On "Game-Changing Feminism" and Mia McKenzie

So, it's been a while since my last post... (mumbling something about too much house-cleaning) The main reason for this being the fact that I didn't have a topic I reeeeeeally wanted to start a discussion on. And now I do.
Now, one thing I should note from the get-go: I don't know how much I can label myself as a feminist, but if the definition is that I believe that all people, no matter what gender they ascribe themselves to belonging, inherently deserve to be treated equally, then I think it reasonable to call myself that.
So, having watched Emma Watson's speech at the UN, urging for men to join the fight for gender equality, my heart swelled with pride and I just clapped wildly to my computer monitor, which would have looked really awkward but whatever.
I was just about to donate half my money to her campaign, when I found writer Mia McKenzie's own take on the speech.  You might want to read it before continuing reading this post, as it will make following my train of thought a little easier.

Mia McKenzie writes firstly that it is absurd to suggest that men would need a formal invitation to "join the fight for feminism", as if  it were a question of men just not having been asked. Instead, McKenzie writes, men are and have been simply unwilling to join the fight, because men obviously gain more from gender inequality, as many statistics on total income differences between men and women show. Telling men they should care for women's rights because inequality hurts them, too is as problematic as urging white people to end racism because it hurts them as well, because:

"Firstly, because even if that’s true, it does nothing to create solidarity. I have never met a white person who decided to take on anti-racism work because of the negative effects of racism on white people. Literally, never.  And I don’t think I’ve ever met a man who genuinely supports feminist ideals because of the ways they benefit men first. If I did know people like this, I wouldn’t like them. I’d question why the often brutal oppression of people of color and women and especially women of color wasn't enough to get them interested, but having an epiphany about the ways men and/or white people are kinda also hurt by these constructs because “something something society and also men should be able to cry, too” made them jump right on board"

I'm mostly on board with McKenzie's writing, and she does raise very important issues with idolizing Emma Watson's role as a "game-changing" feminist, which I will come back to later. But I want to pause here to share my thoughts on what McKenzie just wrote. She goes on to say that the struggle for equality for women (and for those not ascribing to the male-female paradigm) cannot be compared to the issues men face with, for instance, not dealing with their feelings properly, because the evils of the former simply outweigh those of the latter.

The fact that women and queer people still get the shorter end of the stick in today's society is obviously true. No one could deny that with a straight face. But at the same time, McKenzie omits one important statistic that Watson brings up, namely that suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 - 49 years in the U.K. Worldwide, young men die of suicide more often that women of the same age group, mostly due to psychological problems and loss of cohesion between peers, and the number is increasing. Failing to mention this fact is missing half the point of what Emma Watson was trying to say: men (and people who feel they don't fit into the definition of one) do suffer from living in a gender-based society - not as much as women, true enough, but it is still human suffering which should also be dealt with and not scoffed at offhandedly.
Also, it is possible to put issues like differences in pay, rape, domestic abuse and sexual harassment into statistical form: they are events that can be marked down. But it is a different story to put down into statistical form the feeling of shame and guilt of not being able to express yourself the way you want to because you're afraid of being ostracized, bullied or beaten the shit out of. It is possible, mind you, but more problematic than the former examples. My point being, just because something isn't on a statistical graph doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I realize I am dancing on a knife's edge here, and am at a risk of having my argument look like an MRM rant (a movement that I deeply despise). So, in order to prevent that, I'll rephrase the above: I have nothing to complain about. Really. I am a young, white, European male studying in a university. I have never had to struggle with issues like harassment, rape, sexual abuse or other misogynistic elements of society. My point is simply this: in bringing up the problems of one group and downplaying those of the other, McKenzie effectively throws out the baby with the bathwater in this point of her argument. Feminism should (in my viewpoint) be about bringing true equality between all people of all types of sexuality (and races while we're at it), and recognizing the problems that the structures of today's society are causing to all people everywhere.

I want to briefly go over the other point that McKenzie brings up in her article, namely the problem of hailing Emma Watson as a forerunner of feminism. Firstly I want to say that I very much admire Emma Watson for her passion and her efforts to bring about change in our culture, and I think it a good thing that more and more young, up-and-coming actors are facing this issue and doing something about it.
There is, however, a problem in this, and it is specifically the fact that the up-and-coming stars who advocate for these issues are white, middle or upper-class, heterosexual, well-educated, able-bodied, stock-photo Pepsodent-smiling Walmart-shopping Louis-Vuitton -buying white, so so white people. Both McKenzie and the blogger That Black Girl raise this issue in their posts. TBG writes:

"mainstream feminism, of which celebrity feminism is a derivation, has an intersectionality problem: it advocates for women but consistently fails to recognise that women are not just white, middle-class, cisgender, western, and/or able-bodied. it fails to include narratives of sex workers and migrants and women who may be living at the margins as a result of their stigmatised identities."

So indeed, I think Emma Watson is brave for speaking out in public, even more so after the recent celebrity nude photo scandal (which was also targeted at her but that's another story). At the same time, though, I must admit that I think the message would be more game-changing, more inclusive, and therefore more universal and further-reaching if someone, say, actress Lupita Nyong'o would have delivered this speech. Or how about a similar speech from someone like Neil Patrick Harris, or, dare I say it, Asa Akira? Now there's some controversy for you! 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Harry Potter movies to watch.

Why schools will change when people change

My first actual topic! Wow, this is kinda exciting!

I'd better lay some groundwork on this one before I actually begin. To start with, I'm studying pedagogy as a minor in the university at the moment. Or for anyone who doesn't know what that means, I'm studying to become a teacher. Or getting a teaching degree. Thingy. Whatever.

As you can guess, studying to become a teacher involves studying the school system as well. Not only that, but recently we've been studying how the school system is changing/isn't changing/should be changed/wants to be changed/doesn't want to change/will never change/what were we talking about again? In particular what's been stirring the pot recently is the newly found study that Finnish kids have suddenly dropped from their ivory tower in the international PISA tests. Gasp! What do you mean, our kids aren't as good in maths as those Chinese kids who are ridiculously overworked and are pressured by their parents into doing stuff they totally don't want to do in the first place? And yes, I have my two cents to share on the PISA rankings as well. But for now, let's focus on this.

So, "get on with it!" you're probably saying. It seems that, in Finland, throughout the decades the school system, and education itself, has been pestered about changing its ways. "You need to be new and dynamic." "You need to focus on your traditions." "You need to teach our kids valuable life lessons." "You need to stop teaching kids lessons we don't want you to teach, but we won't tell you what it is we want or the messages will be horribly mixed." In the end, I think, education reforms are mostly talk and little walk.

Why? Well firstly, although change is a fundamental part of life, it doesn't happen because someone wrote something down on a piece of paper. It doesn't change because someone said some rousing speeches, nor even necessarily because money was put into a different part of the system. All of the aforementioned may be signs of change, but when signs aren't backed up by actual intent, they will stay as that: signs, or empty symbols without meaning.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I am not saying that changing the school system, education or anything in general is bad. Far from it. We should always strive to be better at what we do and change is a part of that. In fact I am convinced that there are many key aspects in the school system that should be changed, like the sizes of the classrooms, the different methods in teaching, what is being taught and with what intention etc. (more on these subjects in later posts, hopefully!)
But what I'm getting at here is that people who keep screaming for change in schools are often people whose memories of the school system date back to when they were in schools themselves - which could be anything from ten years to fifty. School is a very different thing for people who actually work in it and for those who are on the outside looking in. Also, reforms that focus on just one aspect of the school probably won't work all that well, because the school is like a gigantic clockwork machine: if you want to change one thing, you first have to change a dozen other things before you're even close to making the change you wanted in the first place.

Point two is this: Change, any change, starts with human beings acting differently, which is caused by them thinking differently, which in turn is caused by a change in their beliefs. And by beliefs I don't mean that you change from being a Christian to a Buddhist (although that can happen, too), but that some fundamental belief in your life has changed gradually or in one big swoop.

This is why, I believe, systems change when human beings change. And more often than not, that change will be gradual and will happen inside the system. It will seem to be functioning just as it has been for decades, until one day, those minor changes from all the people collectively will facilitate the change and make it possible. I think this can be seen in things like the movement for sexual minorities - granted, it's still not ideal in many parts of the world, but when comparing the movement to 20 years ago, the difference is significant. And, I think, that's because people are now simply more open and ready to accept and facilitate that change than they were previously.

So it is with schools, also. I've heard countless talks about education reforms and ways in which the schools need to and absolutely have to change, and while the want for change is not bad in itself, it should be based on more than just *wheezy old man voice* "When I was your age we skied to school in the summer and rode on mooseback in winter, you young whippersnappers! Those were the good days...now where are my teeth?"

Yes, it's so sad the good ole' days are behind, isn't it?

Resolutions and Frankensteins.

Hello!
Welcome to my blog. Or, as I like to call it, my very first social experiment. And now that I have successfully made the impression of reducing your status to that of a lab rat, let me try to reiterate what the purpose of this blog is.

I have always been into writing stuff. Ever since elementary school I was set on becoming a writer. With an imagination that would on some nights keep me awake for hours (and still does), I had to channel that activity somewhere. And although my fictitious writings have entered into a state of perpetual writer's block, I felt that I could maybe chug out smaller writings at a faster paste - hence, the blog.

The actual impetus for writing a blog didn't come until on New Year's Eve, 2014. Now, I haven't been in the habit of making New Year's resolutions. Although I appreciate the sentiment, I think it's mostly just that - a sentiment. But this year was somehow different. So many things had happened both in my life and around me in the past couple of years, that I felt like I had rapidly changed into something and someone different. And, for some reason, the thought occurred to me that now would be a good time to write a blog.

Now, to clarify, this blog is not going to be a review of my life (though attention hogging may play a major minor role in this). Instead, what I hope to achieve with this, at best, is to share my thoughts on a range of subjects, and then start a conversation on said topics. With this I will (hopefully) learn something and then MY EXPERIMENT WILL BE A SUCCESS! MWHAHA!!!

Yes, this is what I'm doing right now. Nbd.

Anyhoo, I will be covering subjects including, but not limited to, education (what I should know stuff about...*ahem*), politics (which I admit knowing next to nothing about), sexuality (which is interesting because, duh), and...drum roll... religion (which I will be majoring in probably when I'm 45). I may write stuff regarding pop culture and other things from time to time. Basically I'm just going to do what feels good - let's keep this informal, shall we?

When I told my roommate about this idea, his response was, 'You should write topics that would tie all those together, something like "God is gay and that's why we should allow immigrants.'" While that does sound like an awesome topic, my agenda is not to provoke anyone, but to invite you to share your own thoughts on my ideas for everyone's mutual benefit. But if you choose to be offended no matter what, I can't help you with that.

So I urge you to join this conversation and share your thoughts. Whether you disagree or agree is not the point. Whether you can voice your opinions in a constructive, logical and non-hurtful way is the point, as that is what I'll aim to do with my own thoughts.

So, on to the first question: Is God gay and therefore we should allow immigrants? Just kidding. But more's on the way, so stay tuned!

P.S. Omaa taustaani huomioiden aion kirjoittaa jonkin verran myös suomeksi, vaikka koen englannin olevan lähempänä sydäntäni näissä asioissa. Mutta ei hätää, Suomen kansa - kyllä tekin pääsette tähänkin keskusteluun osallistumaan.