Category Archives: samfunnsdebatt

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

Posted on by
Reply

It makes me both sad and angry that this day is even necessary, but it makes it clear that no matter how far we think we have come in the struggle for gender equality, we still have a long way to go!

Violence against women persist to be a problem all over the globe. Women are killed on a daily basis in every corner of the world, many of them by their partners. Many more are abused and raped, married off even before they reach puberty, or sex-trafficed. Even more are harassed on the streets, at work, in schools, and when going out for a drink.

We take all sorts of precautions, and still we hardly ever feel safe. I am so sick and tired of it!

It’s not all men, we all know that. But every good man that doesn’t put a stop to his friend’s sexist comments, misogynistic talk and behaviour, becomes part of the problem. Good men’s silence can be interpreted as accepting what is being said and done.

Violence against women will never stop as long as the good men are turning a blind eye. Be the one who says out loud «I don’t tolerate this kind of bullshit or behaviour», instead of looking embarrassed or laughing with the rest not to dampen the «good mood». We know that you are out there, and we need you on our side! Each time you stay silent, that misogynistic friend gets a bit bolder. And one day he crosses the line completely, and ruins a woman’s life forever.

Don’t stay silent, you can mean the difference between life and death of a woman.

Here we go again…

Posted on by
Reply

So we’re 8 days in, and the new president in the world’s «leading democracy» has started his campaign to make his country great. Or great again, according to his slogan.

It’s true that the USA was one held up as an example to the rest of the free world, but now we seem to be better moving along without them. Or we should use them as a text book example of how NOT to do things.

First, you don’t make any country great by degrading at least half its population as secondary citizens. That goes for both women, LGBTQIA+ and immigrants. You can debate all you want immigrants’ rights to be there, but they are still human beings, and not all the other things Trump is calling them. (And, a friendly reminder that all of your ancestors were once immigrants, but that seems to have slipped your memory.)

As for women, we have the right to control our own bodies, and our own reproductive rights. The conservatives push (and victory in many states) for a total ban on abortions, are not going to eliminate abortions, but instead it will cause thousands of women to die from unsafe abortions and lack of proper healthcare. The same will follow with the re-enactment of the GAG-rule, in other parts of the world. Why is it that American conservative Christians dictate the healthcare given to women, both in their own country, and elsewhere? But we get it, it’s more important to be against abortion at all costs, than taking into consideration that you get blood on your hands through all the unnecessary deaths following from unsafe abortions, refusal of care, or total lack of care due to your policies.

Second, you don’t make a country great by bullying others to obey your petty wishes. I’m sorry, but you have again elected a president that behaves like a spoiled child, and who bullies and intimidates anyone standing in his way. It has nothing to do with the interest of Americans in general, it has to do with his ego.

Third, you don’t make your country great by denying climate change, pulling out of international agreements, and rolling back on the development of green technology and industries. Instead of seeing this as a threat, you should see it as new opportunities and new jobs.

Fourth, you don’t make your country great by removing the pages of the history books that don’t please you and your narrative. You could rather do with an update of your history books, and throw in some real geography at the same time.

Fifth, you don’t make your country great by increasing the social and economic differences. On the contrary, that’s a good recepie for social unrest and violence, but it is perhaps what the president wants? I mean, Marxist equality politics, or as we call it in Scandinavia and Europe, redistribution and well-fare, are really scary stuff! Not sure how we survive on the European side of the Atlantic, with our public funded educational system, public health care and so on.

Sixth, you don’t make your country great, or even make it look great, when your president throws a tantrum each time someone disagrees with him, whether it’s a journalist or a prime minister of another country or someone else. It actually makes it look like you’re run by an idiot.

Your president keeps saying «make America great again», but I don’t know how it’s going to work, both for the above mentioned facts, and then because America was never really that great. You don’t have to dive deep into history, to see all the injustice and bullying the USA has been doing over the years. Both within your own country, and abroad.

The only thing that can make the US great again, is that you elect responsible politicians at all levels, that are more interested in the well-fare of every citizen in your country, and not only interested in clinging to their power and generous pay-checks, actually paid for by the tax payers at the bottom of the hierarchy…

The reason I even bother to write this, is that, unfortunately, the US has too much influence on the global scene, which means US politics actually affects people outside the US. I also feel incredibly sorry for all Americans that didn’t vote for Trump, and I hope you will unite and fight back (with all means except violence!) and that you (and the rest of us) will manage to create a better world in the future.

International day for the elimination of violence against women

Posted on by
Reply

Today, November 25, is the international day for the elimination of violence against women.

Unfortunately, violence against women is still a major problem. Both domestic violence, and in society at large.

Women are always obliged to think about how to behave and to do risk-management when out in public places. We have long since understood that whatever we say or do, or the way we dress, can be used against us, should we be attacked by a man.

We are obliged to think about safety when we walk alone on the streets at night. Stay alert, footwear to run in, keys in one hand, cell phone in the other. Or we spend money on a taxi, as it’s better to be safe than sorry.

I don’t think men in general have any idea about how many things we women have to think about, just to get home safe at night.

Domestic violence is still a major problem in many countries. And we must not forget that it’s not that long ago that it actually became a criminal offense. For way too long it was seen as a conflict between spouses, belonging to the private sphere, not something to bother the police with. (This is still the case in many countries.)

Fortunately that has changed, but the problem has not disappeared. And it’s still under-reported. Add to that, that not all abuse comes in the form of physical violence. It can just as well be psychological in the form of control over the other person’s choices, and/or threats. This is harder to prove, as there’s no physical evidence (like bruises, broken bones etc.).

In the most severe cases, the violence is fatal, causing the death of thousands of women every year.

Much is done to help women escape domestic abuse, but the best thing would of course be to prevent it from happening in the first place.

We have a long way to go, but part of the solution should be to bring to attention from an early age the misconception that violence is an integrated part of being conceived as masculine. The two have nothing to do with each other.

A real man doesn’t hit his partner. Or his kids, or anyone else for that matter.

A real man doesn’t rape, he makes sure that his (female) friends make it home safe and sound.

In the end, women don’t want to be protected by men, we want protection from the perpetrators, so that we can feel safe no matter where we are, at any time of the day or night.

And don’t forget, as parents, we are responsible for our childrens’ socialization and moral education. Make sure you raise your boys to be good men.

What should we learn from the US elections?

Posted on by
Reply

I will leave to other analysts and journalists to dissect the American elections, and what we might expect from it. I would rather like to reflect a bit on what we on the other side of the Atlantic, who doesn’t like Trump and his counterparts, can do as to not end up in the same mess.

First of all, I think that a big part of the electorate on this side of the Atlantic as well, is fed up with status quo. No matter the politicians we elect, few things seem to change. One of the reasons might be that political parties that used to speak on behalf of the working class, no longer do that. Instead they have moved towards the centre or even to the right, in desperate attempts to win back voters who have moved towards the extremes over the past ten years or more.

One example is the Norwegian Labour party, whose economic politics now are hard to distinguish from the Conservatives. Most people with normal salaries have small benefits of their tax cuts, while the better fortunate end up with larger tax cuts. It doesn’t seem fair for most people.

Rich people makes lots of fuzz about the taxes they have to pay, and several Norwegian millionaires have fled the country in recent years, taking their money with them. My question is, why should the normal working class pay their taxes with a smile, contributing to the common health- and education system, among other things, when the most fortunate ones find every possible loop hole to avoid paying taxes, and then complain about every cent they “so generously” contribute? Until it gets unbearable for them… Poor rich people…

We see the same in other countries, where corporations and rich people seem to have priority over normal people. Politicians are worried about the level of national and international tests comparing the results of their students, while at the same time never allocating enough money to uphold good schools with good teachers. Our kids suffer from lack of resources, both economically and due to lack of staff. Absent teachers are not replaced, causing at times big delays in the courses. Our children are our future, it’s actually not just a fancy slogan. How are they going to proceed if they don’t even get a good basic education?

Who are going to take care of the elder population, if no-one in the end qualifies for medical and nursing studies? Or the next generations, if the quality of the teachers are in free fall? Who would even like to work in the public sector if the salaries are no longer sustainable?

The rich will always manage, as they can afford to send their children to private schools. But what about the rest? This is really the recipe for even bigger socio-economic differences.

The endless hunt for more profits and higher economic growth are going to kill us in more than one way. Moving all production to low-cost countries might have seemed as a good idea at one point, but it also took away lots of jobs, and with that people’s wages. If people don’t earn money, have can they consume anything? Those who really benefitted from this are the owners and shareholders of the multinationals. They are lining their pockets, while their employees barely make a minimum to survive. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. And the impression left with the masses, are that most politicians are in the pockets of the multinationals, in one way or another. People don’t care of the BNP is growing, if they can affort less with what they are paid.

There are vital institutions in our societies that should not be run for profit, and health and education are two of them. Since the late 1980’s and the 1990’s, when neo-liberalism really entered the public sector, hospitals are no longer just providing health-care, they are also supposed to make money. We saw some disastrous effects of this during the Covid-19 pandemic. Saturated hospitals, all over the world, resulting in lock-down of the whole world for months. The cost of this, in terms of both lives and money were horrendous. And I’m sure we would have managed better if we had not in all these years before, cut down on the number of hospital beds, and got rid of national stocks of basic medical supplies. In stead, the world as a whole, were dependent on supplies from China. As soon as the supply-chain broke down, because factories were closed and movement strictly restricted, we all got confined in our own homes.

All the applause, and all the big words spoken about health-personnel being on the frontline, with the people working in our supermarkets (one of the few things left open), about how valuable they are to the functioning of society, and still we pay them nickels and dimes. We keep rushing patients through the hospitals, because it’s not cost-effective to keep them there.

Maternity wards in smaller places in Norway are closed, because they are not cost-effective. And that is in one of the richest countries in the world. At the same time, Norwegian women are encouraged to have more children! Where’s the logic?

Universities have much suffered from the same changes in financing. It’s more important to push through a bigger number of students, than to assure good quality. The students comes under more pressure, at the same time as their financing is not keeping up with living-costs. The more they have to work in addition to being full-time students, the less time they actually have to prepare their courses. Less time to prepare, worse results.

If politicians see higher levels of education in the population as a means to counter future challenges, they should act on it, not just talk.

Because, as we all know, we have a lot of challenges ahead of us, with an ageing population and climate changes. Instead of giving us plenty of bullshit about how we are going to save the world if we recycle our waste at home and drive electric cars, they should put more pressure on the real big polluters to clean up their mess. I don’t say that we as individuals should not do anything, but what you and I do alone is not going to make much of a difference. When we say that we all need to pull together here, it actually includes the big corporations, who are reluctant to do major investments in cleaner technology, because it means less profit for them.

And cleaning up in our own neighbourhood is not enough. It changes nothing if European factories pollute less, if in the end it means that there are even more factories in Asia polluting even more. All because we have become addicted to our high consumption. We want a lot of stuff, and we want it cheap, cheaper and cheapest. And why do we want the cheapest? Because our salaries are getting less worth every year. Indirectly we are told by our governments that we are less valuable than the multinationals with their focus on constant economic growth. It’s more important to keep the rich both rich and happy, than to ensure a decent living-standard for the majority.

If you are serious about saving the planet, make sure that people can actually afford to care about the planet. Because when they can barely manage to make ends meet, it’s more tempting to vote for someone who promise them more value for the money, than anything else. For them, what do they care happens to the planet in ten to twenty years, when they are not able to put food on the table for their kids today?

Our politicians have to realise at some point, that we demand action on behalf of the normal and poor people now, not the rich and super-rich. That we, the average people, don’t care about the shareholders of multinationals, because they have enough money already to support themselves in this life, and probably the next twenty as well. We are fed up of being down-prioritised, of being neglected or fed fancy slogans that in the end means nothing at all.

Extreme-right wing parties say they stand with “the normal” people, which is why they are coming to power in several countries. I don’t buy their rhetoric, though, and I certainly don’t like their views on immigrants and other minorities. But lots of people do, and this should have been a wake-up call long ago for other politicians more moderate, both left and right, but specially to the left.

Those who used to represent the working class, have instead turned into an elite, that moves further and further away from their original base.

When they, and the moderate parties at the centre and right, start to put people over profit, the voters might come back. I advise that they give it a shot before it’s too late, and we find ourselves under the rule of neo-fascism all over Europe.

Bombs don’t make peace

Posted on by
Reply

We see it again and again, world leaders thinking, for some obscure reason, that bombs can make peace. Well, they don’t!

Did Putin get what he wanted when he launched his “quick invasion” of Ukraine? No! Instead the war is still dragging on, two and a half years later. Do Putin really think that he’s going to enter the history books as the leader who managed to restore the Russian empire? No, he’s going to to be listed as a man abusing his power, a leader crushing down all opposition among his fellow countrymen and -women, one who ignore human rights and who prosecute LGBTQIA+ people and whomever speaks against him. A leader that waged war on a neighbouring country without provocation.

In addition, Putin is every so often threatening to use nuclear weapons. What would happen if he do? It will only escalate the conflict further, and a peace treaty will no longer be possible. The retaliations against Russia would be severe. And again, he will certainly not appear in the history books as a great leader, but the one crazy man that pressed the red button.

Do the Israeli government lead by prime minister Nethanyahu create peace with their invasion of Gaza? And more resent their invasion and bombing of South Lebanon? Do Nethanyahu and his cabinet think that by killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, in their hunt for Hamas, that they will obtain any kind of peace and security for the Israeli people any time soon? NO! All they do is escalating the conflict.

I strongly condemn the Hamas attack on Israel October 7, 2023, their killings and taking of hostages. I also strongly condemn the continuous attack on Gaza by the Israelis.

The only thing they are going to achieve by this war on the Palestinians, is creating more hate, more Palestinians turning against them, willing to sacrifice themselves for a free Palestine.

The Israelis continue to bomb hospitals and schools where people has taken up refuge, because their homes are destroyed, the refuge camps are not safe, in their hunt for Hamas. So far more than 41 500 Palestinians have died, the great majority civilians. In comparison, the Israeli has lost 1 706 people. I don’t like to compare numbers like this, but it shows the efficiency of the Israeli army compared to their opponent.

Now the situation is getting even more dangerous, as Iran is about to be involved as well. We are on the verge of a full scale war in the Middle-East, a war that is only going to create more hatred and conflict, and no peace.

The Israeli government, led by Nethanyahu, has given the green light for more illegal settlements. They are still pushing on Palestinian land, imposing restrictions on their movements, blocking supplies. And this was before the war started. What do they think they will accomplish? That the Palestinians would surrender and say, OK, you win, we move? As long as Israeli politics are formed and carried out in a way that threatens the existence of the Palestinian state, Israel will never be safe either. How hard is that to understand?

With all this said about the Israeli response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas, I don’t understand what the latter thought they would obtain either, except for severe retaliations by the Israelis. Did they think that Israel would “surrender” after the attack? What on earth were they thinking? In one way, we might say that it was Hamas that brought all the destructions on Gaza, on it’s own people. They knew for sure that Israel would react. How could they not? If my neighbour starts shooting at me, am I not forced to protect myself? How come Hamas launched this attack, fully aware of the possible retaliations? Hamas also knew that the population of Gaza has literally nowhere to go, nowhere where it’s safe. It is pure cowardice to use women and children as shields. The Palestinians suffered enough as it was, for Hamas to bring this war on them by their actions. Again, acts of war don’t make peace.

Unfortunately, as long as there are people on either side that has no interest in a peaceful solution, the situation will never be solved. We all thought peace between Palestine and Israel would become a reality after the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993 and the Oslo Agreement II in 1995. It was supposed to be a first step towards a peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel. There were people on both sides that were not happy with the outlines in these agreements, but negotiations were supposed to carry on. When the Likud party (Israel) won the elections in 1996, the agreement was put aside, and negotiations halted.

Since then the situation has become more severe, until this last devastating escalation. Peace has never been further away. I don’t know how the situation can be solved, neither in the Middle-East or in Ukraine, but one thing is for sure, bombs don’t make peace.

Image by Banksy

Equality has yet to arrive…

Posted on by
Reply

Despite what many people think, we are far from gender equality. Neither in the professional domain, or in the domestic. Women are still paid less than men. Sectors predominantly female, are less valued, and thus less paid, than male dominated sectors. Even after the Covid-pandemic, when the whole world was cheering for the nurses, little has happened to their working conditions and their pay check. Likewise when we speak about school/education. All politicians are very concerned about the level of their country’s students in international tests like the PISA, wanting to be the best, but when discussing the pay and working conditions of the teachers, it’s hard to find the money.

Our children’s education is what is going to get them jobs and income in the future, so why is it so hard to give a decent pay to the people whose responsibility it is to provide this education? Is it because it is predominantly women working in the (public) schools up to a certain level?

But it’s not just in public sector that there’s a gap between the genders in pay. It happens all over, also in the private sector and in the movie business to add a couple of examples. So no, equality at the workplace has not arrived.

The same is true when it comes to domestic life. Women still take on much more of the domestic chores and logistics, than the men, even when both parties are working full time.

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, girls are still raised different than boys, in the respect of taking care of a household. And the women are punished much harder than men if things are not “up to standard” at home, being it cleanliness, homemade food, following up on birthdays and other anniversaries (both family and friends, and children’s friends).

Women are expected to drop whatever they are doing for the needs of anyone else. Children need attention? Mum is coming. Children need help with homework? One moment, darling, I’ll come help you. Child sick and home from school? Mum is usually the ones who stays home from work. Elderly family members need assistance? Be there as fast as I can.

This constant disruption of own activities, and work, is something women just accept. Like there is no alternative. And this constant rupture also influences women’s careers and pay check in the long run. Or, if they are really focused on juggling both family and career, they are often sacrificing almost everything else, like taking care of their own health, going out with friends, or just read a book on the sofa (a book that has nothing to do with work or childcare, but simply for entertainment).

Most mums I know are up and about, taking care of their family’s needs no matter their own condition. We pop an Advil, and get on with business as usual, because we are expected to do so.

Alright, the occasional Scandinavian reader might protest a bit. But don’t you forget that you’re in the lead. Here in France, things are rather different. Even if we have free childcare from 3 years (pre-school, not kindergarten), the children don’t go to school on Wednesdays. Or they finish at 12am that day. Meaning that parents have to organise one way or another; leisure clubs, grandparents or one parent stay at home every Wednesday. And guess who that usually is? It’s mum, of course.

Who is usually running to pick up their kids from after-school activities before it closes at 6.30 pm? Mum. Meaning that she has to adjust her work to fit the logistics of the family. Usually under the pretext that the husband is earning more, so again, no equality.

In other words: Women work for less pay in the workplace, they take more of the burden at home, and they run like Forrest Gump every day to be in the right place at the right time, and at the end of the day, they are punished economically for doing less professional work than the men, and so they have less pension. If all the “invisible” chores done by women every day were to count as workhours during a week, our pension would look very different.

If parents start to educate their children at home in the same manner, regardless of gender, I hope for a better future for both women and men. Because men are absolutely capable of doing the same tasks at home as the women they live with. Just like a woman can be an astronaut, a man can be a caretaker. A woman can use a screwdriver and an electric drill, just as a man can mop a floor and change diapers. If we raise our children to be independent in more ways than the economic sense, and encourage them to use a wider range of their capabilities, including their caretaking cababilities, equality between genders will arrive at a much faster pace.

Let us get rid of the stereotypes that says that a man should be the main breadwinner of the household, and the woman the primary caretaker, and instead create a better symbiosis between the genders.

I will write about that symbiosis in the near future. In the meantime, I hope you enjoyed reading, whether you agree or not. It’s possible to leave a comment on the subject J

We need to talk about…. FGM – Female Genital Mutilation

Posted on by
Reply

We need to talk about…. FGM – Female Genital Mutilation

I know, it’s not a pleasant topic to raise, but as a matter of fact, more than 3 million girls are at risk of being subject to FGM every year. More than 200 million girls and women alive today have already undergone some form of FGM.

The practice is mostly practiced in the western, eastern and north-eastern regions of Africa, and in some countries in Asia and the Middle-East (a total of 30 countries).

Contrary to what many probably think, FGM is a cultural practice, not a religious one. No religious scrips prescribe this practice. What is a fact is that it is a way to control girls, women and their sexuality. It is grounded in deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and represents the most extreme form of discrimination of women and girls.

Depending on the type of FGM (there are 4 types), the female genitals are mutilated/damaged to various degrees for non-medical reasons, which in most cases leads to various health problems, and of course pain during sexual intercourse.

The procedure has both immediate complications and long-term complications, ranging from severe pain, excessive bleeding, problems urinating, painful menstruations (difficulty in passing menstrual blood), scar tissue and complications during childbirth. The procedure can also lead to psychological problems, like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

What is also disturbing is that some women find out that they have been subject to FGM as adults, having no recollection of it happening. The practice is usually carried out on young girls between infancy and adolescence (up to 15 years), while most are most likely carried out when the girl is between 2 and 4 years, or between 7 and 12 years old.

Most of the FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, under unhygienic conditions, with non-sterile instruments (knives, razorblades). In recent times, more health care providers are performing FGM, about 52 million per year, due to the belief that it is safer when medicalized. Despite the fact that it might reduce the risk of immediate severe infections, the procedure is still the same, and just as harmful for the girl.

Internationally the practice of FGM is recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women, a person’s right to health, security and physical integrity, as well as the right to be free from torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also violated the right to life, as the procedure in some cases end by death of the girl.

WHO has been working for a long time to support a holistic health sector response to FGM prevention and care. WHO also collects evidence to improve the understanding of FGM, to better develop means to end this harmful practice.

With more than 200 million girls and women who already have undergone FGM, and another 3 million girls at risk every year, this is a global problem.

In European countries, health care staff are trained to discover already performed FGM, and to inform parents that the practice is illegal in Europe. They risk both heavy fines and jail time if they subject their daughters to FGM. Health care personnel can also inform other juridical instances if they suspect the parents will bring their daughter(s) to their country of origin to perform FGM, so they will be prevented to leave Europe with their child(ren).

European countries also offer post-FGM support to women, like reconstructive surgery, pre-natal follow up, C-section, psychological therapy, among other things.

The international day against FGM is 6 February. Let’s hope that one day this day can rather be The international day of the death of the practice of FGM.

You can read more here (including an overview of the 4 types of FGM):

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

It’s time to move on, no?

Posted on by
Reply

Monarchy is outdated. Let’s face it. Inheriting titles and positions in Europe in 2023 seems out of pace with time.

Not that I have anything personal against the royals of Europe. I grew up in Norway, a monarchy whose members have caused very little scandal and controversy, expect the current king insisting on marrying the love of his life, despite the fact she was a “commoner”. Back in the days, that was sort of a huge thing, and he had to wait nine years for approval of his choice. Nowadays, nobody really lifts an eyebrow.

I like the Norwegian royal family, but still I find the institution of monarchy to be outdated. I find the concept of being born into a job, sort of, bizarre. And evidently many royals would rather prefer to live an anonymous life, doing something they have talent and interest for, instead of cutting ribbons and being chased by the paparazzi. I don’t blame them.

After watching “Harry and Meghan” on Netflix, I was down at the local commercial centre, and I was actually thinking about how wonderful it is to be able to walk around in peace and quiet, doing my things, without having to put on a disguise or being closely followed by bodyguards and paparazzi.

Recently, or should I say currently, there has been a bit of controversy evolving around the Norwegian Princess Martha Louise. She is engaged to a shaman, no less. An American, who had to be explained the dos and don’ts when it comes to interacting with a royal family. It’s been no secret that Princess Martha Louise has never been fully comfortable with her royal role, and she has established herself on the side-lines of the royal family. Despite the current controversy regarding her role, it’s nothing compared to what members of the British royal family has to put up with.

No other European royal family is even close to the endless chase of them, and I feel truly sorry for people who has to put up with this sort of thing.

Yes, they do live very privileged lives, but at what cost? A golden cage is still a cage. Family disputes and ruptures are still family disputes and ruptures, but the rest of us can deal with things like this way out of constant spotlight and public speculations. Like your parents’ divorce or your mother’s death at a way too young age are not enough to cope with, and then you have to put on a brave face and parade in front of thousands of people in the streets, and millions more in front of their tv-screens at her funeral. Who envies that?

I admit that I have, from early age on, read my part of articles and looked to probably thousands of photos of royals in magazines and online. As a little girl I was of course fascinated by the beautiful queens and princesses in their wonderful dresses and smart outfits. But the older I become, the sorrier I feel for them. They never asked for this attention. It just so happens that they were born into these families, who are supposed to represent a nation and unite it.

There are enough people out there who want to be in the spotlight. Movie stars, pop stars, politicians, and a bunch of others. Let them have the spotlight. They aim for it, they want it. And leave the others alone, at least give them some privacy when they are not representing their country. No matter how much we crave attention, we all need a fair bit of privacy as well.

I’m sure there are royals who would not change their position for anything in the world. They are not accustomed to a less privileged life, and less splendid surroundings. Other royals seem to have dreamed of getting out of the whole thing from the moment they realized what they were born into.

In any case, I find that time has caught up with the monarchy as institution. It’s time to abolish it, and to take on a more modern constitution.

No offence to anyone, I hold nothing against you royals personally. But inheriting a position from your ancestors seems way out of date. Even for such a jolly, grand-father-like king as Norwegian King Harald V and his heir, Crown Prince Haakon. No matter how jovial I find him, and his wife Crown Princess Mette-Marit, I think time’s up for the monarchy. I’m sure their daughter will be just as happy with a different kind of meaningful job in the future. As will several other royals who are still in their early years.

Woman, life, freedom!

Posted on by
Reply

The Iranian government is exposing themselves as more and more ridiculous, and evidently nervous about their future. Another two executions of protesters happened Saturday, only three days after Teheran protested against “insulting” cartoons published by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

So far, four people have been executed since protests erupted in September 2022, and Iran Human Rights claim that at least 476 people taking part in the protests have been killed.

By the logic of the Iranian government, publishing satirical cartoons is far more severe than their own oppression and slaughtering of their own people. Condemning people to death sentence without proper trial and lack of evidence is ok. Picturing the ayatollah in satirical cartoons is not.

The Iranian authorities has demanded action and an apology from the French government, who responded that the theocratic regime in Teheran has nothing to teach France. They have clearly not understood that the French government is never going to condemn anything written in a French newspaper, as freedom of speech is highly valued in France.

Freedom of expression is a very bad thing according to the Teheran regime, evidently, but forcing women to wear hijab because: “Covering up causes a woman to be recognised in society by her thoughts and personality, not by her body and beauty,” (…) “This is the greatest service that religions, especially Islam, have given to women, which obliges her to observe hijab so that her dignity is preserved and she is not sold or passed around like a commodity.” (Part of statement from The Supreme Court of Cultural Revolution, cited in The Guardian 9 January 2023).

According to their logic, it’s all in the interest of women’s dignity and integrity, and not observing the strict rules of dressing correctly, justifies the authorities to arrest and beat up women, which is what happened to Mahsa Amini in September, and thereby sparked the nationwide protests.

When criticized, the Iranian authorities reject the criticism by calling it “Remarks of self-styled defenders of human rights are replete with racist thoughts.” (The Guardian 9 January 2023)

This from a government that claims that western societies have destroyed the family by promoting female sexuality, and who condemns homosexuals to death penalty. A regime that tolerates no opposition and who despises freedom of speech, human rights and democracy. There’s absolutely no logic to it, except a great fear of losing their power.

I wholeheartedly support the brave Iranian people who stands up against this regime. I hope that one day in the near future, they will be able to live without fear of repression and without violent retaliation for speaking out against the authorities. That women will be allowed to dress the way they want, that homosexuals can live without fear of being thrown off a building.

Jin, jiyan, azadi!

Woman, life, freedom!

Where are the women?

Posted on by
Reply

So I had it confirmed finally, that feeling that things were not quite right in flim and tv-series. Today, I came across a column addressing the topic, and it referred to a study made by Dr. Martha M. Lauzen; It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World, Even in a Pandemic Year: Portrayals of Female Characters in the Top U.S. Films of 2021.

I mean, you have probably noted it yourself, without giving it too much thought (at least it you are a woman yourself), that most films and tv-series you watch, are dominated by male characters. As a mother of two boys, I have seen my share of Marvel films the past few years. Loads of mostly white, strong guys, fighting some villain or several. The character “Black Widow” being a rare, female character. As a matter of fact, I got so fed up with this male, macho universe, that I told my boys and my husband that they can watch these films without me. I can’t stand it anymore.

We have also been through the whole bunch of Star Wars movies, several times, and not surprisingly perhaps, my favourite is “Rouge One” where we are introduced to the female character Ray. Equally not surprising perhaps, is the fact that this is not the favourite film of the rest of the family…

It’s a fact that I have a weakness for a variety of police/agent series, like NCIS, Hawaii Five-0, and New York Major Squad, to mention some. In all of them men are overrepresented compared to women. They do have female detectives and agents, playing central parts, but still, it’s rarely more than one female per team of 4-6 agents.

And it’s this that has been bugging me for some time. Why is it like this? Why this gross imbalance on average?

The column I read today also pointed to another interesting fact. The author had noted that the films Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and Turning Red, reviewed by males, were viewed as “overwhelmingly” female (Wakanda Forever), and “for relatively small audience” (Turning Red).

Wow! Just because they can’t, for once, identify with the leading character? I don’t know if I find it tragic or comic, that these men whine over these facts. I mean, I don’t expect a man in his 40’s to really identify with a girl growing into puberty, getting her period and experiencing all the hormones raging her body. But I do expect that he can appreciate a film that focus on something else than girls going teenage, wanting to be a perfect little woman pleasing everybody. Because that is how I often see girls portrayed in movies, glossy creatures with long, shiny hair and perfect skin. Well, mister, welcome to the real world! We are quite a few out here who appreciates new ways of presenting our gender!

Being underrepresented everywhere, I think we women are used to stretch our imagination to fit into a universe that often seems to ignore us. But it shouldn’t have to be that way. Girls growing up deserves heroes of their own, whom they can identify with, that look like them. We need more females of all ages on the screen, of all colours and all sizes. (I think our boys could need a bigger variety of shapes and colours to identify with as well). We need more multi-dimensional female characters, in all kinds of films and tv-series. We need more Dana Scullys and Rebeccas (from the 2013 movie “1000 times good night”). Rebecca is a photo journalist, travelling to war zones, while her husband is the one with local based work, taking care of their kids. I found that movie so inspiring! The roles were completely turned around, and I adored it. Because that it also how it can be. We are way too much told the story of the man with a career, and the woman sacrificing herself for the wellbeing of the rest of the family. I welcome every challenge to that image.

I do have to point out at the end, that there have been some rather fun movies presenting girls in a more interesting manner. When I grew up, it was with Pippi Longstockings, a rare female superhero at the time. Pippi really challenged the ideals of how girls should behave at the time (and still do). Recently, I watched Enola Holmes on Netflix, the two films, and I find them amusing and inspiring. And I like to present my boys with something other than the stereotype heroes they are used to from the Marvel universe. Boys, like girls, need the current stereotypes to be challenged. They need to see that there are many ways to live their lives, that humans are complex beings, not divided into “soft creatures” (women) and “tough heroes/villains” (men). Women can be tough, men are allowed to show feelings and cry. I wish we could see more of that, too. Not just in sentimental dramas, but in action movies as well. Why is it always the female characters that grab the box of Kleenex, while the men punch the wall?

Most of all, I would like to see more female, complex characters. The fact is that women makes up about half the population of this planet, but when watching movies we are reduced to a small minority. It’s time to do something about that.

Happy new year!