in flux' in their publication at the 10-year anniversary of the publishing of Resolution 1325 which deals exclusively with women in conflict. The chapter shows how in post-conflict societies, where women continue doing 'men's work' of running the productive economy that they took up during conflict, men often resort to domestic violence in order to reclaim their masculinity. Alan Greig also has interesting work on masculinities for anyone who is interested in reading further on the issue.

It has to be noted, however, that these statistics might need a bit wider interpretation of sexual assault for males, as most cultures still do not believe that men can be sexually assaulted in the same way as women. It's a part of the common conception of men as perpetrators, women as victims (see Moser, Victims, Perpetrators or Actors: Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence for an explanation how this is viewed in conflict); roles which can damage both men and women in the long run. Men are at risk of being largely overlooked as victims of sex crimes, and women are recurrently portrayed as passive victims just standing idly by waiting for someone to sexually assault them or for a man to save them.

Gender analysis is needed in issues such as rape and other sex crimes, just because it often contains a lot of gendered violence as a result of perceived or assigned gender roles. Therefore, to take it entirely from the area of feminist analysis could result in the analytical tools needed to understand this sort of violence and coercion being cast aside, and that would be damaging in the long run for all parties involved.

Women's rights are human rights, however, and Fennell makes a very good point. There is a need to bring out these issues to a more neutral ground where people do not feel alienated by the frame work of discussion. Hopefully this can be done in a way that can reconcile both human rights and feminist/gender analysis.

Happy human rights day!

A Note on Feminism

2010-12-09T14:42:00.002Z

Because of this whole Assange sex crime circus and the alleged feminist conspiracy taking place against him, or rather Wikileaks (which is not synonymous with Assange and important to keep in mind), it seems that there are several misconceptions about feminism. Feminists all over the place are being painted out to belong to a certain club that by proxy have taken a position against Assange and have accused him of committing the sex crimes that he is accused for. It is essential to separate between accusing Assange and simply pointing out that serious accusations should be taken seriously, which is what feminists have been doing. There is a lot of confusion over rape laws, consent and such things, and I have myself been guilty of assuming certain things about rape and the legislation surrounding it. What is important to note is that there is no such thing as "Sex by Surprise", it is an inappropriate euphemism that seems to have been (mis)communicated to Assange's attorney.

The entire circus upsets me, because it seems that feminists everywhere are getting the blame for Assange being accused of these crimes. It is as if people think our alleged man-hating, left-wing agenda is the perfect weapon for bringing down this popular man. It is also funny how this is alleged to have been in co operation with CIA as a joint international feminist/CIA/US-and-its-supporting-regimes crack down on Wikileaks, as Joan Smith at the Independent points out. Feminism usually is not associated with neo-imperialism, neo-liberalism or any such thing apart from being its opponent. That feminism and these ideologies now would co operate to bring down Wikileaks is quite far-fetched to say the least. That is not saying that one feminist could not have CIA ties, but it is probably not due to her feminist views that she would, then, co operate with CIA.

I expect a huge backlash against rape survivors, feminists and also women all over the world when this case is over. The statistics speak against Assange being sentenced to anything - Sweden has appallingly low conviction rates for sex crimes. I fear that once this is over those of us who spoke up against trivialising sex crime charges and smear campaigns are going to get this thrown in our faces in some sort of "I told you that a lot of women falsely accuses men for rape, just for revenge of some sorts." I also fear that this will lead to rape myths being reinforced in society and that it will belittle people taking women or men accusing someone of a sex crime. This is a plea not to let this happen. Any case should be considered in court on its own merits, and that is where the final verdict should come from.

Self-identifying as a feminist does not rob me, nor anyone else, of the capability to rational thought, nor does it make us by default 'radical' or 'militant.' Feminism is a broad approach that includes people from all over the political spectrum, although perhaps over-represented by people with certain political leanings. Point being, we are all individuals whose view-points and arguments deserve to be considered with the same respect and regard as anyone else's.

What we do have in common is an advocacy for women's rights. This does not, by proxy, make us man-haters or in any sense make us think that men's rights in the area where they are discriminated are just as important. Neither does it make us think that there should not be people advocating these rights as well. In fact, some feminists do, and some chose to focus solely on women's questions, some include sexualities, some have other issues they also advocate. It is a broad concept, and generalisations about what all feminists think about an issue based on one, or two, or some self-identifying feminists will often be wrong.

See this as a plea not to trivialise sex crime accusations both in this particular case with Assange, but also after this case is over. And please, do not drag an entire theory into this smear campaign, because that is simply not justified.

Asylum Seekers Having to Undergo "Arousal Tests"

2010-12-08T22:04:00.000Z

I was hoping I had read enough horrible things for one day after posting the previous post not even an hour ago, but I was clearly wrong.

BBC reports that asylum seekers in the Czech Republic have had to undergo 'arousal tests' to determine whether or not they are truly gay, since being homosexual is a valid ground for seeking asylum. This is due to the appalling conditions that a lot of gay people face in their home countries, including violence, rape and persecution.

How this clear violation of human rights and integrity should be regarded as anything less than the persecution a lot of these men have to undergo in their home countries is unclear to me. The article reports that the men are made to watch heterosexual porn, and if they become aroused while watching, they are denied asylum. There is nothing to say that a man cannot get an erection from watching porn even if the actors are heterosexual. Besides, how is one tested if one is a bisexual male? As a bisexual male, having a relationship with a male is still going to make people do all sorts of atrocious things to you in the countries where homosexuality is illegal or completely unacceptable culturally.

Regardless of whether the test works or not, no one should have to go through sexual tests of any kind in order to determine whether or not someone should be granted asylum. According to the same logic, trafficked men and women should be ordered to perform certain sexual favours to prove that they are sex workers. (I know that being a sex worker, especially one held under coercion, doesn't automatically teaches you sex tricks, but it is a common misconception.) It is completely unacceptable, regardless of existing written consent. Come on, what are the asylum seekers going to do? Refuse to undergo the test and be sent back with all certainty? It is a ridiculous defence and would not hold anywhere.

This whole ordeal also strikes me as very unequal. Or perhaps they have thought of ways of testing lesbian women that I have not. I shudder at the sheer thought. Is this another one of those cases where male homosexuality is regarded at least doubly as 'awful' as women's? In either case, it is appalling.
Shame on you, Czech Republic!

Padded Bras for 5-year-olds Appropriate for Christmas?

2010-12-08T21:02:00.003Z

I have blogged a bit on sexualisation of culture previously (click the tag at the bottom of this post and it will take you to all the posts), and this is an example how it can affect first hand. Not even childhood is left alone anymore. Parents tell of being "bombarded" with padded bras, lap dancing kits and t-shirts with "Porn star" written over the chest - all for 5-year-olds. But if that wasn't early enough to be introduced to such things, I will never forget when I saw a t-shirt for an infant with the text "I did my mommy a number" printed with stitches painted next to it, implying that this baby had torn open his mother's vagina, and that it should be something worthy bragging about! Now I know children wearing this t-shirt would be completely unknowing of this, but what message does it send to all the men out there?

Sexualisation of culture is inescapable today. Not even children are free of it, and when the patterns are being reproduced, it grows up to be the norm. For those thinking this is all exaggerated and that people don't buy these kinds of things, not really - obviously they do. Otherwise there wouldn't be a business built up around it. The sexualised clothing and toys are all mirroring the adult society, because if you really think about it, there is not much reaction when an adult woman buys a lap dancing kit or wears a t-shirt saying "Porn Star."

Yes, the difference lies in the fact that they are adults and they can decide for themselves, and they rightly should, but at some level these women, too, are affected by the message society sends us. What is worrying is not necessarily the 'sexy' culture as I've heard people describe it, what is worrying is that this has become the norm to the extent where it is accepted for toddlers to buy into it. It is an attitude that has been extended to children, by their role models.

I heard a story, not too long ago, that a woman told me about. She had been out wanting to buy a regular black t-shirt for her daughter who was around six at the time. She went to one of the major stores and she could not find a t-shirt that did not show the shoulder. Remember, she was shopping for a six-year-old, and she could not find a t-shirt that did not show some skin.

Now, showing skin is not bad in itself, neither is sex (for consenting adults), but the problem lies in that there is so much value attached to it. There is still a double standard regarding women. To be accepted, they have to follow the norm; the norm being the increasingly body-focused, superficial, sexy society, but if they in any way insinuate that they might have had "too many" sexual partners (where is the limit for "too many" anyway?) they are immediately stigmatised or used solely as a sexual object to be used and abused according to one's wishes. A woman's value is still very much tied to her sexuality and how she approaches it, but it is a fine line to thread. Wear too many turtle-necks and you are "frigid" or "boring", wear clothes that expose too much and you are a "slut" or perhaps even a "whore." Finding that golden line in the middle where one will be accepted is an increasingly hard task, and unfortunately it does not give you a lot of room to manoeuvre any sort of personality lest you should be ostracised again.

Clearly, when padded bras have become an accepted Christmas present for a 5-year-old, when her older sister runs around in a t-shirt spelling "future trophy wife" and the infant brother unknowingly brags about violently exiting his mother, we have to start thinking about the implications of where this sexualisation is taking us.

This is a Halloween costume, clearly for children. Watch and weep.

Feminist Conspiracies and Julian Assange

2010-12-07T16:11:00.001Z

It is hard to avoid all this hype around Assange and Wikileaks. I know this will be my third consecutive post on it, but there is just so much that is off with the entire circus.

Today, another one of those anti-rape charge news articles were posted by Daily Mail. (I wrote about the AOL News article yesterday.) This one is not much better than the last one, and some of the bits made me close my eyes in disgust.

Once again, a lot of the emphasis is put on the fact that at least one of the women is a self-proclaimed feminist. In this article it is described as follows

An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.
While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.

She is this time not only a radical feminist, but a militant one, taking this description of aggression and rabidness to a whole different level than when she was simply described as 'radical.' It is also implying some kind of physical method of resistance, I suppose against the patriarchy, or men in general. I'm reiterating what I said yesterday: just because this woman is a feminist, radical, militant or whatever type doesn't mean that she cannot be raped or sexually assaulted in any other way. In fact, having manoeuvred the legal system in cases of sexual harassment before means that she is probably more knowledgeable about what rights she has and doesn't have. Likewise, it does not tell anything about the case that Assange has said that he will fight the extradition to Sweden.

Also, about some of the rumours about the power relations in rape cases. The legislation exists. But as far as I have gathered from reading about it, both in media and various discussions, it was passed because of different relations than the ones involved in this case. The legislation is, the argument goes, there for the protection of people that are essentially in a dependency position, for instance a boss and his/her employee. If the boss at one point indicates or expressly says to his/her employee that sex is needed for advancement, this would be counted as rape. The same goes for a situation with, say a university Professor and his/her student with regards to grades. If the person that clearly has more power over the other forces the other person through verbal threats, explicit or implicit, that if the dependent person does not have sex with him/her, they will not receive the promotion/grades promised. Note that this is not simply sleeping one's way up to the top, there is an element of coercion in this case. I don't know what allegation the women accusing Assange made in regards to power relations or anything similar, but I would think that this particular piece of legislation would not be applicable in this case, unless there is information that we do not know about that points to something like this. If this law can be thrown around on little to no basis at all, then yes, I agree with its critics, it needs to be seriously revised, but I would like to have a little more faith in the judicial system than that.

This whole business seems to me have turned into an affair of Wikileaks vs. the women. And I do not mean Wikileaks as in the organisation itself has turned against the women; I mean Wikileaks in the sense that people seem to have made Julian Assange synonymous with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organisation, not a person, and people would do very well to keep this in mind. There is no doubt that Wikileaks have done people good through releasing information; people have the right to know. However, just because Wikileaks, the organisation has done something good, does not mean Julian Assange the person cannot do something bad. This argument is applicable in the reverse as well for those who see this information leak as something negative. Just because Wikileaks the organisation did something you consider horrible, does not mean that Julian Assange the person will inevitably rape women.

Lastly, I want to point out that just because Sweden has a legal system that is equal, that takes into consideration women's needs in such cases as rape, where the conviction rates are appallingly low, does not mean it hates men or that it inevitably discriminates men. The statistics speak to the reverse, it is very hard to be sentenced for a rape crime. Besides, Sweden is not exactly known for its fierce punishments and long prison sentences. I would believe many people regard the Swedish legal system as 'soft' because of its focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The Swedish state is great in many senses, it has been at the top of the list for democratic countries for a while, and is according to the previously linked index the most democratic country. This does not mean it is flawless, but it does mean that we do have a judicial system that is reliable. It does also point to the fact that there is no huge feminist conspiracy of this seemingly man-hating country in addition to the much-speculated government conspiracies. (By the by, I would like to set something straight here - feminism doesn't mean being against men; it means the struggle for equality between men and women and although there are man-hating people identifying as feminists, this is not the norm.)

Sweden is a country that respects women's rights, some would even argue perhaps not as much as it should, and I, as a native Swede, resent that this should be painted in a bad light. There is no anti-male bias, or an exclusive pro-female bias, but there is a will to reach equality between the sexes. This equality is completely opposite to the view that all men are rapists, so there is no logical basis that anyone should judge Sweden as a country who is anti-male, which is what all this talk about Assange "running afoul" of pro-feminist laws seems to imply (from the AOL News article cited in yesterday's post).

Also, keep in mind, Sweden is not charging Assange for any involvement he has with Wikileaks; they are charging him with the alleged rape, sexual harassment and duress against two women. This is not a trial of Wikileaks, this is a trial of a man who has been accused of sexual offences.

For any specific questions regarding Swedish rape law, a Swedish law student under the pseudonym Mortality has kindly offered to answer questions. If you are genuinely interested with the nuances and grey areas of Swedish rape law, contact this person with your questions. If you are just out to criticise Swedish rape law, I suggest you do not clutter this person's mail box.

"Sex by Surprise"

2010-12-06T16:11:00.004Z

A friend of mine posted this news article from AOL News on Facebook. It tells that Julian Assange's UK based lawyer called what Assange was charged for "sex by surprise" and it is insinuated that this is a Swedish crime.

First of all, let me put this straight: there is no such crime as "sex by surprise" in Sweden. Assange is charged for rape, sexual harassment and duress, and this is, what is called in Swedish legal terms, on "sannolika skäl;" a classification that means that the prosecutor has enough evidence to make her believe it is likely the verdict will be in her favour. There is fairly strong evidence, then, it is not charge pulled out of thin air. "Sex by surprise" or överraskningssex as it would be translated in Swedish is slang for rape. It is a term that is used when speaking about rape, but jokingly, or keeping it light, a word that brings with it positive connotations, which makes the word inappropriate in itself, but it is nevertheless synonymous with rape.

What allegedly happened, AOL News reports, was

The woman and Assange also reportedly had sex. According to the Daily Mail account, Assange did not use a condom at least one time during their sexual activity. The New York Times today quoted accounts given by the women to police and friends as saying Assange "did not comply with her appeals to stop when (the condom) was no longer in use."

Take a close look at the section I put in italics there. Assange did not comply with the woman's appeals to stop. It does not matter when these appeals were voiced, it matters that they were. By continuing having sex with the woman when she had voiced her wishes not to have sex with him, he had sex with her without her consent: rape by definition.
Note, that it isn't, as is also said in the news article, "Sweden's unusual rape laws, which are considered pro-feminist because of the consideration given issues of consent when it comes to sexual activity -- including even the issue of whether a condom was used." - it has to do with consent, and in this case, it was allegedly lacking, which is what the charges are based on. And no, it does not matter that they were having sex while she changed her mind, a person is allowed to stop a sexual act at any point (have a look at the rape myths below - "Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop - Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused").

What really worries me with this whole circus is that it is panning out to be a popularity contest, as with so many other rape cases. There is the much-loved, at least by people not involved in the state, liberator of information against the allegedly rabid Swedish feminist. The article says about one of Assange's accusers:

She's a 31-year-old blond academic and member of the Social Democratic Party who's known for her radical feminist views, once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

This belongs to rape myths 101 - that a woman cannot be raped because she acts in a certain way, dresses in a certain way or said some things at one point or another. Just because this woman is a feminist who is interested in how to take revenge on men does not mean she cannot be raped or sexually assaulted, whichever one of the accusations she is behind. Following the same logic, it would mean that Assange is more than likely to be a rapist because he has been described as a chauvinist by Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Icelandic MP. Neither of these facts tell anything about whether or not Julian Assange has raped and/or sexually assaulted the women.

This is a matter for the courts. They have the evidence, they will reach a verdict. Do not make this a public trial. Read this instead (from the Roger Williams University webpage):
Myth: Rape is caused by lust or uncontrollable sexual urges and the need for sexual gratification.

Fact: Rape is an act of physical violence and domination that is not motivated by sexual gratification.

Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop.

Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused.

Myth: Women often lie about rape or falsely accuse someone of rape.

Fact: Statistical studies indicate false reports make up 2% or less of the reported cases of sexual assault. This figure is approximately the same for other types of crimes. Only 1 out of 10 rapes are actually reported. Rapes by someone the victim knows are the least likely to be reported.

Myth: Women provoke sexual assault by their appearance. Sexual attractiveness is a primary reason why a rapist selects a victim.

Fact: Rapists do not select their victims by their appearance. They select victims who are vulnerable and accessible. Victims of sexual assault range in age groups from infants to the elderly. Sexual attractiveness is not an issue.

Myth: Sexual assault is a topic that only concerns women, and men do not have to be concerned about sexual assault.

Fact: According to recent rape crisis center statistics, men, both straight and gay, suffered 10% of the sexual assaults reported in the US last year. (Almost all were raped by other men.) In addition, men have wives, friends, sisters, mothers, and daughters who may someday need assistance in coping with sexual assault. Rape is a concern for everyone.

Myth: If a woman really did not want to be raped, she could fight off her attacker.

Fact: Even if the rapist is not carrying a weapon, the element of surprise, shock, and fear, or the threat of harm can overpower a survivor.

Update:
Here's a link to more information of what, exactly, it is Assange is being charged for. According to this article, it seems the condom incident is the molestation charge, the rape is based on the allegation that "Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner." Keep in mind, though, that with so many different versions of everything circulating the web, it is now more important than ever to not listen to rumours.

On Citizenship, Rights and Duties

2010-12-05T23:59:00.002Z

Since there seems to exist an interest in reading my Swedish blogpost on Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Swedish government secrecy, I shall make an attempt to translate it into English. Here it goes:

Tonight Dokument Inifrån (Document from the Inside) was broadcasted on Swedish public service television revealing how evidence has been found in the latest Cablegate Wikileaks documents that the Swedish government were aware that the US government had been monitoring Swedish citizens and even encouraged it to facilitate the mapping of terrorist activity. Meanwhile, Julian Assange's native country is considering cancelling his passport. All these issues lead to uncomfortable questions about citizenship, its duties and the rights of citizens.

Where do you draw the line? Citizenship obviously comes with rights, something which is focused upon a lot in liberal democracies. We have human rights, legal rights, social rights, economic rights - all kinds of rights. Rights are important in a democracy. A democracy is based on its citizens, its participants, and if citizens do not have the means to participate in a democracy it cannot be sustained. But what about the duties?

There is an obvious obligation connected to citizenship. The relation within a democracy is a give and take one, not a unilateral form of decision making from either side. That is why there is an inherent duty to participate in a democracy after one's ability, as well as to contribute to society (often, in modern societies, this is in the form of taxes). Through meeting certain criteria, the state will reciprocate through giving citizens rights. The state ensures that the citizens have the means to contribute to society, that they can participate in the democracy. It lies in the interest of a democracy that its citizens participate, because without participation it will not be a democracy.

These rights to participation are relatively new when it comes to citizenship. When the theories were first formed, democracy was not, at least not in the form it is today, as certain. Instead the focus lay on the state's obligation to protect the citizen. Political philosophers such as Hobbes viewed this as a fair trade; give up some of your liberty and the state will guarantee to protect you against external threats. This is where the confusion lies in today's discussions. Instead, the chosen focus is on the obligations the citizens have to the state and what is offered are the new forms of rights. Citizens' most fundamental right, protection, is ignored.

The Swedish government's decision to let USA monitor citizens on Swedish soil smells of the old Moderates and of Beatrice Ask, our Minister of Justice, giving witness of an all too hard line with regards to crime in a society where Svensson and his friends will constantly throw a look over the shoulder in fear of the police state. The argument follows as such, that is, evidently, is better for non-criminals to live in a society as free of crime as possible. That is why hard measures are required to ensure that criminals will not be allowed to walk the street. There has been talk of purple envelopes being sent to accused (not sentenced) rapists, and not too long ago the definition of child pornography was widened to the extent where a man was sentenced for the possession of manga pictures of naked women/girls of a questionable age. It is a line that has been driven too far, and has begun to focus more on citizen obligations than their rights. This is exactly what has also happened in this case when the government knew about what was happening within the country borders and allowed their citizens to be monitored by a foreign power.

US has, the documents tell us, monitored Swedish citizens in the vicinity of their embassy in Stockholm with the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. At least this is the reason being given. Beatrice Ask and the government have the entire time denied any knowledge of this, but as Dokument Inifrån has shown tonight, it seems that they have. This was probably justified, according to those who support this type of activity, since counter-terrorist measures will be to the benefit of us all. Certainly is this so, but are there any particular reasons why the US wanted to monitor Swedish citizens? Is there a reason to why they view the Swedish people as such a big threat that we need monitoring? That terrorism can be found anywhere is not an acceptable reason for our government to allow a foreign power to spy on us. Or government's duty is to protect us, not hang us out to dry. What is more, the reason being given for not disclosing this information to the Swedish people is that both the foreign ministry and the ministry of justice was aware that the political climate in Sweden was one against more monitoring. On what ground did they then, as popularly elected persons, believe themselves to have the mandate to sanction this?

Moving on to Assange. Apparently his native country sees his high position within Wikileaks as a justifiable reason to leave him over to a foreign power and deprive him from the documentation that can actually prove his existence. This is happening without a debate on whether he, through democratic grounds, has actually done mankind, including Australian citizens, a favour through highlighting certain international issues that have henceforth kept hidden to the very same people that elect people to govern on issues they obviously do not know their position on, or how they would act when presented with them. Instead Australia runs to USA like a good lapdog with the stick hanging out of the mouth. Where are Assange's rights, and where is the obligation of his home country to at least hold a serious discussion on the issue? (A fundamental obligation of the citizen toward the state is of course to adhere to the laws, and the state's right to punish a citizen who doesn't.) Should Assange not at least be tried within the Australian judiciary without the influence of America, which already has stated its position on this matter?

Assange said in an interview a couple of days ago that he had started to seriously consider what citizenship means. I can't help but wonder the same thing.

Update:
It seems that today (December 6th, 2010) the Australian government has issued a statement allowing Assange to travel home to Australia or to receive advise abroad, "just as any Australian citizen." Let's hope the Australian government does away with the blatant bias as well.

EU Widens 'Human Trafficking' Definition

2010-12-04T16:46:00.000Z

BBC reports that the European Union is widening the definition of human trafficking to include aiding, abetting, instigating or attempting. This is all very well and good, but it is not enough. What is needed is not so much a more inclusive definition of human trafficking as a major overhaul of the migration policies with regards to human trafficking.

In fact, a widening of the definition could mean that victimisation becomes even more widespread. Not to mention that there are problems with the definitions of these new criteria. What, for instance, constitutes as aiding or abetting trafficking? Is it simply enough to employ someone who has been trafficked without knowledge, or buying sexual favours from a prostitute who has been trafficked, even if the person buying is not aware of it? It is not obvious who is and who is not a trafficking victims as they are often held under threats to ensure they do not seek help.

Instead, what is needed, is a major look through EU's migration policies to ensure that people who have been trafficked can access their human rights in their destination countries. Currently, protection and support is often dependent on the trafficked person giving up information on the people who have trafficked them into the country. As the definition of human trafficking includes an element of coercion or threat, it is often hard for trafficked people to turn against the people who trafficked them. It is not uncommon for a sex trafficking victim, for instance, to have his or her family threatened by his or her pimp, making the trafficked person believe (regardless of the truth of the threat) that if he or she tells on the trafficker, his or her family will be in mortal danger.

What is more, and this is especially applicable to people who have been trafficked into sex work, is that there is still a stigma attached to being a trafficked person. Because the access of rights for these people is so poor today, and because the migration laws are so restrictive with regards to trafficked people, actually turning to the authorities for help might not feel like an option to these people. Often, if one comes out as a prostitute, because of the current moralisation of sexuality, that person is viewed as unclean and damaged. Unfortunately, this reflects in the authorities' dealings with such persons, especially because of the general lack of training. Seeking help from authorities might, thus, do more psychological damage. Also, in doing so, the trafficked person knows that the possibility he or she will be return to the country of origin is very big. This is not a bright prospect when these people fear being ostracised from their communities, cast off even by their family, because of the social stigma that is attached to prostitution and rape. Comparable to this is the vast number of women who were sexually terrorised in former Yugoslavia during the war, and have still not come forward because of the social stigma attached to being raped. (For further reading, see the recent UNFPA report published this year.)

Because some trafficking victims are actually voluntary illegal immigrants who were put into slave-like conditions upon the arrival in the destination country, authorities might be reluctant to give these people their rights as they are already seen as criminals. What they fail to understand, however, is that these people are still held against their will in a line of work that they have not agreed to (usually prostitution) and that they are being exploited on a daily basis. They lack the basic rights of self-determination over their own beings, and this can happen regardless if someone has entered a country illegally. Punishing these people for being illegal immigrants in the first place is nothing less than a double restriction of their rights.

As long as women and men who are trafficked into foreign countries against their wills or into a job that was not agreed upon from the start do not have access to protection and human rights, it is not going to be enough to widen the definition of human trafficking. As with a lot of other policies to prevent human trafficking, this one is aimed at stopping the organised crime rings involved with the consequence of ignoring the needs of the people who are actually being trafficked.

Holiday Sexism

2010-12-03T19:07:00.002Z

The holiday seasons are soon upon us, and even though we are not quite there yet, the Christmas spirit has been showing everywhere for a while now. Halloween merchandise was quickly replaced with Christmas merchandise, all to maximise the profits. In Sweden, the Christmas smorgasbords are being set up and people have planned their holidays and what presents to give to their beloved ones for some time.

With Christmas comes the unavoidable Christmas music that some so love to hate. Personally I am a big fan of anything making this dark time of the year a bit brighter. Also, it is best to savour the Christmas spirit while one can, because after boxing day a lot of people are going to be quite glad they do not have to see the holiday for another 12 months.

Last night I went to a lovely party, one of a few, that mark the end of the university semester and is a 'good bye and happy holidays' gathering of a sorts. There was mulled wine, great food and brilliant company. At one point it was decided that we were going to sing, and our lovely hostess, organised as she is, had printed out the lyrics of a few songs on paper so that we could all join in.

One of these songs was 'Santa Baby', Kylie Minogue style. I have had trouble with that song for a very long time because I simply cannot stand the way Kylie dumbs herself down and moans like a sexually frustrated teenager at various points, but because of this allergy to this song I had never bothered to look at the lyrics properly. Until last night. In retrospect I am a bit surprised by my surprise that it was possible that this song was even more stupid than I had previously thought. Any song where a grown woman makes sexual innuendoes about Santa Claus should already be on the top 10 list of the stupidest songs of all time. I will now post the lyrics in their full stupidity for you to see.

Santa Baby,
Just slip a sable under the tree
For me
Been an awful good girl
Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight

Santa baby, a '54 convertible too
Light blue
I'll wait up for you, dear
Santa baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight

Think of all the fun I've missed
Think of all the fellas that I haven't kissed
Next year I could be just as good
If you'll check off my Christmas list

Santa Baby, I want a yacht and really thats not
Alot
Been an angel all year
Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight

Santa honey, one little thing I really need
The deed
To a platinum mine
Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight

Santa cutie, and fill my stocking with a duplex
And cheques
Sign your 'x' on the line
Santa cutie, and hurry down the chimney tonight

Come and trim my Christmas tree
With some decorations bought at Tiffany's
I really do believe in you
Lets see if you believe in me

Santa Baby, forgot to mention one little thing
A ring
I don't mean on the phone
Santa Baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight
Hurry down the chimney tonight
Hurry...tonight

The song was originally sung by Eartha Kitt, and many covers have been recorded. A quick you tube search reveals that Britney Spears, the Pussycat Dolls and Taylor Swift have all made an attempt at it; none of them as silly as Minogue's version of it. At least in some versions, the sexual has been downplayed and it is performed more to be a cheeky letter to Santa than an invitation for him to seek warmth in the woman's bed while he's flying around the world saving Christmas. Minogue plainly makes it sound like this is some kind of trade off - sex for expensive gifts. She even makes "come and trim my Christmas tree" sound dirty.

The lyrics in themselves are not unproblematic. The singer clearly paints herself out to be a helpless woman who needs to be economically and emotionally saved by the big, manly Santa. The gifts she is asking for are silly things without much value. Luxury items, jewellery and other pretty things are what the list is made up of; superficial things used to add to her seductive charm so that, perhaps, it will be easier to get Santa into bed next year. It is all shallow and horribly sexist, a reproduction of the most unflattering gender assumptions.

This song is just simply horrible. I am not in the habit of playing it because, as I said, I have never liked it, but this year I will be making a conscious effort not to listen to it voluntarily.

Here is a video of Kylie Minogue performing this song at the Top of the Pops. Notice how Santa's helpers are half-naked and how all three of them point to their chests at various points of the song. Also note how Minogue even makes herself look dumber than normal when singing it, adding to the perception that she is a helpless, silly goose.

(Sorry, have to do this to claim my blog on bloglovin: Follow my blog with bloglovin)

Let's get away from the fairy tales, shall we?

2010-11-29T23:40:00.002Z

Those of you who can read my Swedish blog have probably figured out by now that I am not a big fan of monarchy. I think it is a thing of the past, something which is better left in fairy tales, allowing real people to deal with the real world.

With the Wikileaks cables there is more information out on the personalities and dealings of the prominent people in the world, and among them, of course, the British royalty. Some of the stories are just arguments that any person with anti-monarchy sentiments will take as an early Christmas (or other holiday) present, and this story on Prince Andrew, Duke of York is one of them.

This man seems to be completely disconnected from the world where people spend their everyday lives. He is rude, he is arrogant, he is pompous and he has no qualms about using up your tax money on helicopter rides to go to his golf club for an hour. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with monarchy.

It has never been clearer that monarchy is a system in which people are born into positions with a silver spoon in their mouths, as they literally live in castles and are treated as the royalty out of fairy tales, because that is what they are. They have no qualifications whatsoever (apart from DNA) to hold the positions they are in, and because of this, there is no guarantee they will do it well. You might get a King (of Sweden, for instance) that praises dictatorships, or a Prince (of Britain, perhaps) that has no manners at all. They are not representative of the people at large, because they have lived fairly sheltered lives belonging to the upper-crust of society and probably have never stood in a queue in a bank in their entire lives. If they are the crème de la crème of the royal family they also do not have to pay tax or fines. This is how the Crown Princess of Sweden racked up an impressive amount through parking all over Stockholm city.

What is really worrying, though, is how this man, and other members of the royal family rely on the average tax payer to fly them around in private jets and helicopters. It would be acceptable to some extent if they used it within reasonable limits, but when they start (as the Duke of York in the article above) to use it to fly to and from golf club functions which they only attend for an hour, because they want to avoid the traffic, it is just short of spitting the tax payer in the face.

One thing I think the Guardian failed to mention was the huge disservice this particular member of the royal family has done to the environment. Not only is he chewing through people's hard-earned salaries, he is also probably increasing global warming by 50 per cent just by himself.

Lack of Sexual Education Leads To Social Ills

2010-11-28T12:26:00.000Z

BBC published an article late last night on their website that discusses the issues with abortion in Thailand. Abortion is there, as in many societies, illegal with the exception for cases of incest, rape or where the mother's life is in danger. In Thailand, as in other countries restrictive on abortion, it is socially conservative with regards to sex; it is thus not only the issue with 'taking a life', if that is how one views it, there is also a big problem with sex outside marriage.

Being a liberal myself, I am not a big fan of restricting human beings in this sense. Also not being religious, I don't believe that having sex outside marriage is inherently evil and will inevitably erode the morals in society. But this is not about trying to change Thailand's policies (although that would be very welcome), it is about the complete disconnect between attempt and outcome; something which can also be found in big parts in the US even though it is probably the most liberal country in the world when it comes to abortion. Some would even say too liberal as abortion is allowed up until when the foetus is viable outside the uterus, making the lines between consciousness/life and biological signs/non-life even more blurred.

Interesting is how these conservative views on sex seems to be linked with a high number in teenage pregnancies and single mothers. Conservative views on sex often, unfortunately, lead to a lack of sexual education as teenagers are believed to be too young to discover such things. Instead, they are expected to wait until they are of a certain age and in a committed relationship. Some societies have even stricter view on this and require waiting until marriage.

The problem with this is not necessarily that teenagers and adults are encouraged to wait until they are in a relationship with whom they feel very comfortable; it is the lack of information they receive when they are deemed not to be in that state. Lack of sexual education does not mean that teenagers will not engage in sexual activities. Teenagers will find out one way or another what the fuzz is about and how it all works. Unfortunately, when they do, their lack of knowledge on the topic makes them all the more likely to become pregnant or catch a sexually transmitted disease. If abortion is then also restricted, there will be an increase in single (often young) mothers who may not have any emotional or financial support from her family or the baby's father; either because they simply cannot give it, or in worst case because of the mother-to-be is ostracised from her community because of the taboo. Let's face it, if a teenage father becomes scared, he has the option to leave, like the father in the BBC piece above, but a mother cannot. There are many young fathers who do not, and they are amazing, but unfortunately, this is not the norm. At least not in societies that judge you if you took part in something that is considered a moral wrong and social taboo.

I believe that abortion is part of the human rights to self-determination over your own body, so in an ideal society this service would be available to all women, but unfortunately this is not the case. If abortion has to be restricted, why not put more effort into sexual education? Teenagers and young adults who have a solid base of knowledge in these matters are less likely to find out for themselves, and if they do, they are less likely to end up pregnant and poor, or infected with an STD. It makes sense to provide extensive sexual education anywhere to make citizens aware of the what it is exactly they are becoming involved with. An ignorant population makes for more mistakes. If teenagers do not know what contraceptive options are available to them, how are they going to be expected to use them? If they do not learn how the menstrual cycle works (and this is important for both girls and boys, as both are involved in a sexual act), how can anyone blame them when they say "I thought I couldn't become pregnant at this point in the cycle?"
If teenagers and young adults are expected to take their responsibility in sexual mattes, so should adults be: provide the young with proper sexual education.

Women's Rights and the Sustenance of Society

2010-11-26T16:10:00.000Z

The New York Times had a piece yesterday on women in China. This article discussed how Chinese women have made big gains in rights, but have also, with industrialisation, lost rights. Since 1992, there has been a piece of legislation called the Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, which, since 2005, has made gender equality a state policy, ensuring that women have protection against sexual harassment, discrimination and other such things. For a country not exactly being famous for its policies on human rights, this is quite huge. Women often have to stand aside when human rights are being installed in countries where they have previously been lacking. First universal human rights, and then, if they feel like something can be gained from it, women's rights.

Interesting to note, as the article does, is the huge discrimination women still face in employment, not with regards to their capabilities, which do not seem to be at question here; it is the reproductive possibilities that matter. Young women are being asked in job interviews if they plan on having children soon, and even if they claim that they will not, they are rarely believed.

This is a problem that, at one point or another, every society with stated women's rights that have begun to incorporate women in the work forces has faced. The fear of having to pay for maternal leave and child sick days often discourages companies from hiring women to the same extent as men, because, as we know, the likelihood that the woman will be the one staying at home with sick children and taking out more parental leave than the man, is quite big. Most countries do not even have anything near to equal division of parental leave, so the woman is simply forced to stay at home unless the family has the finances to hire a nanny.

What strikes me as odd, though, is how this is allowed to go on. China is a country with a vast population, and there are policies in place to discourage families from having more than one child, but at some level there has got to be a realisation that if women are discouraged from reproducing altogether, there will be no future citizens. When the pre-restriction generations of people hit the retirement mark, who will be ensuring the running of society then? For every generation, child births are dwindling. Obviously, in a country with such a huge population as China, a restriction on child bearing makes sense, but a complete discouragement? These women are the ones who will be bearing the future men, who seem to be more valued in the work place, and in society in general - China is notorious for its abortion of girl foetuses (see the Economist's article on 'Gendercide' - subscription required). A further discouragement for women to have children, and especially girls - the ratio of boys to girls born is 124 to every 100 - seems like a huge flaw in the planning for a future society. Every year, there are less women to give birth to future citizens and now they are also being discouraged to do so if they also have a need for a job. Combine that with the one-child-policy and there is at some point going to be a huge disparity in people who can work, and those who cannot (mainly retired people).

Women's rights, and in this case reproductive rights specifically, are directly correlated to the sustenance of every society. Women are as much needed as men in carrying forward the society. Unless they have started making artificial wombs, China needs to start reconsidering their acceptance of this kind of discrimination in the workplace.

16 Days of Action to Eliminate Violence Against Women

2010-11-25T10:06:00.001Z

Today starts 16 days of action to eliminate violence against women here in Glasgow. It is a 16-day campaign coordinated by Glasgow Violence Against Women Partnership (GVAWP) Campaign's Working Group. During these 16 days events will take place around all of Glasgow to raise the awareness of violence against women (VAW) and gaining knowledge to prevent it in the future. There will be theatre productions, workshops and cookery sessions just to name a few. The events are divided by areas and the programme can be found here.

Tonight the campaign is kicked off by the fourth annual Reclaim the Night march. The assembly is at Botanic Gardens in the West End and the march will commence at 6.30 pm with the destination of S.T.U.C., Woodlands Road, Glasgow.

I wish I could go to the Reclaim the Night march tonight, but I have my first Thanksgiving dinner to attend. However, you will probably see me at some of these events during the next 16 days.

For those of you not in Glasgow, there is a possibility events are running in your city today as well, as today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the 16 Days campaign is not exclusive to Glasgow. Do a quick Google search and you might just find there's a Reclaim the Night march in your own town. If not, perhaps it is something to consider organising for next year?

The Importance of Rhetoric

2010-11-22T22:08:00.006Z

In an article from a few days ago in the Guardian, the current issues of rape in South Africa is being described. Rape is widespread in South Africa, and no woman, regardless of age is safe from it.

From the article:

"When will it end?" asked Phumla Matjila, a columnist in the Times of South Africa. "How can it end when our children hear adults say: 'Some women enjoy being raped' or 'They asked for it'? Why do we shudder when they repeat the words they have heard us say?"

The Sonke Gender Justice Network, a campaign group, attempts to tackle the crisis at root by working with men and boys. Bafana Khumalo, its international programmes manager, says: "We certainly have a major problem in South Africa. There is a culture permissive of sexual violence. In a society where people can get away with it with impunity, they are encouraged to feel there is nothing wrong with it.

"Apartheid was predicated on violence – the army, the security establishment, the state apparatus used it to dominate for decades. That became a culture in our society. Violence was seen as a normal part of life."

The criminal justice system is seen by many as ill-equipped to meet women's needs. Khumalo says: "Sometimes a raped woman who goes to the police is not believed . . . Sometimes they are raped by the police."

It is clear here that there is little respite for women from sexual violence. The worrying part is that it seems to have become more of a culturally acceptable thing. There is the assumption that can be found in other cultures that when a woman says 'no', she really means 'yes', an assumption that is being fed to us through mainstream media. When you watch television for instance, start thinking about how many sexual violence (both men's and women's) include some kind of implication to sexual violence. Someone slamming the other against the door, forcefully holding their hands down; or why not the old she turns his advances down, but he doesn't take no for an answer and he repeats his advances. In both scenarios the woman usually submits and she is quite clearly enjoying it, feeding into this assumption that in the bedroom women are naturally timid and need to be told how they like it.

This problem is not isolated to South Africa, it is found wherever women's virginal status is being held as something next to sacred, where the sexual liberalisation has not yet been fully completed (and as I have written before, I don't believe it is anywhere). Because women have to guard their innocence, they are required to refuse sexual advances as first in order not to be seen as sexually promiscuous, or in fear of being branded as a whore, as many people today mislabel sexually promiscuous women. This is where the myths of "she says no, but means yes" and "if you try hard enough, she will come to her senses" come from.

A continued rhetoric along the same lines is dangerous. It erodes barriers of self-determination and reproductive rights. If courting a woman becomes connected with violence or an expectancy of having to repeatedly come on to her for her to 'give it up', the line between sexual assault and persistence become increasingly blurred. And blurred lines make for easier crossing.

If a woman declines your advance, whether romantic or sexual, she declines it. There is no hidden yes in the 'no', and it is under no circumstances acceptable to take the decision for the woman. This is essentially what happens when a man (or in the reverse, a woman) continues to adamantly pursue someone who has said no. The implication of this continued pursuit is that she (or he) doesn't know her (or his) own good, so suitor will make the decision for her (or him). In what other aspects of society would this be acceptable for a mentally capable adult? Surely people would be reluctant to go up to other people and tell them what to eat, how to dress, where to go and what to do? What is it, then, that makes it all right to determine what lovers other adults should have or how and when they like to have sex?

Once again, I would like to make the point that the responsibility of sexual assault, in all forms, should be laid on the perpetrators, not the victims. A no is always a no, regardless of what situation, and regardless of how innocent one's advances are.

The rhetoric needs to be changed in order not to reproduce false assumptions about women's agency or lack thereof. There is no such truth as "women like it rough" or "they are all the same; they say no, but mean yes." This does not extend beyond the individual. So let's do it a bit different this time, shall we? Let the woman tell you how she likes it instead of deciding it for her.

Update

This article, published at the Guardian website 25/11/2010, tells of some very disturbing statistics, to say the least.
One in five men in South Africa believe that sometimes women want to be raped and nearly one in three has raped someone. Barely half of the people asked in the survey thought that it is possible for a husband to rape his wife, probably reflected by the nearly 40% of men and 30% of women who thought that women cannot refuse their husband sex. Sexual violence and patriarchy being reproduced in society is showing in the statistics.

The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

2010-11-21T00:26:00.001Z

Tonight I finished The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama; a book I have been reading for at least a year, if not nearly two. The reason for this is not that it is incredibly dull or anything the like; it is simply because I have put it down every time my course work has been demanding too much time, and that has been often. Nevertheless, I have now finished it and I thought I should share my thoughts on it. Unfortunately I did not think to take notes on the first few chapters and as it was a very long time ago I read them I will not be referring specifically to them.

Obama is clearly trying to portray himself as a politician with experience, probably because of his young age and his actual relative inexperience for a presidential candidate. In the first part of the book talks about the intricacies of the power plays on Capitol Hill. A particular area of interest is where he discusses the role of lobbying in the American society, both clearly condemning the development of the practice where the people with the money have the most access to politicians, but also its value in that interest groups can truly represent minority interests of value.

When it comes to the economy, Obama is an outspoken supporter of FDR and Keynes, and so also an efficient welfare system (even though he may not use exactly those words), especially health care and education. The bleak picture Obama paints of America and the poorer part of the population reminds me of a pre-welfare Europe where status and blood (in the US - money) mattered more than you being a human being. He quite clearly believes a solid system of education will enable USA to become a more efficient and developed country, and key to this is better access to higher education.

It is interesting, because the chapter entitled 'Opportunity' (Chapter 5) is the chapter where it becomes very noticeable that Obama is trying to appease people not normally within his voter base. He glosses over uncomfortable questions and tries almost a bit too hard to meet halfway instead of perhaps trying the slightly more radical approach (not radical by European standards by far, however). Nevertheless, it seems Obama has a sensible approach to economy and worries about the large national debt, something that doesn't receive too much attention in political writings. Joseph Stiglitz, former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, deals with the topic in his book Making Globalization Work: The Next Steps to Global Justice, a book I would recommend.

Obama deals with religion in a very diplomatic way. He argues that it is dangerous not to admit what a great place it has in the US society, but he does not seem to think that it should be muddled with politics. It is a private matter, very important, but private. A big disappointment is when he starts talking about his mother and comes to the conclusion that she was incurably alone because she did not belong to any faith. While this will sit right with a lot of religious groups in America, it is still a very offensive generalisation, and one that may not be entirely correct. On morals, he states that he believes that it is these that bridge the American society, and while that may be a very nice notion, it becomes worrying when he writes "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture" (p. 222). This is a statement on which, in his chapter on family (chapter 9) seems to contradict himself when he talks about the changing forms of family. This is precisely the type of balancing acts that can be found throughout the book where he attempts to appease both red and blue, but not always managing. Perhaps he thought that placing the two statements a couple of chapters apart would make most people not notice?

I have always been attracted by Obama's foreign policy and he did not disappoint me much in his chapter on the wider world, although I was a bit surprised to find out that he had, already in this book published 2006, stated that he believed an early withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was dangerous. The way media had portrayed him when he decided to deplore more troops to one place and slowly withdraw troops from the other was as a peace-loving, war-hating pacifist who voted against the war and would stop it at almost any cost.
A particular highlight was when he discussed IMF and World Bank policies and argued that they had been unsuccessful, implying that he does not himself believe in the neo-liberal approach with trickle-down policies and all that comes with it.
Further, the section where he explained why the US needs to co operate diplomatically and not charge violently through the world was simply beautiful. He argues that it is the duty of the US, as a world leader, to lead by example, that they cannot make demands of other nations without first adhering to principles themselves. It is a brilliant piece where he plays to people's patriotism and compassion and shows what makes him such a brilliant rhetoric.

Obviously I wish there would be an entire chapter on women, but I have to say that Obama does not skirt over the issue. He openly acknowledges that he has fallen into the gender role trap and expected his wife to bear the brunt of responsibility over the rearing of their children while he pursued his career. I am sure this appealed to a lot of women, but (there's always a but) there are several issues he neglects to address. As with many other articles and chapters on marriage, he argues that children need both a mother and a father. Himself being raised by a strong, single mother, knows how damaging it can be to a child not to have a father figure. Not once does he address the assumption of a heterosexual norm for the family. The two mommies or two daddies scenario is completely left out on the picture and not even fleetingly brushed upon. Neither does he address the socio-economic differences that usually lead children in a single parent family into hardship. The assumption is that if fathers start taking their responsibility, the world will automatically be a better place. If I am not mistaken I think he addresses the wage gap at one point, but it is nowhere satisfactory and there is no correlation made between this and the poverty of families headed by single mothers or a solution besides keeping the heteronormative nuclear family.
Besides, even after admitting to wanting his wife to sacrificing her career in favour for his, he does not reveal what conclusion they reached. There is not even a mention if they came to an agreement in the end or if he just kept to the same pattern and expected her to follow. Describing her as smart, beautiful and funny does not make up for that. That barely reaches the grade Satisfactory, president Obama!

The book is an interesting read, especially after Obama has actually been elected president. Although he is trying to appeal to both sides of the electorate simultaneously and sometimes seems to compromise on his own views because of it, he still comes across as more determined and steadfast than he has as president. Trying to achieve bipartisan co operation is all very well and a noble and important point to strive for, but if he does not end up achieving it before his term is up, he may just be remembered for being indecisive on issues splitting the party - compromising on health care, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy etc.

Still, read it! This is arguably the most powerful person in the world, or at least one of them, and we need to be familiar with him.

Also, on a side note: can I recommend this article from the Edmonton Journal that reports on an anti-rape campaign that tries to place the focus and responsibility where it should lie - on the perpetrators. It is nice for once to see preventative methods that does not tell women not to dress in a certain way or not to walk in certain areas, implying that if they still do and end up being sexually assaulted, they are the ones to blame.
A fantastic book dealing with this issue, since we're on books tonight, is Joyce Carol Oates' novel Rape: A Love Story, a tragic but educative story. It is fiction, but very important.

Sex Work and the Logic of Business

2010-11-18T22:00:00.001Z

Tonight I have been watching the US Senate hearing on the ratificiation of the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Interestingly, USA is the only industrialised country that has not ratified the treaty since it was agreed upon 1979. No, not 2009, not even 1999, but 1979 - 31 years ago.

Not so surprisingly there were a lot of supporters and not many opponents. The only opponent debating was Steven Groves, expert at the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank. I do not wish to talk about exactly what was said for and against CEDAW in this hearing, as the ratification has not yet been voted on in the Senate, so I will leave that to be the contents of a possible later post. What I wish to discuss is something I picked out from his speech.

Groves had problems with CEDAW because of different points in the treaty he believes to be against US morals and views. He disagrees with CEDAW's 'social engineering', i.e. the points where CEDAW urges that changing and challenging gender roles are key to women enjoying full equality in any society. One of the problems he has with this is the CEDAW committee's encouragement of the protection of sex workers. They have at one point urged that it is important not to punish women in the sex trade as it is likely they are already in an exploited position, usually due to socio-economic reasons.

The problems, I would assume, he has with this is the moral implications of making sex into a trade, and that the women sex workers, through selling sex, encourages and fosters such an environment and thus, also, the eradication of the morals in society. This assumption is really interesting, because it implies an elaborate scheme on the part of these women to corrupt humankind. Somehow, along the lines of the evolving sex industry, which has survived as long as civilisation has, women have gathered and decided that they are going to use their sexual powers to corrupt men, and along with it, society.

I think it is quite clear that assuming such an elaborate conspiracy that has be inherited through history, with sex workers being completely unrelated to each other, is a bit far-fetched to say the least. It would require an organisation that women resorting to a highly stigmatised work simply do not have the resources for because they usually get involved in the sex trade precisely because they do not have any resources.

What Mr. Groves has completely failed to see here, or just intentionally neglected is that sex work, as any other type of work follows the simple logic of supply and demand. The supply continues to be there because the demand is. Now, as I have pointed out before, sex in itself is not an inherently bad thing, neither does sex work necessarily have to be, it is under the current power structures of society that it becomes a means of exploitation and power abuse. However, this is exactly the point. The morals are not being corrupted through some kind of mythical succubus prostitute; they are already in place. It is exactly the morals in today's society that allows a sex industry to thrive, and a great part and energiser in that is sexism. The rigid confines of our gender roles, including both men and women here, lead us to take actions within the framework of these.

Masculinity is the exact antonym to femininity. It is the absence of all that is deemed to belong to the feminine. For every masculine gender role there is a feminine gender role that corresponds just a little bit too neatly: calm/surging, weak/powerful, passive/active, nurturing/violent are just some examples. Therefore, in order to be masculine, or a man, one needs to be the exact opposite to a woman, which includes exerting power over them. If you can subject the feminine, then you are a man. These are the kinds of morals that society impresses upon us and, more crucially, have been for centuries.

I am not saying that every man and every woman adheres to these stereotypes - in that case society would be far more frustrating than it already is, but there is a force in society that steers us in the direction of respecting these presumed innate qualities and many of us simply have not stopped to reflect long enough about them to be aware of them.

Point being, these kind of morals and virtues have been in place for a very long time. Sex work is one of the oldest types of work known. Once it may have been the simple transaction of sexual favours, but it has long since evolved into something else. Prostitutes have been viewed to be dirty, cheap and less than human for a very long time. It is because we have these values that the sex industry can thrive, not because women have some innate corrupting capability as Groves would like to think. It is because these power relations are in place that CEDAW encourages countries to ensure that sex workers have some basic rights; the simple reality is that many of them are being exploited and abused. They are not paid nearly as much as they should be, and they are often victims of violence - both sexual and other. Prostitutes are quite often raped because the men who commit these acts see these women as a commodity. Yes, sex workers can be raped, even if you give her money after the act. There is still a lack of consent involved and her line of work is irrelevant in that respect. Where do those morals come from, Mr. Groves?

There is one thing Mr. Groves and I agree on - there are a lot of things wrong in the sex industry, but that is an even stronger reason to ratify CEDAW and ensure other women's rights laws are in place to help stop the exploitation and stigmatisation of women in this line of work.

The Day I Killed Bat Girl and Cat Woman

2010-11-17T23:03:00.003Z

Tonight I went to this event on the sexualisation of society. It was organised by Women's Support Project, an organisation here in Glasgow that works with issues around violence against women. Four areas were discussed in this event: prostitution, sexualisation, "adult entertainment" and pornography. The discussion included women, and one man (thanks, dear friend for coming along!) who discussed each of the topic in small groups.

There were several disturbing issues that were raised, and I think, for me, especially the imagery around children. The amount of little girls who are dressed up in sexually provocative clothes is just appalling and the amount of women in the room who told real-life stories of unsuccessfully trying to find their daughters clothes that did not somehow play on sexuality was enraging. Corporations are feeding the sexualisation of society in order to make money on children. It's absolutely abhorring.

I have bought into this, I have to admit; I both have and I still am to an extent. I think it is very hard as a human being to interact in society and not buy into it to some extent whether it be through make up, through shaving of body parts or through trying to make oneself physically attractive to the other sex in some other way (plastic surgery, exercising, padding - both equally applicable to men and women). This is why I have decided to take a somewhat radical action tonight.

Here we have two of my t-shirts. Two of my t-shirts that I have always really liked. Looking at them now it might be hard to understand why they have been so attractive to me. These are clearly a sexist portrayal of women, drawn with stupidly big breasts and bodies unattainable in a natural way; not something a feminist should want to wear.

I think what is easily forgettable with these characters is that, while they are extremely sexist, they are also symbols of female power. Females who took what they had and made what they could out of it, while unnecessarily dressing up in ridiculously tight leather and making themselves sexual objects. Nevertheless, they are still very attractive symbols to me, as a feminist, just because they are women who, despite the odds, made it into a male dominated world and made a name for themselves, not only because they are sexual symbols, but also because they are pretty kick-ass. They are empowered partly because they take control over their sexuality. This is why I have always liked these t-shirts. After tonight, however, it is a different story.

A couple of weeks ago I started wondering about the irony of me, a self-proclaimed feminist, walking around with these blatantly sexualised, unnatural women on the chest. (When you think about it, it's not really a wonder they are painted straight across the chest, especially not since a significant number of males I have spoken to describe these women with sexual language.) I started wondering if I had gone about this the right way. I have always been aware that they are sexual symbols, but this has just given these characters more power over men, and over themselves in a way. They did what they could with what was given to them. I have always figured, when it comes to these t-shirts, that perhaps this was part of the trade-off for Bat girl and Cat Woman, that they would gain some and they would lose some. But I never expected it for me. Not in my wildest imaginations of a sexist dystopia did I ever imagine myself trading any kind of sex, or sexuality, for empowerment, but each to her own, as they say.

Now, tonight, I have come to a realisation. There is, under no circumstances, any good reason why someone should trade sex or become a sexual object in order to reach empowerment. The reason for this is that there is a deeply disturbing irony in these kind of trade-offs and it has very much to do with what I have written on before - the incompletion of the female sexual liberation. There is still an inherent double standard in our society that associates females and sex with something shameful. Essentially what you are doing when you are sexualising yourself in this way is just trading one kind of oppression - the one seeing you as at least partly incapable - to another one - the one where you are seen as used goods, or even filthy. By empowering yourself in one way through using your sexuality, you are also allowing yourself to become an object for trade, or sale - a commodity. You are engaging in the violent reproduction of gender, as Laura Shepherd (Gender, Violence and Security : Discourse as Practice, 2008) terms it.

It is not sex or sexuality in itself that is the issue here. Sex and sexuality are not inherently bad or negative - it is the consequences of these that are the issue. Sexualisation and objectification have serious negative impact on society in the form of marketing sexuality to children not older than 4 (!!), the increase of gendered violence and the incapacity to celebrate Halloween without seeing a sexy [insert whatever is suitable here]. It is this type of commercialisation of sexuality that makes society judge people on how many partners they have, or in the case of males, have not, had, because essentially that is what the commercialisation of sexuality is making sex: cheap. Sexuality is being disconnected from the act - regardless of what you make it to be: love, biology, reproduction - and made into a social pressure, a norm, that decides how and when you have sex and what, or rather what you shall not wear, in order to make profit on it. We are no longer the masters of our own sexuality, corporations are.

This is why I am stopping wearing blatantly sexualised images of women. I refuse to believe that in order to become an empowered woman I have to let someone else own my sexuality. In fact, I believe these to are complete contradictions. That is why I am killing Bat girl and Cat Woman tonight.

Please, do not try this at home. It is dangerous. Throwing things out will suffice.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell upheld by Supreme Court

2010-11-13T00:39:00.003Z

The Guardian reports today that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It's sad that while court proceedings to assess whether DADT is unconstitutional or not, all the gay men and women who serve in the US military still have to live a life of secrecy.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has not ruled that this is a fantastic policy to keep in place or that gay people do not deserve the same rights as straight people. They have only refrained from judgement in favour of upholding the ban while court proceedings are still taking place, i.e. while this case is appealed over and over again. They have thus not taken a stance on the issue of DADT itself and will refrain to do so until (and if) the case proper makes it to their courtroom.

Meanwhile, BBC reports, a leaked Pentagon survey shows that most military personnel does not have objections to end DADT. A quotation from the Guardian shows that the Pentagon has already taken steps toward a possible ending of the ban:

The Pentagon has already begun developing transition plans for accepting openly gay soldiers. Officials have advised gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret while the court fight continues.

While it is still too early to predict how, and when, this is going to play out, and whether it will be through the legislative, executive pressure, or the judiciary, it is still a step in the right direction.

The Supreme Court deciding to allow the upholding of the DADT should not necessarily be viewed as a setback, rather as a postponement of something that is already long overdue.

(Huffington Post on the matter)

Schadenfreude

2010-11-10T23:15:00.000Z

My sister is studying to become a psychological coach. A big part of this is the study of happiness, how to best achieve it and such, but also subjects such as what drives us humans, what motivates us and I suppose you could say attempting to unravel human nature.

Tonight she brought something very interesting to my attention. In a recent lecture, her lecturer pointed to studies that have shown how, when seeing someone we dislike or oppose suffer, the human brain experiences a pleasure stimuli, (I apologise for any weird sounding expressions, I am no psychology scholar myself) i.e. we feel good when someone we dislike or oppose is hurting. The lecturer had gone on to make links between this and hatred or dislike of minorities or other social groups; war; and other forms of violence and aggression.

While this might not be an entirely new revelation to a lot of people since the concept of schadenfreude (the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others) has been around for a long time, this is proof that it actually exists; we feel good from seeing people whom we dislike suffer. Imagine the implications this could have.

While I would not argue that human motivation could be summed up from something as simple as schadenfreude, I think it is important to bear in mind that it could be a motivator, or at least a factor in the motivations of people. Knowledge makes for informed choices. Simply being aware of the fact that some small part of you, however much you would like to disassociate with that part, actually enjoys to see your opponent lose or suffer. It makes sense that we should feel happy when we ourselves make advances, and rightly so. Everyone has a right to be proud of their own success. Just be aware that there is a fine line between being proud of one's success and gloating in the misfortune of others.

My sister also, rightly, pointed out that anyone who, like me, studies politics needs to be especially aware of this. If we are trying to fight for a fair and just world, everyone deserves the same chance as us, and they deserve the same empathy. They deserve to oppose us fiercely, but at the same time deserve respect for putting up a good fight if they come out on the losing side.

Moreover, I think that this piece of knowledge also calls into question our motivations more than ever as well as the importance of questioning things. If you cannot justify what you are fighting for with more than the argument that "it feels right," then you might be threading a dangerous path. That is when we might have people who start fighting for the fighting's sake and sign up for wars just because their government/officer/family said it was the right thing to do. If we can't motivate our actions when they have such huge ramifications, then we should not act at all.

As I said, I don't believe human motivation is so simple that it comes out of the striving of maximum happiness, but I think that the fact that others' misfortunes can give us pleasure is an important one to bear in mind.

Also, I am seriously considering lending my copy of Hobbes' Leviathan to my sister for the Christmas holidays. Somehow, I think she might find it interesting.
You can find her blog here. It points out the beauty of life and gives us the small things that make us happy.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but Actively Discriminate

2010-11-09T10:36:00.002Z

It seems that the much longed for repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the USA which stops gay men and women from serving openly in the US army is facing some difficulties. While a court in California is currently trying to decide whether or not the policy is constitutional, it seems that if the DADT policy is going to be repealed, it is not going to be through the Senate, but through a long and difficult judicial process. Because the issue is such an inflamed one, with some people on the right being strongly against gays openly serving in the military, the process would not stop until it came before the Supreme Court. And what would happen there is impossible to say.

Personally, I don't see what the discussion is all about. Yes, DADT is unconstitutional and it is also discriminatory. It is a huge impairment of freedom of speech, which is supposed to be guaranteed in the First Amendment. If a gay person were to come out while employed by the military, he or she would not be allowed to keep his or her job. The only chance for a gay person to keep their job is to hide their identity. It is a situation where they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Furthermore, all American citizens are supposed to be equal before the law. The fourteenth amendment states that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How is it to be equal before the law when you can be discharged for falling in love with the same sex, but you cannot if you adhere to the social norm? This separation has been legal for 17 years. Inequality is, under DADT, institutionalised as well as legalised.

What really baffles me, however, are the arguments for keeping this ridiculous policy in place. NY Times writes:

In comments to reporters in California this weekend, General Amos said that ending the ban in the middle of two wars would involve “risk” for Marines, who, unlike other service members who generally have private quarters, share rooms to promote unity. “There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” said General Amos, 63. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”

I simply do not understand what the problem is here. A gay man and a straight man sharing quarters? First of all, it would be ridiculous to assume that the gay man would automatically be attracted to the straight man on the basis of they being of the same sex. Arguing that would be just as ridiculous arguing that all men want to have sex with all women or are attracted by all women and vice versa. While I am sure there are some very sexual men and women out in the world, these are the exception, not the rule. All heterosexual men and women are not automatically attracted by each other, so why should all gay men and women be?

Secondly, assuming that the gay man or woman would be attracted by their quarter mate, why would that be a problem? Yes, sure, we all deal with people being attracted by us when we don't reciprocate those feelings, but we deal with them. Sometimes it is uncomfortable, but being adults, we will tell the person that we do not feel the same and then we will put it behind us. One-sided attraction would only be a problem if the person feeling the attraction would not respect the other person turning them down. I sure hope that General Amos doesn't automatically assume that being gay means you have no boundaries, because that would be just as ridiculous as assuming all gay men and women are attracted to each other. Not respecting boundaries is not inherent to homosexuality, otherwise we would not have heterosexual rape or any kind of heterosexual sexual assault, abuse etc.

Third, grown men and women should be able to handle homo and bisexuality. It is not beneficial for an individual or society as a whole to be narrow-minded and adhering to every norm as if they were social commandments written in stone. Without questioning and broadening our views, society will not move forward. It is because we have accepted things outside the social norm that society has been able to progress. Accepting social norms as some kind of unchallengeable truth is not going to achieve anything other than the stagnation of society. We need to continue being humans and bring forward the curiosity and the progressiveness.

Stop being afraid of that which you do not understand. Deal with your fears instead. It is absurd that people, in this day and age, should still be judged on whom they love. After all, it is the love that seems to be a problem here. How can love between two consenting adults be ugly or wrong? I would rather think that it is the hatred and intolerance that is wrong, that distorts society. Stop projecting your fears onto other people. Just deal with it.

The Religious Morals of Homosexuality in Society

2010-11-02T08:06:00.001Z

The Guardian writes that two prospective foster parents' application was turned down due to their conservative view on homosexuality. Somehow, this seemed to them completely baffling. Their lawyer even stated, expressing that incredulity:

"The promotion of values is something that the court should be protecting, especially when these religious values are recognised as giving a moral framework to values in our country. No one is disputing that the duty of every public authority is to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child. It is conceivable if there was an extremely vulnerable adolescent practising [homosexual] child, who may be placed in a certain familial relationship that was disapproving, that may not be a sensible placement."

What seems to me here to be contradictory is the link between morals and certain values of religion and its good for society. While I completely agree that some fundamental Christian (and other religious) morals can be for the common good for the society, these are values and morals that pertain to our capability to coexist, not the opposite. Values like love, compassion and tolerance are all part of the New Testament and something that most Christians value dearly. One may even argue that a person is not a Christian unless they adhere to these values. After all, it is the forgiveness and inclusiveness of Christ that separate Christianity from the other religions. (I'm not saying here that other religions are intolerant or any such thing, but the couple in the text were Christians and so that religion is relevant here.)

Intolerance of what breaks from the social norm is ancient in Christianity and most of it belongs to the Old Testament. The New Testament and the tale of Christ is what, in my eyes, redeems Christianity as a religion somewhat. It speaks of love and compassion rather than intolerance and cruelty, and I would argue, contrary to what the couple's lawyer seems to believe, that this is the values and morals society wants to promote today. With the growth of liberalism, social liberalism in particular, civil rights have never been so much valued as today and an essential part to those, is the acceptance of people who strive from what is the norm. Granted, society is not exactly there yet in its acceptance of anything but the white male, but it is fighting to get there. To say that the Old Testament values such as no homosexuality, no sex outwith marriage and other restrictions is what society today uses as a framework to set the morals and values is tweaking the truth to say the least.

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the lesbian, gay and bisexual rights charity Stonewall summed it up quite neatly when he expressed it thus:

"Too often in fostering cases nowadays it's forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter. Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr and Mrs Johns's views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st."

The Incompletion of Female Sexual Liberation

2010-10-26T17:02:00.002+01:00

I was challenged to write a blog post about this, so I will make an attempt.

John Milbank, an Anglican theologist and a skeptic of secular reason, claims that

The problem here is that self-pleasure can become either explicitly or tacitly a goal in itself. When the romantics earlier spoke of the importance of marriage being “free,” that seems to me nearer the mark, as a goal. Human fulfillment lies more in the direction of faithful love and inserting oneself in the continuity of generations. Marriage and the family, for all their corruption and misuse, are at base democratic institutions. Fascism for me comes into the picture because I think (following Adorno, amongst others) that the gradual separation of sex from procreation is regarded naively if we do not realize that this is what the state wants. Covertly, it wants to secure “Malthusian” control over reproduction and to deal with the individual directly, rather than through the mediation of couples. Much of liberal feminism is actually, in practice, on the side of economic and political neoliberalism. It is too rarely noticed that sexual permissiveness has today become a kind of opiate that covertly reconciles people to the loss of other freedoms—both in relation to the state and to the workplace.

Milibank's offers a solution to this:

What we need is not a return to former legal coercion and social ostracism in the sexual field, but a change in ethos, which will promote both relational fidelity and the encouragement of human creativity and participation in the workplace and in civil life.

(Full article here)

First of all, let me laugh at the notion that marriage, according to the church, was ever supposed to be a democratic institution. Yes, perhaps if you believe in elitism and that men's intellect is superior, or if you believe that women should never have been granted suffrage. The woman, according to the Bible, is responsible for the original sin, she screwed up the entire world, if it weren't for her, there would still be a Paradise. It is because of the evolvement of a secular society women have been able to be regarded as equals in a marriage. Religion is not exactly known for its progressive views on female emancipation and equality.

This brings me to what I want to discuss, Milbank's blaming of sexual liberalisation and the feminist movement as the culprit in the loss of freedoms both in society and the workplace. Now, I am not entirely sure exactly what kinds of freedom he is referring to here. As far as I know, sexual liberalisation has empowered women, not restrained them, in that they are the (or are supposed to be) the ultimate decision-makers in regards to their own bodies and should be regarded on equal terms with men. Women have gone from being regarded as a commodity to being regarded as active agents in their own lives. What we can agree on however, Milbank and I, is that women are (still) suffering a restriction of freedom. I believe, to the contrary, that this is related to the incompletion of female sexual liberalisation.

There is no doubt that society has liberalised its view on sexual relations since the 1960s. Women are free to choose today, they are free to express themselves in a way that simply would not have been possible not too long ago. However, women are still to a large degree restricted in their sexuality. It has been discussed ad nauseam, I am aware, but let me reiterate: when a woman racks up her numbers, perhaps from being single for a very long time or just from enjoying sex, then she is a slut; when a man racks up the same numbers, or even higher ones, he is just a bachelor (or not) who adheres to his natural urges. Women are still presumed to not have the same sexual needs or demands as men, and are still judged for not choosing to be virginal, calm and focusing on the emotional bond rather than the sexual.

There is a double standard in society regarding women's sexual liberalisation. Women are expected to be ruthless, almost adopt masculine traits to reach the status in society that has formerly belonged only to men, but at the same time she is being punished for it. A woman who has casual sex is not simply itching a scratch, she is the emotionless bitch-hound from hell, a man is an asshole but only assumed to be one in a billion, incurable and as natural as the rain. Society still has this notion that it is on some level unnatural for women to be fully sexually liberalised. A woman who openly has a lot of casual relations will be punished in the opinion of society, a man will not to the same extent.

A return to the old ethos of sexual restriction will not change this. For it is a return, not a change. Women will once again be chained in their gender roles of subservience and obedience while men continue to go about their business as they have always done. It will not automatically lead to "the encouragement of human creativity and participation in the workplace and in civil life," because sexual liberalisation and these are not mutually exclusive. A person, whether male or female, can still be sexually liberated and fulfil their duties and responsibilities as citizens and employees.

The problem here is not the liberalisation in itself, but rather the social ostracism, that Milibank argues we should not revert back to, that is still very much present in female sexual liberalisation. It is because of this double standard in female sexual liberalisation that women suffer from loss of freedom in the social life as well as the workplace. It is the judgement of what people get up to in private that still restricts women. Moreover, it is quite evident from Milibank's stance on gay marriage that it is not the sexual liberalisation per se that is the problem for him, it is the religious values that he has chosen to put into it. I quote: "As part of this, I think it is important both to support gay civil partnerships and yet to oppose the idea of “gay marriage.”"

The loss of freedoms are always going to be present as long as women's value is determined according to how well they adhere to prescribed traditional gender roles. What needs to be acknowledged are the contradictions between theory and practice in the discussion of sexual liberalisation, and the fact that it is still very much gendered. These losses are not anything that came as a consequence of the female sexual liberalisation, they have always been there. It is because the female sexual liberalisation is incomplete that they still exist.

A Plea for Unity

2010-10-25T18:36:00.001+01:00

I have touched upon this subject several times before, and it is a common theme in all my feminist rants, but today I feel the need to reiterate.

The struggle in society for gender equality is encompassing; its necessity perforates the entire society. It is a question about equality of opportunity between individuals, and the equality of status between any one individual. It is not a struggle for one sex to stand above another, but it is exactly as defined - to be regarded as equals.

Every now and again, I encounter someone who dismisses the gender debate as natural, as something biological. Because I do not always handle the discussion so gallantly, dismissing the arguments as "bullshit," as one of my friends had to experience today, I feel the need to express it in the written word. It leaves less room for heated emotion and interruptions, both of which I am guilty to. It is a topic I hold very dearly, and something I am very passionate about, so it is hard for me to debate it in an emotionless, rational manner.

What I wish to point out is that it is not a competition between male and female or masculine and feminine, it is a plea for unity against inequality in the world, for the right to be an individual and to be regarded as one. As I pointed out to another friend, I do not believe that feminism is the sole solution to equality in the world, but I believe it is a solution, and so I will pursue it to the best of my ability. Equality between the sexes in the eyes of society is a step towards equality in other areas. It will not come automatically and the processes for other forms of equality cannot be pursued independently. It is all interconnected in this great struggle of the individual's worth, of civil rights and of equal opportunity.

Both women and men are affected by gender roles. No one can escape from them; it is a common barrier that we all have to face every day, all day. We are assigned personality traits or generalised into huge groups with people who are nothing like us. They may come from a different socio-economic background, culture or simply have other values than us, but they are individuals precisely as we are. Yet we are presumed to be one and the same.

There is no point in denying that women have been structurally disadvantaged. Any history book will tell you so, sometimes the inequality will be justified by the authors, but it is there - the confinement, the assumption of stupidity, and the assumption of incapability. But, being disadvantaged is not exclusive to the female gender. Because we are women, we do not hold a patent on being disgruntled with society or feeling discriminated. Men are as well. They suffer legally and socially from their lack of parental rights. Women also seem to have the exclusive right to show emotions in public, and for a man to do so leads to emasculation, a less worthy man in the eyes of society. I believe this is wrong.

I am aware that there are biological differences, ones that cannot be ignored, and should not be. I just do not believe that some of these biological qualities should be deemed 'better' than others, nor do I think it justifies treating individual human beings significantly different. I also resent the assumption that because one belongs to a certain gender, we should be attributed this trait. We are what we are, sometimes because of our gender, sometimes despite of it. To generalise too broadly is doing any individual a big injustice. To say that all women are emotional, weak and nurturing is just as incorrect to say that all British people loves tasteless food; or that all Swedes are blonde. We are a combination of culture and biology, and those two are both divided into infinite subgroups with infinite possibilities.

I guess this is my plea to you for unity against this common problem of gender roles and a call to fight for every individual's worth; for the right to be unique. To evaluate whether this division is needed in contemporary society at all. Simply because I can't see why I should be less deserving of, or less worth than you. Nor why you should be any less worth or deserving than me.

Classroom Gender Dynamics

2010-10-06T18:22:00.001+01:00

In Sweden, there is currently a debate raging about girls' role in the classroom. This debate has been revived through a movie come out this year (which is, in its turn, based upon a book that came out in 2006). The movie, the name of which is "Tusen gånger starkare" (translated into "A thousand times stronger"), explores the dynamics of girls and boys in the classroom in a middle school class. While I haven't seen this movie myself, having emigrated to Scotland and all, this debate has been going strong in my native country and for a news junkie like myself hard to avoid. Women's role and gender roles are always in the back of my mind, but this debate has brought this certain aspect into the front of my mind.

Having, then, had my only class of the week this semester, I walked home reflecting upon the dynamics of our class. The class I am taking is called citizenship and democracy and explores the political philosophy and practice of both: the philosophy being more in the democracy department with authors such as John Stuart Mill; the practice consisting of an internship where we will experience and analyse active citizenship first hand. This mainly philosophical class is a bit heavy on the male side, with the females making up approximately 1/3 of the class, perhaps a bit more.

As a part of our class, we are required to participate and also get assessed on it. 10% of our grade is oral participation, or as out lectures so neatly puts it, active citizenship. It is therefore in everyone's interests to speak up sometimes. However, even though we did not have this grade in oral participation, at this stage in our university degree, it is to our benefit if we do participate in class discussions as this is the simplest way of assessing our knowledge. Not only do we get peer reviewed but we also have the benefit of the very knowledgeable lecturer to comment on our considerations. Having to write an essay, holding a presentation and sitting an exam, all of a part of the assessed course work, it is very beneficial for all of us to find out as quickly as possible to which extent our assumptions are correct.

Interestingly, despite having the lecturer actively assessing our participation, I have always found that, unless women are over-represented in numbers in a class, the males are the ones that speak up the most. Today, I was the only female out of at least six students who said anything. The rest were all male. Where were the females?

According to logic, if six students speak, at least two of those would be female in a class with our numbers. This could possibly be the exception of an equal classroom dynamic, but looking back to most of my other classes, males are predominant. They speak the most, make the most arguments and execute those with the most confidence. This, according to personal experience, is the rule, not the exception.

Granted, there are males that do not take up as much space as their fellow male friends and who sit quietly and unnoticed next to the wall. I would, however, think it very interesting to see some kind of statistics on how many of those males there are on those females. I am going to be so bold as to assume that the females would be greatly over-represented in the category of quiet, unnoticed students.

It makes sense to me, if you think about it. We live in a society were men have traditionally held the power, and arguably still do so. They are instilled with the confidence from birth that they can do things, their arguments are valid, when they speak they will be heard, not just listened to - what they say matters. This is a confidence that women have not had the time or the opportunity to accumulate. There is a saying that goes something in the way of "If a woman is further than three feet from the kitchen, she has escaped." It sums up the limitations historically put on women and a mentality that still lives on in our society. I would not argue that people agree with this saying, but I am arguing that the sole fact that people find it funny is implying something about women, something that is not based on thin air but rather centuries of oppression.

Of course, it is partly women's responsibility to make sure that they, too, get the amount of time and space that they should be allocated (we do after all make up half of the population and should demand to be allocated that share as well). However, not being born with that inherent confidence that seems to be a part of male nature, it is hard to demand that space when you perhaps feel you do not have the right to. Additionally, if the teacher and the rest of the room (including the women) may not be willing to give you this space, however subconsciously that may be, it is even harder to take it. After all, how many of us enjoy walking into a room to talk about something that people do not want to listen to on the basis that you are presumed to lack the knowledge of, or simply be too stupid to talk about?

This is not a revolutionary question, or one that hasn't been posed before. Nonetheless, it is still very much relevant and worth pondering for a while.

Proposition 8 and the Victory of Love

2010-08-05T19:10:00.001+01:00

I truly do not understand this whole thing about homosexuality as a dangerous or wrong thing. I don't believe that love in any form can be dangerous as long as it is not a destructive relationship and I don't believe that same sex relationships are in any way more often destructive than are opposite sex relationships. This is why I am so happy that a federal judge in California recently overruled proposition 8, a proposition that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and thus effectively bans any marriage between two men or two women.

Now, as I have stated in a previous blog post, I have issues with the institution of marriage and I don't ever plan on getting married myself, but I strongly believe that if a man and a woman have the right to get married, so should a man and a woman be able to marry someone of the same sex if they so wish. Who am I, or anyone else, to say that their love is less valid or less strong than a marriage between two people of the opposite sex? Surely there are several men and women in the world who marry someone of the opposite sex for reasons other than love: financial, unexpected pregnancies, parental pressure, green cards, visas or what will you. If these people are allowed to marry each other for reasons other than love, why should two people who love each other not be allowed to marry each other? The point being, someone else's marriage is none of my business. I am not part of it, and it is illegal for me to be part of it in a lot of countries in the world, so therefore how/when/why they marry is between them. I do not have the right, nor should I have the right, to tell them when they are to marry and who they are to marry. As long as the people getting married are consenting adults, naturally.

In proposition 8, the issue was never whether the parties were consenting adults or not. The issue was instead some people trying to define what love is, according to their narrow framework. Love is endless and vast. It is friendship, family and sexual. It is between men and women, men and men, and women and women. It can be both constructive and destructive. It can be both beautiful and insane. Whatever form it takes, however, it always starts in the individual and it is always subjective. This is why no court in any form can judge what love is and isn't and why there should be no narrow definitions of it. I don't know how my straight friend loves her boyfriend or husband, and so I can also not know how my gay friend loves her girlfriend or wife. It is not for me to say.

To reiterate, I truly do not understand people who are against homosexuality or the rights of these individuals. For that is what we ultimately are, individuals. Why should we have to be defined or judged by whom we love and why should our right be distributed accordingly? The overruling of proposition 8 is a victory for love and for the spreading of love, for not narrowing it down to some outdated definition and for letting it grow. Let's hope it's allowed to stay like this.

Because of my genitals, the Vatican thinks I am less worthy

2010-07-15T22:35:00.000+01:00

I have many problems with religion. We are in a constant battle, me and organised religion, over the individual rights that I feel is due me upon fulfilling the criterion of being a human being and that the church will not give me. We are in a constant battle over how leaders within world religions put men at a status above women and thus make a separation between the sexes. I have a problem with any organisation that does this, and I don't just single out religion in my dislikes. Normally, though, I leave religion alone. I am of the strong belief that anyone's belief is as important and valid as mine and that they have as much right to hold that belief as I am mine. But when it starts devaluing me as a human being and when we have a Pope that is downright dangerous to the wellbeing of humankind I have to speak my mind.

Today I encountered something that made my blood boil with rage. The Guardian reports that the Vatican has, in an attempt to show that they have taken the recent paedophilia scandal seriously, reformed a previous decree. In this new, reformed decree, the Vatican deemed paedophilia to be one of the gravest crimes that could be committed in the church. While they were reforming the document they also made sure to express how appalling they believe women's equality to be. Added to this decree dealing with the gravest crimes is the attempted ordination of women within the church.

If you did not understand this the first time, I will repeat: The Vatican has put paedophilia on par with female empowerment within the Catholic Church. If someone would attempt to ordinate me, they would perform a crime equal with that of sexually abusing children.

Not only is this tremendously insulting to women all over the world, it also diminishes their status as human beings. Women are not equal with men, they do not deserve the same rights or opportunities as men - they are less worth than men.

To believe that this is something that the Vatican means to be followed only within the clergy is naïve. If the Vatican were for equality (which they have proven over and over again that they are not) they would not separate men from women within the church or outside the church. This is nothing more than the highest powers on the earthly side of the Catholic church putting in writing that they view women as less worthy.

As the article (link above) also stated, this effectively means that any discussion for women's advancement or influence within the church or the Catholic community is closed. Anything else would be in right defiance of a decree from the Vatican, and even though I am not raised as a Catholic, I am sure that this means that it is somehow against the will of God.

When is enough enough? Dear politicians of the world; of my current home country Britain; and of my native country Sweden; of the European Union that unites us all and where the Vatican is geographically located - this I want to ask from you? Where were the outcries when a huge paedophilia scandal was brought up in the media? A scandal that, by the by, hardly was the first nor do I think it will be the last, despite all the PR efforts on the behalf of the Vatican.
Now the Vatican is claiming that I, and half of the world's population is less worthy than the other half. That I, somehow, because of my gender, am not allowed to enjoy the same rights as the other gender, and if someone tries to give me this right, it is equally as appalling as paedophilia. A foul political play expressed through an ecclesiastical decree to make it untouchable under the freedom of religion.

As a woman, as a voter, as an individual, as a human being and as a citizen I want to ask you what you plan to do about this?

Marriage, to I Do or Not to I Do?

2010-06-11T22:30:00.002+01:00

Sorry for the unintended absence, I have been busy with exams and post-exam recuperation and have simply not found enough inspiration to blog. Most of my feminist angst has gone into reading for my dissertation (the title of which will be "Gender and Development: The Double-Edged Sword of Victimization and will focus on gender roles in development discourse). I think a lot of my feminist energy will have to go to that in the next year. Hopefully it will motivate some interesting blog posts as well.

I stumbled upon this post about marriage today, written by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, writers of the Equality Myth and got really excited. It is the first time (that I am aware of) I read something by any of the authors and I really enjoyed it.

Now marriage is a tricky subject. Criticize the institution or the idea of it and married people, or believers, take it as a personal insult on their love for their partners. This, according to me, is exactly what I find fault with in the whole notion of marriage. My love for someone, or anyone else's love for someone should not change at the signing of a contract. It will hopefully remain the same, because a contract is an inanimate object and should certainly not determine anyone's feelings for an animate human being. This whole idea of "taking it to the next level" confuses me. How does a contract do anything the like? My love for a partner will grow and develop regardless whether I sign a paper and declare my love in front of other people or not. If it does not, then the purpose of the relationship needs to be considered seriously, i.e. why I am in it. Furthermore, love is something that is a private feeling between two people, or more if you are into that, but as far as I know the norm considers involving a third person cheating unless it has been cleared with previous partner beforehand.

This is not to say that people should not or are not allowed to show that they are in love. It simply means that my love for another person is not to be manipulated either way by how my friends and family feel about it.

Apart from me feeling that marriage is completely irrelevant in the love department, I also have a problem with what it signifies. Marriage is a contract. A contract that historically made women their man's property, a housewife, a reproductive organ and a slave to boot. Although equality is moving forward in society, I still feel that this is what marriage signifies in most cases, but to throw in this equality and flip it somewhat, I will extend the contract of property to the man as well, so that when two people enter this contract it signifies that they "belong" to each other, i.e. they are each other's property.

Although there is obviously a difference between slavery and marriage, there are also similarities. The symbol of owning someone else, to have a right to demand certain things of them and to expect things as well. I'm not saying here that all people should do as they wish with no regards of other people's feelings, but the general consensus seems to be that marriage signifies something more serious than "just" a relationship. Marrying someone means taking that final step to be tied down. Come on, even the expression "tied down" hints at what this ceremony signifies.

I am positive that there are people out there that marry each other as a declaration of their love or something like it and live a full, happy, equal marriage. I am also positive after observing the society in today's world that these are few. Marriage signifies something, and people who decide to go through with it have probably not through through the implications of their actions and the act of reinforcing gender roles and an archaic system of ownership. Most of them probably don't want to conform to some gender roles either, they just go through with it because it is the social norm. I am not condemning marriage, I am just questioning it.

For more about marriage and ownership, see Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (1988).

General Election 2010 Reflections

2010-05-07T23:39:00.000+01:00

I love democracy. It’s absolutely beautiful. And I love politics, it’s so versatile and alive and ever-changing. I think I want political babies named Democracy and Liberty, good names and good concepts.

It’s the election hype that has gotten me this fired up. The UK had a general election yesterday, and living in the country I can’t very well avoid it. Being a politics student, I don’t want to avoid it. It’s like the UK has had this shimmer lying over it, covering it. It smells of anticipation and of change. Although the democracy shimmer has slightly subdued as the election is over, the image of it is fresh in my memory. It is beautiful. If I could, I would take a swim in this democracy shimmer surrounding me with the power and voices of the people.

The election had a rather interesting outcome. None of the parties won the majority and it is now a so called “hung parliament.” Being Swedish I find this whole stress over a coalition government pretty entertaining. We have always had coalition governments and that’s how I prefer it. In fact, I think that the current set up of two opposing blocs or alliances in Swedish politics is downright dangerous for democracy and doesn’t offer the voter enough choices. It is not representative enough. I think hung is good and that coalitions lead to a higher rate of democracy.

The interesting bit is going to be to see how this whole coalition is going to play out. At the moment all the power lies in the hands of the Liberal Democrat party leader, Nick Clegg. Is he going to take the Conservatives up on their offer to form a coalition government? Would he be letting his voters down by doing so since the Lib Dems seem much closer to Labour in policies? Most importantly, how is he going to address this half-ass attempt Conservative leader David Cameron made of setting up a committee looking into the current unfairness of the voting system? Not to mention that Cameron stated that he wants to keep a first past the post system, which is basically what keeps on losing seats for the Lib Dems. How is Clegg going to reconcile his strong beliefs in fair representation with the clearly not-so-fair representation system that the Tories want?

On the other hand, if Clegg were to turn down the Conservative offer of forming a coalition government, he would be bypassing the party that won the largest share of the popular votes and seats in parliament to form a government with a party that the electorate has clearly rejected. Can that be justified? A Lib-Lab coalition would still not reach the majority needed to safely pass legislation through parliament.

Yes, it is interesting to say the least.

I know I am not allowed to vote in this country. As a Swedish citizen, I really have no say on how the electoral system should be shaped, but as a human being I am allowed to an opinion. And furthermore, as a strong believer in democracy I cannot stand idly by and not have an opinion as this general election has proven that the UK has a severely unfair system. The Lib Dems won around 23% of the popular vote but ended up with 57, giving them less than 10% of seats in parliament. That hardly seems fair.

I hope the electoral system will be reformed in Britain, to a proper proportional representation system. Something like Mixed Member Proportional Representation where people could easily affect both which candidates they send to parliament as well as parties. Or perhaps something like we have in Sweden with a list of party candidates already printed on an open list and where people can vote for particular persons if they so wish, but if they do not, the choice of the candidates will go to the party. Although, as someone pointed out over at the BookCrossing forums today, that can lead to candidates in parliament who have technically not been elected but appointed by the party leadership, a rather elitist tactic, and one which makes sure that the power seat in each party can put their drones into parliament.

One last thing, for those scaremongers who claim that the BNP would gain 10 or more seats through a proportional representation system, that is simply not true. A proportional system often comes with a threshold that any party is required to pass before being allowed into parliament. In Sweden it is 4%, but some countries have higher. This is to avoid an unlimited number of parties in parliament that only represent a minuscule proportion of the country and it also works as a safeguard against extremist parties. With the BNP’s meagre 1,9% of the popular vote, this would be well below the threshold.

The Prostitution Quagmire

2010-04-27T22:36:00.003+01:00

I have thought about posting this and I have changed my mind several times. I am still not entirely sure it is a good idea, but I think, for the purposes of the debate, that it is important to highlight some of the problems with prostitution.

In my native country, Sweden, there seems to be a consensus that prostitution is inherently evil. It is a patriarchical expression of female oppression and cannot be anything else. In my most recent blogpost I touched upon victimisation and the dangers of it. The logic applies even here and that is what I am going to attempt to highlight.

Now, I am all for the freedom of choice. The liberal streak runs strong in me and I believe that anyone has a right to choose as long as it does not obviously harm someone else. This is where the conundrum with prostitution. Is it really inherently evil? Does it always harm the women or men selling their bodies for money?

I also want to point out that I am talking about women who enter the trade voluntarily so to speak, i.e. without any coercion or threat of violence or otherwise, so trafficking victims are not what I am writing about here. I am also not talking about women who are forced into slavelike positions through debt bondage. I am talking about the women who made a conscious choice to enter the trade, whether or not it was because of societal norms and/or pressures. I am also focusing this post on women, because this is the area of my knowledge and interest and while I am sure there are certain similarities between male and female sex workers, the societal views on the both genders differ greatly.

Some people argue that prostitution is indeed evil. It is a strong expression of men’s view on women as their commodity to use and trade as they wish. Women cannot make the choice to become sex workers, they are always forced into it by society, economic circumstances or force. Even if women openly state they are working in the sex trade voluntarily, it is only because society has forced the view upon them that women have to be at the disposition of males. Society requires them to serve men.

While there is some validity in that argument and I would not doubt that many women are forced into prostitution due to economic and social circumstances or, indeed, violence (in fact, I have read a lot of research that proves this), there is also a danger in it. By arguing that even women who voluntarily enter the trade cannot make that choice because there is this metaphysical veil of male oppression surrounding them, they are effectively denying any choice to any woman. Furthermore, by taking away the agency in this way, saying that men stand behind these women’s choices they are reinforcing the assumption that these women are not strong enough and thus need saving. They are essentially reinforcing the same gender stereotypes they are trying to battle.

I personally do not believe that I am one to say whether or not these women have made that choice or not. I am not them, I do not know of the potential circumstances that led them into the sex trade and I cannot answer for them the question of whether or not they are happy doing so. Only they themselves can answer that. This is where the quagmire comes in. Sociological and psychological research done on the topic can argue both ways, but essentially it is subjective, and dealing with something subjective, a researcher cannot always trust that she or he will get truthful answers from their research subjects. Point being, we cannot know the absoute truth as to what these women feel, all our assumptions are subjective based on our reality.

I do recognise that there are several problems with prostitution. Women and men all over the world are used and absued by people who buy sexual favours of them. Moreover, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that argues that female oppression is not reinforced by the current practices of prostitution. However, I also believe that it is a part of women’s liberation, not to mention sexual liberation, to make that choice to become a sex worker. If a woman feels content with her decision to become a sex worker it can be very empowering in the sense that she is able to break social norms and taboos and do what she chooses to do, just like the movement of women who burned their bras.

To answer the question I posed at the beginning of this entry: No, I do not believe that prostitution is inherently evil. On the contrary, as I just said, I believe that it can be empowering for women to take control over their lives and make a choice like that. Sadly, I also believe that in the current state of the world, this is not possible. The view on women needs to be improved before we can have a society that respects sex workers, that will not abuse legalisation of prostitution. Currently legalisation of prostitution generally means an increase in trafficking victims who are used and abused, sold, threatened and held in debt-bondage. There are men who seize the opportunity to reinforce their own views of women as near equals to cattle and society’s view on sex work is too riddled with old-fashioned morals that too oppress women in their own way. Until we can have a society where women are respected as decision-makers, as versatile individuals and as worthy of the same status and rights as men, this freedom is just harmful.

The Dangers of Banning the Burqa/Niqab

2010-04-24T21:43:00.001+01:00

Belgium recently banned burqas and niqabs, and France is considering passing a similar law. One of the arguments for these bans is that the muslim religious clothing which requires the women covering up is inherently oppressing and therefore a ban of it would be a step in right direction for gender equality and freedom of choice.

But would it, though?

The dangers with banning a certain type of clothing, or anything, is that it restricts the freedom of choice for people. Regardless of whether or not you want to wear a burqa or niqab, you are under law prohibitied from doing so. There is an exchange from potentially robbing these women from the choice of how to dress to absolutely robbing them of it.

I do not doubt that some cultures force women to cover up as a means of controlling their sexuality, or as it was said in one of the academic articles I read for my human rights course, for the sake of the men, the argument being that women who do not cover up will entice the men with their sexuality to the point that they cannot conrol themselves. Surely, there are men who force their wives to wear a burqa or a niqab in the same ways that there are Christian, or western men, who strongly dislike their wives speaking to other men, or showing off too much skin. But this ban is not about the men, it is about the women.

There is also a danger in portraying these women as victims. While they are to a certain extent victims of their culture and life in general, as are we all, by saying that they need rescue in the form of a state ban on a certain type of clothing we are taking away their agency, i.e. we are taking away the belief that these women somehow have the capability to choose. We are making them into the powerless, pitiful women that we are so desperately trying to disconnect them from. By trying to take away the gender stereotype we are effectively reinforcing it, just altering it slightly. We are saying that these women cannot handle themselves, they can never make a choice because their men are making it for them and therefore we have to take control over the situation and make the choice for them. Find something slightly contradictory in that?

As anyone who has read my blog before would know, I am all for women’s liberation, empowerment, freedom of choice, you name it. However, it is not only about the result, it is about the road to get there as well. We need to choose our methods carefully lest we shall alienate a large proportion of the people from the discourse, which will in all likelihood happen with this. How do the Belgian and French governments propose that we change the image of women in Islam if we end up banning their religious symbols that play a large importance for them? (I would say that the Belgian government should not say much as it officially dissolved this week.) I am not saying that it is right that women should have to cover up in order to “protect” themselves from men, or to protect the men from them, depending on how one chooses to see it. I am saying that this form of an external attempt to change a culture is more likely to be seen as insulting than helpful and that it will not further the advancement of women’s rights in the countries that need it so. It shouts of European arrogance.

Women’s liberation is a tough fight, one which will not come overnight. It is important to continuously repeat the message over and over again that women are not less worth than men, both through legislation and through social reform. The key to this is, though, that one cannot come without the other. If you pass a legislation that is not agreed with, society can turn against it. The right legislation has to come with the right reform in social thinking. Legislation without breaking of patriarchal norms amounts to nothing. It is hollow words and nothing more. And to try to change social norms and old patterns of thinking, we cannot arrogantly pass a piece of legislation like this sending out a message that we know better. If we truly want to change these women’s situation, it has to be through enabling discussion and change, not through bans.

Also, I do recognise there are other reasons for the ban, such as security and identification being two very important reasons, but this is about the feminist argument, and the other two are completely different discussions although nontheless important ones.

Human Trafficking and Soldiers Correlation

2010-03-12T22:43:00.003Z

Today, I am so so angry! I am currently writing this project for my human rights class that examines the human trafficking in the former Soviet Union, with a focus on female sex workers. The subject is absolutely horrible, because as trafficking implies, there is a certain element of coercion involved at one stage or another; i.e. these women are forced to become sex workers or cannot leave it. At different points in my literature I have encountered the correlation between trafficking and militarization.

Now, I don’t know about you, but this connection is completely new for me. I have, not without an idealist influence, believed that peace-keeping forces are stationed at their various posts to protect the local people, and all other people that may be there voluntarily or non-voluntarily.

Apparently, this has been a naïve belief on my part. In fact, much of the literature I am reading for my project touches upon this apparently widespread knowledge that trafficked women and other sex workers are frequently used by soldiers and other voluntary workers. This happens either through a straightforward exchange of money and sexual favours, i.e. prostitution, or by the soldiers or voluntary workers or NGO-employees acquiring a “girlfriend.”

There is also evidence in the literature that trafficking increases once a military base is established in a war zone. This is because the soldiers apparently expect to have women to have sex with. They cannot control their carnal desires during their service, so they use what is handy, the women in close proximity. Sex trafficking and prostitution therefore become lucrative businesses in the area around military bases.

You might think that love can actually happen in these situations, and I do not doubt that. But let me just point out once again that these soldiers et cetera are there to protect these people they are in relationships with. Usually these are women (my literature focuses only on women, so while it might happen to male sex workers too, I have no evidence of that) who are living in poverty, or at least relative poverty, who are often also deprived of their civil rights in one way or another, whether they are actual trafficking victims or have chosen to enter into the sex work business. These people are in a dependency situation, looking for a way out. Once they have been used, they can be left behind like used commodities, going back into povery while the men go back to their home countries, enjoying all the civil liberties and comforts of a consolidated democracy.

There is another point to this as well. You, as a tax payer, is essentially paying for these men to use and abuse the women in the destinations they are sent to. They are there, usually, on orders from national army forces, usally paid by governments which uses the tax revenue: you pay them to send these men and women here. As for NGOs and voluntary workers, although they are private organisations usually (always in the case of a Non-Governmental Organisation), they are supposed to be the channels that protect people against states whose primary motivation is national goals. These organisations are supposed to be for everyone, regardless of nationality, gender, sexuality etc. Obviously, in these cases, they fail to be that.

This upsets me greatly. It upsets me because the people supposed to protect these women, the protectors, are the ones that the women need to be protected from. It is not an excusable practice. No, you do not have to have sex. No, you are not on an equal basis - these women will always be in a dependency situation towards you because of socio-economic factors. And no, I am not okay with this.

If you are a Swedish-speaker, this documentary on the UN peacekeeping forces in Kongo-Kinshasa is highly informative. If you are not, but you have access to academic journals, I suggest ‘Trafficking Women after Socialism: To, Through and From Eastern Europe’ by Gail Kligman and Stephanie Limoncelli. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, skip to the part on trafficking and militarization.

Have a nice weekend!

2010-03-09T23:22:00.002Z

There’s this anti-gay Senator (Roy Ashburn) who recently got arrested for a DUI while leaving a gay club. While, personally I don’t believe sexual preferences have anything to do with politics, it is a matter of the private sphere, in this case that rule does not apply.

This Senator is someone who has previously given the impression he is against gay rights and this is one of the things his constituencies expect from him. When he then, doesn’t practice as he preaches, it is highly relevant to his politics and to the people who possibly vote for his policies on the matter.

Just the other day, however, Senator Ashburn came out as gay. If anyone of you have ever wondered if the people in the Republican Party truly are anti-gay, here’s your answer. I do not believe for a second that Senator Ashburn’s view on gay rights are coherent with what he really thinks. Surely this man is not denying something so fundamental to his own being as his rights. I mean, if he is still anti-gay, then he is anti himself and I, for one, does not see this as something that would work.

In either case, I am happy for this man, that he has finally admitted to himself and his loved ones that he is gay. I just hope that the people who voted for him will accept him too, because in my opinion, he is not less qualified as a politician just because his sexual preferences.

If this blog looks weird, it’s because I’m trying out this new application called MacJournal which is supposed to make it easier for me to play around with settings in my blog.

International Women's Day Rage

2010-03-08T21:43:00.006Z

I am extremely tired, so I reserve the right for my spelling and grammar to be a bit off. I also want to warn that the focus on this post is for women's rights, although other rights are unquestionably related, this is not a post about minority rights, or anything the like.

Today is International Women's Day. It is a good day but also a day that gives for a lot of anger.

International Women's Day is a day to celebrate women's achievements in the political struggles toward gender equality. While a lot has been achieved in the Northern hemisphere, there is still a lot left to be desired.

Today is not a day to celebrate the fact that I happened to be born with two X chromosomes. Today is not a day to celebrate that I was born with female genitalia. Today is not a day to celebrate that females in general have "female attributes" and today is certainly, above all, not a day to celebrate "female qualities". Today is a day to highlight the hardship women have been put through historically, and to critically assess the inequalities still exisiting in the world. Today we need to look upon the world and vocalise what is wrong and decide what we can do to change it.

Some people seem to believe that today is the day to give women flowers and be extra nice to the female population. They believe that through holding open a door to a woman, they are being extra nice. I deserve respect 365 days a year, not just on International Women's Day. If you want to give me flowers, do it because I am a good human being or for some other quality you cherish in me, not because of a biological happenstance. And just because it is International Women's Day do not mean that I am handicapped. I am perfectly capable of opening a door 364 other days of the year, why should I be impaired on this particular day? When you hold a door open for me just because I am a woman, you are implying this is something I am not capable of.

Today is a day to rage against the stupidity of society and politicians. If you need something more concrete to rage against, read my post on the proposed EU legislation on maternity leave. Today is also a time to celebrate female suffrage, something feminist movements fought very hard to gain, finally recognising women as citizens of a state so they were no longer stateless persons.

Today is the day when we have to continue the fight to recognize women as human beings. This cannot be done until society and the different states recognize without argument the civil and political liberties, human and socio-economic rights of women as human beings. This is not so in a lot of countries today, sadly. But today is the day when we pick up the spear and roar extra loud for this to be so.

I am a woman, a student, a feminist, Swedish and a lot of other things. Recognize me as the individual human being I am, not as some sub-human being that requires special attention because of some inherent flaw in my gender.

International Women's Day makes me rage, it makes me rant. There are so many things yet to be achieved in the matter of gender equality. International Women's Day inspires me. We can celebrate all that we have achieved and see that it is worth it to continue the fight. I will be in one corner with bloody fingers ready to fight till death.

And to address another question that is constantly posed on this day: No, we do not need an International Men's Day. I will not answer by the cliché "you have all other days to celebrate" but tell me, what is there in the area of male equality that needs to be celebrated? I'll give you the one on extended paternity leave, but honestly, men do not come from a lower position in society. Not to mention that this right comes from a view that women are the automatical care-takers in society due to their weaker disposition and men are bread-winners due to their stronger, more rational disposition. There is an unquestionable assumption that (white) men are human and inherently have a right to their position and civil rights. This is not so for a lot of women around the world.

As a concluding remark, I want to say that today is not a day to blame the men. Today is a day to recognize the flaw in the society that has come from historical values, inherited through generations. All men are not intriniscally discriminating, society is. It is the patriarchal structure we need to address, not the flaws in the opposing gender.

So women, and men, pick up the spear, because the fight is far from over. Personally I intend to fight straight into my grave, and let my sons and daughters pick up from there.

Running Head First Into a Wall

2010-03-02T22:12:00.004Z

Sometimes my friends do these stupid things. And they're just so incredibly stupid that it completely makes me wonder whether this person has in fact been an idiot all along. It's kind of equivalent to knowingly running into a wall, head first, no protection.
Don't worry, we're all subject to these mistakes and I'm sure I've made a fair few myself.

This blog will be about compromising yourself, something which I think is so stupid it is like running head first into a wall.

Building up confidence is not an easy task. It is something that needs to be done constantly. It is not like you get to a certain level of confidence and then it's fine, you can put the lid on and it will all stay where it is.
No, confidence is something you have to work on. If you just leave it, it will disappear. It is constant reassuring and work. Let me clarify that; it is constant reassurance by you - not anyone else. If you build your confidence on anyone else, it is false confidence and the Big Bad Wolf will blow your straw house down just like that.

The same thing goes for you. To make yourself the person you want to be and to bring yourself to the truly amazing potential you have, you need to work on it. It is hard and it is most certainly a long, arduous process. It will not come for free and you are going to have to spend several hours questioning your positions and values.

However, what you shall never question is yourself. You, the core that makes you the person you are is meant to be there, and there are certain things that makes you the person you are, whether or not most people like it or not. Wear yourself with pride - pride in being you and pride in being amazing and unique.
Sure, there are certain attributes which are less attractive in people, and you might have to tone a few of them down. I sure have. Not easily, but through long reflection over who and I want to be, and, most importantly, who I do not want to be.

There is is a difference, though, between you and unwanted personality traits. If you know something about how you react to things, or how you handle different situations is bothering you, then it is an unwanted quality, unwanted being the key word here. That is where you need to focus your work.

That goes for everything. I, for instance, do not feel comfortable not speaking my mind to my friends. It is both good and evil, some appreciate it and some don't. Take it or leave it, I say, this is me.

When you start compromising those qualities that make you you, that's when we have a problem. When you start doing things that you don't feel entirely comfortable about, obviously with exceptions for getting out of your comfort zone, that's when you need to stop. To phrase it in another way; when you start acting like someone you don't recognise, that is when your internal alarm should sound off, painting capital letters in your head: DON'T GO HERE, THIS IS NOT YOU, YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS, STOP NOW!
When you start giving too much of yourself away, and you agree to things, not for you, but for other people, you compromise yourself. Sure, I realise that there are unselfish* petty deeds we all do to play nice, but these are not the ones I'm talking about here.
* (Personally, I believe that everything we do has a motive and serves a personal self-interest, but I will go along with that word for simplicity.)

When you start putting someone else in front of yourself, you are compromising yourself - you are stretching yourself thin. While it might sound noble and martyr-like, this is not a good thing!
For you, you should be most important. Not until you have learned that you are most important can you effectively help others. How can you possibly help others through times of hardship unless you can help yourself? How can you possibly love another if you cannot love yourself?

If you do not know yourself well enough to always stay true to yourself, to never compromise who you are, you will give pieces away of you. Every time you do something that goes against your character, you are giving that piece of you away, and it is a piece that will never come back. So if you are to do something, whatever it is, make sure that you can stand for it. Otherwise, someone is going to have to pick up those pieces at one point and reassemble them, but without the glue that is you, they will keep on falling apart until you are too fragmented to piece together. All you will have is a replica.

So for goodness sake, DO NOT RUN IN HEAD FIRST INTO A WALL!

Fail, Eva-Britt Svensson, FAIL!

2010-02-23T19:24:00.007Z

An article in Swedish Dagens Nyheter tells us that Eva-Britt Svensson, a Left party politician, chair of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is satisfied with the new bill on maternity leave because she managed to add a clause which guarantees fathers a measly two weeks of paid paternity leave.

Now, let me tell you something about this bill. This bill proposes to extend the paid maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks all over the European Union (only six weeks full pay), something which is fantastic and probably much needed. What it also does is make it mandatory by law for women to take six weeks straight after birth. This is claimed to be for the protection of the mother.

While I can see the validity in the aforementioned argument, as a woman, who enjoys a great amount of civil rights, I want to punch these politicians in the face. How, oh mighty EU parliamentaries, how does this piece of legislation help women in claiming their rights? All it does is institutionalise women's role as care takers in society. I realise that a similar legislation might be necessary for countries where maternity leave is not a certainty. I am not opposed to women's rights to maternity leave, but I fail to see how this piece is anything but institutionalising sexism even further.

Also, for Svensson to be positive about this bill is just ridiculous. How does she think that guaranteeing fourteen days of paid paternity leave can actually trumph me, or any woman, actively deciding how she wants to spend her time after giving birth. And for this to come from a Left partist, it makes me happy to know that I would never vote for her or her comrades.

Being fair, Svesson says in the article that she is not happy with the focus on mothers in the bill, probably because it makes gender stereotypes more rigid. But in my eyes, Eva-Britt Svensson, this is a FAIL. A huge let down to all the women across Europe who will now have to take a step back into the entrenched sexism in today's society in legally fulfilling their roles as the society's care takers. The women have been put in their place yet again. Thank you.

The Daily Mail has a slightly different take on this. I have one solution for their argument that this might make women more unemployable; get some solid legislation in place against discriminating those who keep on producing those people that keep your country going!

Happy Friend Day!

2010-02-14T23:41:00.006Z

In Finland, Valentine's day is when you are supposed to celebrate your friends, so that is what I will do today. To all my friends out there:

I love every single one of you and you all make my life so much better. Thanks for putting up with me!

Oh, and a fitting strip on the other theme of this day from xkcd:

Ten Years of Fantasy

2010-02-01T16:16:00.004Z

I realised as someone asked over at BookCrossing what my best fantasy reads of the last decade were, that it was almost exactly ten years ago I truly discovered fantasy.

As an assignment in school we had to try the fantasy genre, and I picked and read The Diamond Throne by David Eddings (the first book in the Elenium). I remember getting caught up in it to the extent that I'd find myself still sitting at the dinner table two hours after I had finished my food, reading.

After that it just kind of started. The Diamond Throne set something in motion for me. All of a sudden I could not get enough of fantasy. I went on to read Lord of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. I could not have chosen a better book. Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy, the person who shaped and influenced modern fantasy works into what they are today. It was actually my second attempt at reading the book. I first started reading it when I was only seven years old, but not knowing what "appendix" meant, I got stuck in the beginning, where different scenes are explained and gave up pretty soon.

At 14, it was perfect. I lived, breathed and dreamed the hobbits and the magician Gandalf. Even though I didn't understand the underlying criticism of industrialisation, I identified with the humans and felt sorry for the small creatures that were forced aside at the expense of human development. I got caught in Lothlórien and wanted to stay there forever. I cried when the elves left Middle-Earth for the Grey Havens.
When I finally finished the books, I cried at the loss of Frodo and Sam, my newfound friends that had kept me company on a journey that felt like years, but had in fact taken only about six weeks (which at 14 can seem like years anyway).

I remember this point in my life so clearly, because it was after that I started picking up other books from the same genre. I read the rest of Eddings's books, started on the Wheel of Time and got introduced to Raymond E. Feist by an old boyfriend. I was caught up in the fantasy swamp and there was nothing that could get me out of there. For years, I wouldn't read anything else unless I absolutely had to. I've missed out on a lot of brilliant classics this way (Dickens, Austen, Stevenson all had to give way for Tolkien, Jordan and Feist) and it's only recently that I have managed to get myself out of that swamp and read something besides fantasy.

It's been a brilliant ten years of fantasy. I have discovered worlds that I will never be able to discover in real life. That pains me and saddens me, but at the same time these worlds are made immortal by the written world, and whenever I am in need of some magic, I can always go back to those words.

Thank you, all the fantasy authors out there who keep on making my life so much easier through the relief you give me through your books.

It's going to be a brilliant next ten years. I can't wait to see what fantasy authors will break through and once again mesmerise me.

I know...

2009-12-08T04:06:00.002Z

I know I've been neglecting this blog.
Check out my twitter account

Darfur soldiers

2009-03-04T13:50:00.002Z

It's things like this that make me cry out of sheer horror. We often think about the victims of such crimes, as we rightly should. Hearing someone who has been forced to become a rapist and a murderer out of self-preservation is horrifying. It's easy to sit and say self-righteously that you would rather die than do something like that and faced with the choice you would choose death before abusing any of the two of the most important human rights. Would you really?
When you've got the world at your feet, or at least the opportunities you would if you have access to read this blog, it is easy to be self-righteous because the hardships we encounter in the developed world seldom come close to what this "Adam" has had to endure. It's his life or harming people, and how do you choose? I think the primal instinct is to choose your life. Humans have a built-in instinct of self-preservation. Can you blame it?
Certainly the victims of these actions are horribly wronged and deserve to be spared a thought for, but it is interesting to read the other side of the story. It shows that the whole situation is so totally messed up. It makes me sad.

Twitter

2009-02-22T15:05:00.002Z

Yes, I have given in, or rather been coerced to get myself a Twitter. I suppose it's for the better as I'm not very good at updating my blog, so shorter updates, but more often, is probably the way to go. I will, however, still update my blog as often as I feel I have something to write/rant about. And I promise I will to my best to try to do it more often.

I need to water my bamboo now, but check out my Twitter.

It Takes Two To Tango

2009-02-03T20:41:00.004Z

First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not taking sides in this conflict whatsoever. I don't know enough about it to take sides or justify either side's actions.

Having said that, I still think that this article from CNN about Hilary Clinton's demands to the Palestinians is ridiculous. Or the article in itself is not as ridiculous as the conditions of her demands of Hamas.
Seriously, it takes two to tango. This conflict has been going on long enough for both sides to get their hands dirty, which they both have just in this recent conflict. However, Clinton is putting her demands on Hamas. I know the US supports Israel, but honestly, can that not be part of the problem? If the world's most powerful country wasn't so biased, would it not be easier for us to find a solution to this utterly inhumane war that has destroyed thousands of lives?

Palestine has curfews. It is under military rule. The citizens are only allowed to go out when the Israeli allows them to. Sometimes they have to stay inside for days on end.
The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, visited Gaza today to assess the situation. Svenska Dagbladet (article in Swedish) reports that based on what he saw there in Gaza, the Israeli military force has consciously and unnecessarily destroyed businesses, something that will have consequences on the financial climate for the Palestines, if they ever will be able to function as its own nation. Business which were never involved in the conflict and businesses which promoted peace and stability for the trade between the two regions. Factories were obliterated by Israeli military forces, leaving these people with nothing.

BBC just recently refused to show an advertisement for humanitarian aid to Gaza because they said they did not want to be perceived as biased. Allegedly, it was out of the same reason they did not want to show footage of a five month old baby that had been run over by Israeli military tanks and left to die on the road. The baby was found five days later, partly eaten by scavengers, several limbs torn off the body. You can find the video on YouTube easily enough if you want to see it.

I am not trying to say here that Hamas has not contributed to the conflict, or even that they are a minor part of this conflict. I am simply asking how this inhumane behaviour can continue?
Palestine is invaded, it has always had the Israeli military inside Palestine or at least close by. The conflict was never fair. This does not justify Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, not under any circumstances. But neither do these rockets justify Israel destroying businesses, factories or running over babies in the street.
And for Clinton to totally ignore this is unforgivable. I never liked that woman, and I like her even less now. I hope Obama does something about this. I hope that the world would stop taking sides and just focus on ending the war and the disaster that has been going on for far too long. The whole business is appalling and saddening, please stop.

Mugabe and Zimbabwe

2008-12-07T13:12:00.002Z

I know in theory that taking a non-aligned political stance internationally is good in theory. It makes the citizens feel safe, and more, it reinforces the liberality of other countrie's rights to choose. I really do like Sweden because of our neutrality and non-alignment, although I have to say that I strongly believe it has more to do with Sweden's incapability to defend ourselves if we ever got into a war rather than as a fighter for liberality. Especially when looking to the Swedish domestic politics where the social democrats, who are anything but especially liberal, have ruled the country for most of as long as I've been alive, and for the greater part before that as well. Sweden has got a sceptical view of the more liberal, capitalistic parties and has also got a history of being a bit wary of international cooperation when it comes to the EU, EMU and NATO. Swedes tend to vote against these political unions, and when we joined the EU, the decision was won by 4% of the voters (52-48 in favour).
Sometimes, I do, however, wish that we would take some kind of political standpoint when it comes to people suffering in the world. Gordon Brown has gone out and said that Mugabe must go, and now the archbishop of York has done the same thing.
The fact is that people are dying as a consequence of this tyrant. 13,000 people are infected with cholera, the inflation is at 231,000,000 per cent. This is not the time to stand idly by and respect Zimbabwe's rights to have its own rulers. Because the fact is that Mugabe did not win a free and fair election, and people are dying. When people are dying, that's where the politeness stops. When someone threatens human rights, that's when you do something. Take a stance. Do someting, say something! Sometimes silence is just a quiet acceptance.

Doing Something Properly

2008-12-04T13:11:00.003Z

My Latin teacher in high school once told me that I was really good at taking control of something and doing it properly when I really wanted to. This was after I had effectively gotten my grade up from a B2 to an A1 from one semester to the next, with a year's break in between when I studied no Latin at all. From getting average grades on my tests, I now aced all of them with no exceptions.
The thing is that I am good at getting things done properly if I can be bothered. It's just that usually I can't. Something which I actually blame my teachers for. Not my Latin teacher, she was lovely, but the others that did not give me half of the challenges I should have had as a kid. Them not challenging me has lead to me being this lazy person who doesn't really make an effort because I know I'm going to get pretty good grades anyway. In fact, my biggest challenge in uni so far has been to learn how to study properly. Something which I still do not master to this day. Although I have to say, Hobbes is a close second. He's tough that one. But oh so much fun.
In either case, I'm sitting here now with a sociology essay to write for tomorrow. It's about the effect globalization has on women, a subject that really interests me, something which is part of what I hope to work with in the future. Not necessarily the effect globalization has on women, but definitely something that has to do with the gendered inequalites in the world.
So, this essay. I started it about an hour ago, and have already got around 500 words down, with about 1500 to go. Whatever stress I might have been feeling, it's definitely not there now, because this essay has been like one of those I used to write. I read a bit, play some Nintendo DS, read a bit, don't really care about it, and somehow, through that process an essay takes shape in my head. It's there in my subconscious and all I have to do is write it down. I think it only happens when I don't really care of the outcome of the essay, and since this essay is the only first year essay I write, I really do not care about the grade. Firstly, because it is first year and does not matter at all toward my final grades, and secondly, because I do not plan to take sociology up to honours anyway.
Well, well. I have to keep on writing this essay. Hopefully I'll finish early so I can read this week's issue of the Economist. I might even go to the gym if my muscles can handle that after yesterday's muscle tone class.

Humanity

2008-11-29T21:13:00.003Z

It's official. I am not human. I had this incident happen to me that probably should have upset me greatly, but I literally felt nothing. Watching it and thinking about it did not stir a feeling in me. At the moment I was actually very afraid for my own well-being. I am not going to say what this incident was about, but it wasn't anything as serious as death, so it wasn't shock or something like that, because it was totally expected. But it scared me oh so much that I did not feel a thing. I wanted to feel something, but where I should have been upset and angry I just said "hmh" and then started thinking about something totally random, for example what I would have for dinner the next day. That's how unaffected I was. And that is not a good sign for me if I still want to be seen as a human. I'm not sure that's at all possible anymore, I'm afraid.
But to take this to a different instance, these people in the article are not human. They're even less so than me. You do not trample a person to death for a 50" plasma tv and then not care about it. That is inhumane. And seriously shocking. How could anyone do that? I am reading the communist manifesto at the moment, and I'm starting to think that Marx has some valid points. Sociological, not political. I am still a liberal capitalist through and through who believes that the world can only gain from less rules. In some instances, maybe not when it comes to the credit crunch. But sometimes you have to take away some liberties to create others. Anyway, my thoughts are with the family of this man, who had to experience something so cold and brutal. Humankind at its worst.

Also, I just wanted to note that hedgehog is such an awesome word. The imagination when they named the animal. A hog who lives in the hedge. It is perfect! And it seriously draws me into daydreaming about all the leprechauns and whatnot that we can't see!

US as a superpower, or the end thereof

2008-11-21T21:29:00.004Z

The Guardian has this article on the US National Intelligence Council newest report on the future. Say what you will, but the current wobbly economic climate has brought one positive thing with it: the US seems to finally have woken up. Their position as a superpower is not something to take for granted anymore. To keep their position they are going to have to do something.
Unfortunately, the gloomy report is quite scary as well. I usually can't wait to see what's going to happen to the world, but now I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not sure I want to live in the 2025 that this report describes. A world with few resources, nuclear threats and major global environmental problems. Hopefully though, the US will take these warnings seriously and start doing something. And if there's someone who can, it's Barack Obama.
But then again, the US reminds me of a certain someone in my life that whenever you start to hope, you always fall flat down on your arse again. Hope is a dangerous thing. I'm better off sticking to my chosen path of cynicism.
Read the article,it's well worth it, but beware, it might give you nightmares!