Armchair activism

May I just ask, what is up with Australians’ distaste for all things activism?

When I first came to university, the very first piece of advice I had received from a so-called “peer-mentor” was:

1.     Getting your timetable preferences is simply a matter of sneakily arranging your preferences so that 2^nd and 3^rd preferences clashed with other classes (actually sage advice); and

2.     You should hate all the activists on campus and try to avoid them (not sage advice).

Her hot tips: you should scream things like “NO THANK YOU!” and angrily storm off, or find an alternate route to class so as to avoid things such as:

Marriage equality petitions

Socialist group flyers

Christian groups

Groups advocating lower fees/less education cuts etc.

Needless to say, I was taken aback. Wasn’t that what universities were supposed to be like? Full of young and passionate individuals trying to stand up to the man? Trying to rally up support of their cause through their fellow students? Interspersed with classes, of course...

Clearly, students of today have a much more laissez-faire attitude towards activism.

Why, just last week I was in a tutorial when another student said, in relation to Australia’s constitutional implied right to freedom of communication, that he simply didn’t care, he just didn’t want people shoving flyers down his throat when he was trying to enjoy his day.

All of this came to a head with the infamous “Kony 2012” campaign. If you have been living under a rock, and are unaware of what Kony 2012 was (or is), it was basically a 30-minute video rallying support to bring down Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony. The theory was, if they educated enough people about Kony, then the world would ‘work together to stop him’.

The video went viral. In fact, it was the fastest growing viral video of all time. Millions were ‘pledging’ their supports to bring Kony down.

The video itself began by showing the immense power the internet has to connect people and incite change, but the makers had no idea that their video would be the greatest of it’s kind so far.

Or at least, it was at first.

About 24 hours after the video went viral, the cynicism started pouring in. People were finding flaws with the Kony video and it’s creators, the Invisible Children organisation.

Not only that, people began blatantly expressing their dislike for these types of videos in general. I heard many comments along the lines of:

‘Doesn’t everyone realise that by just watching a video and sharing it on facebook, you’re not actually achieving anything?!’

‘Don’t think like you’ve done all that much just because you watched the Kony video’

‘C’mon people let’s get real, this Kony video isn’t going to do anything.’

I was shocked. Ironically, the video probably wasn’t going to achieve anything if everyone’s attitudes were like that.

So what was happening? In my opinion, it was one of two things (and probably both):

1.     People were reacting to this video as they do any other form of media (music, movies etc), once it becomes too popular, it is obviously not ‘cool’. Therefore they should try to be ‘individual’ and dislike the video. To be blunt, standing up for children’s rights isn’t really something you should think is ‘cool’ or not.

2.     People didn’t believe in facebook activism.

Facebook activism, aka armchair activism, involves sharing and discussing issues on social media platforms, such as facebook.

According to Urban Dictionary, armchair activism can be defined as:

‘One who sits in their armchair or desk chair and blogs or posts Activists issues on facebook without ever really doing anything about said issues’.

Without ‘really’ doing anything? 

Personally, I completely disagree.

Firstly, what does it mean to ‘really’ do something? In many cases, change will happen once people are educated and informed about the issues.

Take a look at battery hens and the plight of free-range farming. If nobody knew about the conditions battery hens were in, nobody would feel obliged to fork out the extra dollar for free range eggs. In many cases, one does not need to fork out extra money at all and simply go to the effort of finding a carton of eggs labelled ‘free range’.

But over the past 10 years there has been a steady increase in the number of free range eggs being purchased over cage eggs. Why has this happened? Because slowly, more and more people have been educated about the issue.

Sure, you could ‘really’ break in to a battery hen barn, and ‘really’ set free all the hens. But that would not break the chain of demand, and would probably only amount to a criminal record for you.

Of course, not all issues are ones that can be voted with a wallet, so to speak. Some issues, like marriage equality, require government intervention.

But the government (theoretically) represents us, and our opinions. Therefore, if enough people express a particular view, then eventually something should be done about it.

In any case, change starts where people are educated, and social media represents an incredible platform with which to reach people. I, for one, have had my views formed, challenged and changed, by social media.

So why so much cynicism, people?

A friend of mine has a particular grudge against ‘volunteer trips’. These trips usually involve students from countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA, travelling to countries such as Thailand, Cambodia or South Africa to volunteer. They might volunteer for 2-12 weeks helping at a conservation park, teaching at a school, or building houses.

She thinks that people who go on these trips actually contribute very little to nothing, meanwhile they clock up mileage in air travel, and come back with an air of self-righteousness.

I disagree. While I do concede that air travel is terrible for our environment, people will want to travel regardless, and in Australia, there’s not much of a choice besides going by plane.

So if your options were:

-       Going to Cambodia to get wasted on the beach and destroy the local environment; or

-       Going to Cambodia to assist teaching children English;

Which would you think is better?

Sure, helping out teaching English for 2 weeks is probably not contributing an awful lot. So perhaps the answer is neither, but what kind of ignorant country would we be if nobody ever left our shores and experienced other cultures? The benefit of volunteer holidays is not only to those being assisted, but also gives the volunteer themselves a deeper understanding of different cultures, as well as the world’s many social and environmental problems.

Personally, I believe that because people want to travel, why not allow them to make a difference to themselves and their visiting country while they’re at it. And in the mean time, let’s all be a little nicer to people who are just trying to do their best at making the world a nicer place.

TD;DR: Activists, including the armchair variety, are just trying to fit more helpfulness into their day. They should be applauded, not crucified.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Meade

the reckless philosopher 

Femen(islam)?

I recently stumbled across a website called the “WANG club” (wangclub.tumblr.com).

Yes, I know what you’re thinking.

Actually, “WANG” stands for “women against non-essential grooming”. Being a proud feminist myself, I was intrigued and beguiled by the site.

The site contains a fascinating conversation about the many “prohibitive and narrow beauty standards imposed on women”, including hair removal, make up, and dieting.

On the whole, I was impressed by this pro-equality website.

This website has opened my eyes to a silent war that has been waging between European activist group “Femen” and Muslim women around the world. 

Femen, for those who don’t know, is a pro-women movement that is probably best known for topless protests. They often protest against religious institutions and their effects, such as anti-abortion laws.

In February of this year, a young woman named Amina Tyler founded a Tunisian chapter of Femen. In March, she posted a photo of herself topless on facebook, and had scrawled across her bare chest in arabic: “my body belongs to me and is not the source of anyone’s honor”.

Although Tunisia has been regarded by many as a progressive Arab nation for women’s rights, since the Islamist party came into power in 2011, “women’s rights have deteriorated” (New York Times, April 2013).

Worried about Tyler’s act “bringing an epidemic” and being “contagious and give ideas to other women”, a Tunisian government official declared that Tyler should be stoned to death.

Hold. The. Phone.

Shit just got real.

This incident has ignited a roaring online war.

Femen activist Alexandra Schevchenko responded to the incident by saying: “We’re free, we’re naked, it’s our right, it’s our body, it’s our rules, and nobody can use religion, and some other holy things, to abuse women, to oppress them. And we’ll fight against them. And our boobs will be stronger than their stones.”

And, on the other hand, Muslim women around the world have come forward to declare that they are in fact, not oppressed. Many have taken to facebook to have their voiced heard, creating groups such as “Muslim Women Against Femen” which claims to be a group for “Muslim women who want to expose Femen for the Islamophobes/Imperialists that they are.” They say they have “had enough of Western feminists imposing their values on us.”

I’d encourage all of you to check out the facebook page, but for those who don’t have time, here are some of the things women have contributed:

“I respect Amina’s choice to use her body the way she wants – BUT Amina does not represent Muslim women around the globe – Femen stop generalising!” – A Muslim Pakinstani Woman

“You talk about Feminism? Feminism is not about walking around naked; it’s about equality and women’s rights. You do not represent feminism by sexually objectifying yourself.”

“I DO NOT need you to speak for me and I DO NOT need you to liberate me!”

"I'm promoting a universal message of modesty"

Some of these are good points, others less so. I don't really have the time or space to delve into a lengthy conversation about the rights of Muslim women in the Arab world. Like everywhere else in the world, some women are oppressed, others are not. I shall leave it at that.

What I really wanted to highlight was the fact that, although it might look like it, at the end of the day, this is not an argument about women’s rights. Both sides (almost) agree on a woman’s right to freedom, and particularly a right to dress the way she chooses.

Personally, I think that nudity IS a form of freedom, but of course it is not the only form of freedom. 

Perhaps Femen’s “white-feminist” attempts to “help” these women actually ends up aggravating the whole situation. The world is already full of hatred between these two cultures. Femen women dislike Islam, so Muslim women retaliate against Femen. In the iconic words of Tina Fey, "there's been some girl-on-girl crime here". 

Personally, I think all women have a right to dress the way they like, whether that be in burqa or in the nude.

I recently found out that Australia is one of a very small handful of countries that allow women to walk around topless. This, to be perfectly honest, was going to be the topic of this blog post. But it looks like I got pretty distracted.. I guess I’ll have to save that one for another time.

In the mean time, have a look at the whole Femen vs Islam debate. I'd love to have a bigger conversation about it. 

“Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.” – Sheng Wang

the reckless philosopher 

Why?

I find etymology endlessly fascinating. In another life I could see myself studying linguistics and language history, but for now, it is relegated to “hobby territory”.

One thing I often think about is the striking similarities between the words for “mother” in different languages. Some examples:

Meme (Albanian)

Moeder (Dutch)

Mere (French)

Mama (Chinese)

Maman (Persian)

Mat’ (Russian)

Muter (Yiddish)

It makes me wonder, do you think there could be some sort of distant parent language that still has roots in simple words today?

I doubt it. Even though that would be totally wicked. 

If it were the case, I think there would be more words that were similar, particularly common ones like “I”, “You” and “And”.

Realistically, I think that “ma” is probably just an easily-mouthed word for an infant.

Interestingly, many languages also have similar sounding words for father, often starting with “p” or “b” sounds. Perhaps this is the next most easily mouthed sound! But who knows?!

Probably lots of people. Linguists, to be specific. 

But anyway, this epic word journey got me thinking about another word. The word “why”.

In many languages, the word “why” is made up of two sub-words: “for” and “what”.

Spanish: ¿Por qué?
Italian: Per ché?
French: Pour quoi?
Portuguese: Por quê?
Catalan: Per què?
Galician: Por que?

Bulgarian: защо (за: for; що:what)

Chinese: 为什么 (为:for; 什么:what)

Greek: γιατί (για: for; τί:what)

I find this extremely interesting.

The make up of these words represents a paradigm of the human understanding of the world. I believe that asking “why” is a central part of being human, but over time our question of “why” has changed.

If you ask a child “why” something exists, they might tell you that it exists for a purpose. Why are there oranges? So that we can eat them. Why is the sun in the sky? So that it can warm us up and give us light.

As you can see, in these examples, the question “why” is asking “for what”. For what purpose does that thing exist, or for what purpose are you doing that? What outcome is that for?

This logic represents a shift in our understanding of the world around us.

If, like me, you believe that humans developed religion to explain the complicated phenomena around us, then you might agree that this primitive concept of explaining “why” is interrelated with a creator.

If god (allah, yaweh, or whatever you shall call him) created everything, including creating the “herbs” for man to eat, and the light for man to see, then it is easy to use such logic.

Why are there plants? For what? For us to eat, of course!

On the other hand, the question “why are there plants” could be phrased differently: “by what are there plants?” or in other words, “what has caused those plants to be there?” As you can see, this type of question calls for a completely different answer:

There are plants because plants have evolved over many years as a result of small mutations and natural selection.

As you can see, the question “why” can really ask for either the cause or the effect. Early humans naturally focused on the effect, and how something would affect them, today’s scientists focus on the cause.

In other languages, the term “how come”, “by what” or “from what” can be used in place of “why”:

Afrikaans: hoekom (hoe: how; kom: come)

Basque: zergatik (zer: by; gatik: what)

Turkish: neden (ne: from; den: what)

Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting we need to revolutionise our words for “why”. I am simply commenting on this interesting point.

I believe that the commonly used “for what” type of “why” represents an old fashioned paradigm, in which all things were believed to have a purpose. In such a paradigm, sweet fruits existed for our pleasure, not because those plants had evolved to produce sugary-fleshed objects as a means of further transporting their seed. Horses existed to carry us and our stuff, not because they had evolved as their own beings.

Does anybody else think about these things? Or am I the only one.. 

“Science is wonderfully equipped to answer the question ‘how?’ But it gets terribly confused when you ask the question ‘why?’" –Erwin Chargaff, biochemist.

the reckless philosopher