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.
Showing posts with label gender inequalities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender inequalities. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Classroom Gender Dynamics
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Fail, Eva-Britt Svensson, FAIL!
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!
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!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Doing Something Properly
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)