The Incompletion of Female Sexual Liberation

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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!

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!

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

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...

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

Darfur soldiers

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

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

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.