The Nativity Project NZ at Holy Trinity Cathedral draws attention to an environmental or social issue each year. A collaborative project by The Friends of the Cathedral and ADJust.
1 Days to Christmas
Youth in the Pacific
Published by Pasifika Rising
2018
A large proportion of the population of most Pacific Island Countries consists of young people.
Youth are constantly acknowledged as the ‘future’ and key to resolving many of the region’s issues, but still face all kinds of challenges, including tokenism from leaders, access to resources and lack of interest.
Even with these challenges, there is hope for Pasifika’s new generation.
In this video, we hear from Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner and Desmond Doulatram, Anfernee ‘Nenol’ Kaminaga and Patsy Glad of the Marshall Islands with Joe Kalo of Vanuatu.
2 Days to Christmas
A global moment
of reckoning:
When Covid-19 met Climate Change in the Pacific
Dr Jale Samuwai
April 2020
In the midst of economic shocks and border closures caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Pacific region has yet again been ravaged by a Category 5 cyclone that left a trail of destruction across four Pacific island countries in a span of 4 days.
The economic toll from Cyclone Harold and the response to the coronavirus pandemic to Pacific economies is yet to be determined, but they have for sure rolled backed significant economic gains in these countries.
The economic, social and environmental impacts of the pandemic, exacerbated by climate induced disasters such as tropical cyclone Harold will reverberate well in to the future for these countries.
Inequality- the common denominator
Inequality is perhaps the most obvious flaw of the current economic model. Both cyclones and pandemics exacerbate the persistent inequalities at different level of our societies.
Those that are bound to suffer the most from the extreme effects of these two phenomena are the poorest and the ‘have nots’ in societies.
In an economy where the world’s richest 1% of people have more than twice as much wealth as 4.6 billion of the poorest people on earth [link], the ability of the majority of the population right now to access the needed resources to holistically build their resilience and bounce back from negative global crisis is severely limited and in some cases non-existent.
Oxfam’s briefing, Dignity not Destitution, forecasts that half a billion more people are now likely to be pushed into poverty because of the pandemic absent an urgent and a ‘human’ oriented emergency global rescue package that is compassionate towards the needs of world’s poorest and vulnerable countries [link].
What we need is a global rescue package that not only focuses on protecting small businesses but one that also provides safety nets to the most vulnerable populations.
Importantly, the pandemic and climate change have once again shone a harsh light on the persistent social gendered inequalities in our communities. The plight of women and girls in all their diversity during times of crisis have again been laid bare.
While different groups are affected during time of crisis, the economic burden and hardship are disproportionately borne by women. As the global economy is currently at a standstill, women are increasingly taking on more domestic and family workloads, exposing them to greater health and social risks. This gendered inequality extends well beyond the informal care economy into the formal labour market.
The core labourers of the ‘essential’ services that are now holding the very fabric of our society together are made up of women. Women account for the majority who are the frontline of the retail, agriculture and healthcare sectors - essential sectors that for so long have been underappreciated and overburdened.
Ironically, the very people that we have so far neglected to invest in and empower are the very ones that are now working overtime, under stressful conditions and poor labour conditions.
They are the ones that we are now pinning our hopes on to carry us through these precarious times.
Building a different economy
The ongoing climate crisis and the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic reminds us about the folly of turning our backs on the values that we hold dear in our societies.
This crisis has brought to the fore the fact that what we turn to for safety, comfort and solace in hard times are our relationships, our kinship and our human connections and compassion. The demand that we look after each other will always be our fallback position.
It is critical that these values are given more prominence in the new ways of governing our affairs as we try to both contain impact of crisis and the same time map a pathway of economic recovery.
Governments need to heed the painful lessons of both the impacts of climate change and the pandemic.
They need to act urgently towards transitioning our economic model towards one that is caring, humane and just, rather than just fueling the endless pursuit of profit.
More importantly, it is also critical that we channel our investment priorities towards building and strengthening functioning social protection systems so that we are able to respond effectively to global crises like pandemic, or more localized disasters like Cyclone Harold.
Governments must reverse the past trend of shirking their responsibilities for providing essential services to their citizens, specifically in the provision of social protections, health, housing, water and other utilities, and instead selling them out to private corporations, which are driven solely by wealth creation.
In re-prioritizing national economic strategies during the post-crisis situation, consideration of gender and class-based inequalities, and human rights, must become integral components to ensure that the economy will work for all of us, instead of a privileged few.
We are now approaching a crossroad
We are now approaching a crossroad; we can either continue with the business as usual way of development, or we change: we transform the way we do things and build an economy that nurtures our people and our planet.
This is the political choice that is at stake.
For our sake, and the sake of our children, we urge our leaders to choose the later, because sticking with the status quo will only bring about more suffering and destruction to our world.
3 Days to Christmas
JUST SPEAK:
SPEAKING ABOUT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
JustSpeak is a youth-powered movement for transformational change of criminal justice towards a fair, just and flourishing Aotearoa
Another organisation to support and get involved with, especially those passionate about of Criminal Justice system is Just Speak.
JustSpeak is a movement of young people who are speaking up and speaking out on criminal justice for a thriving Aotearoa.
They develop youth-led tools, resources, spaces and support to facilitate a public conversation on criminal justice informed by evidence and lived experience.
Punitive attitudes are a barrier to positive change in criminal justice and form the context within which policies and legislations in our criminal justice sector are formed. Together young people can change this conversation and transform our justice system to be fair, just and compassionate.
Look them up to find out more: https://www.justspeak.org.nz/aboutus
4 Days to Christmas
Edmund Rice
Justice
Aotearoa
New Zealand
Profiling Edmund Rice Justice Aotearoa New Zealand, and organisation committed to working for Social Justice.
Highlighting Edmund Rice Justice Aotearoa New Zealand as a justice organisation to follow and get involved with for those wanting to get involved in social justice initiatives that the Anglican Church isn’t doing. Social Justice is a partnership across denominations and faiths and it’s important that as organisations we support others to fill the gaps we can’t reach.
Their mission statement
“Edmund Rice Justice Aotearoa New Zealand is committed to working for Social Justice.
Through our commitment to building right relationship and community
we aim to live out our Gospel Values in the inspiration of Edmund Rice’s story”
Their goals
To Provide education and resources regarding social issues that impact on Aotearoa-New Zealand and international communities.
To provide seminars that are open to the community. The purpose of these seminars is to promote greater understanding of the social issues that impact our communities and to assist the community in the identification of ways to address these issues.
To conduct all the works of the Trust in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of Edmund Rice and Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching is a specific teaching of the Church that reflect Gospel values in a modern context.
To undertake research into social issues and utilise that research to facilitate community education. This research may also be provided to other organisations and government departments that would benefit from the research undertaken by the Trust.
To facilitate projects that will work with individuals and families in the community who the Trust identify as being on the margins of society, by assisting those individuals and families in a supportive and advocacy role.
To oversee the direction and support of the Edmund Rice Justice Centre
https://www.erjustice.org.nz/
5 Days to Christmas
Women in the Pacific
Women and girls in the Pacific face some of the highest levels of violence which intimately affects all aspects of their lives.
Published by Pasifika Rising
2018
Women and girls in the Pacific face some of the highest levels of the violence which intimately affects all aspects of their lives.
To address this and to push for increased political participation, from the 1970s and 80s, women’s groups began to collectively take action.
Today, the issue of human rights, gender-based violence and decision making, are high on the agenda of Pacific leaders, but there is still much work to do.
In this video, Merilyn Tahi and Alice Kaloran of Vanuatu and Marie Maddison of the Marshall Islands.
6 Days to Christmas
Where water meets oil in the Pacific
By GAAFAR J. UHERBELAU
Published by Pasifika Rising
2018
Thanks to the reach of social media and the global resurgence of social activism, much light is being shed on many social justice issues, globally and in our Pacific region. Issues such as poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, and all other –isms being driven by hashtag movements – made more aware by the minute with each click, snap, tweet, Facebook share, and Instagram story.
All of these call for more participation, more action, more awareness, and more empathy towards what is being done to the oppressed, the poor, and the marginalized. This is all well and good, but how do we interpret and respond to this in our islands?
Our Pacific is made up of three regions, within which are thousands of people, islands, languages, and cultures that all have commonality and differences in terms of history, political status, economy, and social structures.
But one thing that is more common than not in our islands is the fact that most of our cultures have always been based on a communitarian ethos that thrives on mutual respect, reciprocity, and interdependence.
Most, if not all Pacific cultures have clear gender roles, leadership and chieftaincies, and economic systems that were (and still are) incompatible with individualism, capitalism, and democracy.
But because of colonialism and subsequent globalism, our age-old traditions, practices, governance, and social norms are being challenged, perhaps even threatened by our adaptation of western-centric notions such as individual freedom, liberty, and private ownership of land and resources.
This may seem like stating the obvious because for us it is ironically inevitable, but nevertheless, it should not be cause enough for us to discard what identity we have left intact.
In the Pacific today, our leaders are setting regional development goals and objectives which include addressing issues such as gender equality, human rights, and free trade – concepts I dare imply to have been non-issues for us in previous eras.
These concepts were inalienable, part and parcel to our systemic ideologies, which did not warrant stipulation of their distinct inclusion. In other words, we were already free and equal in our own ways, but within socio-political frameworks that called for family, community, and society’s needs to be placed before those of the individual.
Take gender equality in my native Palau for example. We are a matrilineal society, which for centuries has empowered women – not with equal responsibilities, roles and positioning that men have in society, but with those that purposefully guide and complement the men’s.
For us, women were not meant to perform what men can do, rather they were to perform what men cannot do (and vice-versa). So in our own way we have always had gender equality, which has only recently been influenced by (western-centric) feminism.
But because of this matriarchal organization, I think Palau has been more tolerant and undeterred by feminism than others in the Pacific. But what about other Pacific societies that have traditionally been patriarchal? How does feminism affect their norms and traditions? How should they “address” this issue? Will it require of them a complete paradigm shift or overhaul of their cultural norms and practices just to conform to so-called human development?
Now let’s look at human rights and individual liberty. What’s really perplexing for me is what’s happening in the US and Australia at the moment. Both are strong proponents of individualism, each introducing tougher legislative measures against illegal immigration – for the sake of safeguarding liberty. How does that work? How does one defend freedom by denying it of others?
Now, I’m not one for open borders or free migration to and around the Pacific (because it’ll be colonized and exploited all over again), nor do I dispute some human rights, like the right to life and liberty.
But my point is that individualism, when taken to the extreme, begets greed and ignorance, which essentially becomes a root cause of many social issues, creating such deep divides among society that it hinders cohesion and actual human development.
So where does human/individual rights fit in our collective and communitarian cultures? Does this mean that anyone in the village can now become its chief, not by inheritance or merit, but simply because they have an individual right to it if they so choose?
What about free trade in the Pacific? Let’s take a closer look at these two words: free and trade. Is there no better pairing of contradicting terms than this? What type of transaction exists that does not involve the exchange of some form of value? What part of such trading is essentially free?
The highly praised PACER Plus agreement claims many benefits for its signatories. But I recently had the opportunity to query an official involved with its implementation, asking if the scheme contained strategies that would improve shipping lines between the north and south Pacific states. She replied that it did not.
So, this begs the question of how a remote, northern island state such as Palau could see any benefit from an agreement that does not even address its biggest challenges including expensive and vastly indirect shipping routes? How do trade agreements such as this go about at safeguarding the wider Pacific’s economic and market interests against domineering forces such as China?
So as we can see, it is clear that with our inescapable adoption of democracy, capitalism, and other neo-colonialist ideals, we have also inherited the intrinsic complexities and challenges that accompany these notions. And along with the pre-existing challenges they already pose in western societies, as Pacific islanders, we are troubled with yet another dimension of complexity to this, which is the incompatibility of our cultures and traditions with these concepts.
Like oil and water in a bottle, our cultures are forced to co-exist with these ideals within a socio-political framework that does not afford their complete separation.
And all we can do is endeavour to find ways in which both ideologies could progress, parallel with each other through time. So the challenge for us, I think, is to try and maintain our cultural values, principles, and identities as much as we can; while we continuously seek ideal equilibrium in our odyssey from past, to present, to future.
7 Days to Christmas
The 35 Easiest Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
State of the Planet shared 35 ways to reduce their carbon footprint as part of their sustainable living series
Written by Renee Cho, December 2018
Food
Eat low on the food chain
This means eating mostly fruits, veggies, grains, and beans. Livestock—meat and dairy—is responsible for 14.5 percent of manmade global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from feed production and processing and the methane (25 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over 100 years) that beef and sheep belch out. Every day that you forgo meat and dairy, you can reduce your carbon footprint by 8 pounds—that’s 2,920 pounds a year. You can start by joining Meatless Mondays.
Choose organic and local foods in season
Transporting food from far away, whether by truck, ship, rail or plane, uses fossil fuels for fuel and for cooling to keep foods in transit from spoiling.
Buy foodstuffs in bulk
When possible using your own reusable container.
Reduce your food waste
Plan meals ahead of time, freezing the excess and reusing leftovers.
Compost
Clothing
Don’t buy fast fashion
Trendy, cheap items that go out of style quickly get dumped in landfills where they produce methane as they decompose. In addition, most fast fashion comes from China and Bangladesh, so shipping requires the use of fossil fuels. Instead, buy quality clothing that will last.
Buy vintage or recycled clothing
Wash your clothes in cold water
The enzymes in cold water detergent are designed to clean better in cold water. Doing two loads of laundry weekly in cold water instead of hot or warm water can save up to 500 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
Shopping
Buy less stuff
Buy used or recycled items whenever possible.
Bring your own reusable bag when you shop
Try to avoid items with excess packaging
Opt for a laptop instead of a desktop
Laptops require less energy to charge and operate than desktops.
Look for Energy Star products
If shopping for appliances, lighting, office equipment, or electronics, look for Energy Star products, which are certified to be more energy efficient.
Support and buy from companies that are environmentally responsible and sustainable.
Home
Do an energy audit of your home
This will show how you use or waste energy and help identify ways to be more energy efficient.
Change from incandescent light bulbs
LEDs cost more, but they use a quarter of the energy and last up to 25 times longer. They are also preferable to compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) bulbs, which emit 80 percent of their energy as heat and contain mercury.
Switch lights off
Switch lights off when you leave the room and unplug your electronic devices when they are not in use.
Turn your water heater down
Install a low-flow showerhead and take shorter showers
Dress appropriately and use heating and air conditioning less
Get your electricity from clean energy or a certified renewable energy provider.
Transportation
Drive less
Walk, take public transportation, carpool, rideshare or bike to your destination when possible. This not only reduces CO2 emissions, it also lessens traffic congestion and the idling of engines that accompanies it.
Avoid unnecessary braking and acceleration when driving
Some studies found that aggressive driving can result in 40 percent more fuel consumption than consistent, calm driving.
Take care of your car
Keeping your tires properly inflated can increase your fuel efficiency by three percent, and ensuring that your car is properly maintained can increase it by four percent. Remove any extra weight from the car.
When doing errands, try to combine them to reduce your driving
Use traffic apps to help avoid getting stuck in traffic jams
On longer trips, turn on the cruise control, which can save gas
Use less air conditioning while you drive, even when the weather is hot
Consider purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle
But do factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the car as well as its operation. Some electric vehicles are initially responsible for more emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles because of manufacturing impacts; but they make up for it after three years.
Air travel
If you fly for work or pleasure, air travel is probably responsible for the largest part of your carbon footprint. Avoid flying if possible; on shorter trips, driving may emit fewer greenhouse gases.
Fly nonstop
Landings and takeoffs use more fuel and produce more emissions.
Fly economy class
Business class is responsible for almost three times as many emissions as economy because in economy, the flight’s carbon emissions are shared among more passengers; first class can result in nine times more carbon emissions than economy.
If you can’t avoid flying, offset the carbon emissions of your travel
Get politically active
Become politically active and let your representatives know you want them to take action to phase out fossil fuels use and decarbonize the country as fast as possible.
8 Days to Christmas
Social work and the practice of social
justice: An initial overview
Written by Michael O’Brien
Published by Aotearoa New Zealand
Social Work, 2009
Abstract
Social justice is a key element in social work. A sample of 192 ANZASW members recently completed a questionnaire describing their approach to social justice and the links between social justice and their practice. This overview article provides an initial summary of their thinking about and approach to social justice in that practice and reflects the various ways in which that practice is shaped by and reflects dimensions of social justice.
9 Days to Christmas
Climate and social justice
UNESCO share an interview by Shiraz Sidhva of Indian climate activist Thiagarajan Jayaraman, discussing the intersection of climate, social justice and politics.
Does the current push towards green technologies overshadow the need to focus on equality and social justice in the fight against climate change?
This is definitely an issue that needs to be explored. I think there is a general recognition that you could hardly fight what is the most prominent environmental threat to humanity while you ignore issues of equality and social justice. The natural tendency is to argue that fighting climate change must go hand in hand with social justice. Unfortunately, the term social justice gets diluted in the usual international agency-speak in which this subject is sometimes being dealt with, and then you lose a specific understanding of what social justice means – it means very different things to different people.
For me, at least one reading of social justice is having a regime or social economic order that leads to the enhancement, the extension and the development of human capabilities.
Obviously, one cannot speak of saving humanity while talking about tolerating injustices in the social and economic world. But in practice what happens is that there is a tendency in a section of the polity − especially among those who are environmentalists − to argue that the one is so important, that the other has to be put on the back burner. For instance, you shut down factories that are polluting before you worry about what is going to happen to those who are employed there. That kind of issue is where the question of equity and justice becomes really sharp.
So how do you avoid these pitfalls of social inequity while undertaking the development of green infrastructure?
This is not just an issue about the development of green infrastructure, but in all varieties of climate action, and there is no easy solution to it. To pretend otherwise is to fool ourselves. For instance, people talk of adaptation, of vulnerability or dealing with the needs of the vulnerable in a certain way as part of adaptation. This is the same jargon, slightly displaced, that comes from earlier talk about poverty eradication, like sustainable livelihoods. It’s not as if such talk does much to push poverty eradication along. There is no easy route to ensuring social equity as part of climate action. Like all other developmental agendas, the fight for an equitable and just world is an ongoing fight, and it will continue. The important thing is to be very clear that climate is no exception.
There is a tendency, which has become prominent recently, since the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report(link is external) on Global Warming of 1.5 ℃, wherein it is sought to be argued that a 1.5 ℃ world is naturally equitable. I think this is completely bogus − it’s not as if you can completely conflate social justice, equity and development with keeping the world average temperature increase at 1.5 ℃. This amounts to saying that all problems of injustice are environmental in origin, which is obviously an absurd statement.
Politicians who are aware of the threat of climate change and its scope have been trying to get businesses to back green industries, saying they will create millions of new jobs and fresh opportunities for growth. Is social justice a part of this equation?
So far, there has been a tendency to mollycoddle businesses and hope that they will do right by climate change and social justice. But this is a strategy doomed to failure.
Developed countries have reached a stalemate on this in climate talks. They go back and forth on carbon taxes, on carbon trading, but why can’t they mandate certain targets to be reached by certain industries? There have to be tighter regulations. Otherwise they should be made to pay the penalty, and that hardly seems to be on the agenda. To believe that somehow you can sweet-talk businesses into acting morally, or scare them into taking the right steps, seems to me a little absurd. I don’t think it’s a very useful point of view either – economics doesn’t work like that. Companies like Shell and ExxonMobil make polite noises about investing in green technologies, and then continue their business as usual.
I think that you need a two-pronged strategy on technology for the world: in developed countries, push very hard to convert rapidly to green technologies, which is not happening fast enough. For instance, many developed countries are still thinking of substituting gas for coal − both are fossil fuels − instead of going for renewables.
The other leg of the strategy is that developing countries must leapfrog in moderate amounts. This has to be done in a sensible way. They cannot be expected to leapfrog from centuries-old biomass burning to state-of-the-art solar power. To move an economy from one level of energy use and efficiency to a completely different level is not simply a matter of saying, ‘If you try hard enough, it can be done’. It’s more complicated than that.
Are the developed countries willing to help out to achieve this leapfrogging of developing countries to help fight climate change?
The effort is very patchy. Where developed countries sense opportunities, they are keen to bring their technologies to developing countries, as in electric vehicles. The other problem is that they want all-or-nothing solutions, which will not work. For instance, they want India not to invest in coal. My point is, when developed countries are unable to implement the coal-to-renewables transition, and in effect doing only coal-to-gas, why are they asking developing countries to do this?
Why are developed countries so slow in reforming the transport sector? Why is there not a push for electric mobility in developed countries, comparable to the push that is happening in countries like India and China? China has entire cities, like Shenzhen, which are run on electric transport. There’s nothing of the kind in the West. Forget electric mobility – even the most stringent norms on emissions have been deferred for a few more years in the European Union. Transport is a sector where developed countries have been getting away with doing very little.
In a wide variety of other sectors, the urgency which emerges in the talks of climate scientists is not reflected in policy and real climate action. Even in the official documents of the developed countries themselves, they are clear they will be hard-put to meet their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) targets at the rate at which they are moving today. There is hardly any real furore over this in climate policy circles.
If climate change escalates, the consequences and indirect consequences − an increase in migration, for example − will also affect the wealthy countries. Do you think self-interest – like mitigating migration − can motivate wealthy countries to support social justice?
There are two kinds of self-interest: one is the self-interest in a stable global order, and the other is self-interest in one’s own country. But when it comes to the US, unfortunately there is not even self-interest with regard to the conditions of life in the US itself. A recent study has suggested that the higher rate of warming in the higher latitudes will create a lot of extra storm activity and this especially refers to Canada, the US, the EU and Russia. These are the countries − except perhaps for the EU, which is not in the same league − that hardly discuss their own countries as the sites of the most demanding adaptation requirements, when in fact they should be doing so. Australia is now a huge burden of adaptation − all those forest fires contribute a lot to climate change.
This idea that adaptation is a problem of the third world – and not of their own (developed) countries – which has gained ground in some of the policy discourse, is, I think, unfortunate. In fact, if you compare sea-level rise at 1.5 ℃ to that at 2 ℃ – in terms of the number of people affected by it, North America has the highest absolute numbers of people who will be affected, even more than the island states. The idea that self-interest should make them worry about the environmental conditions of human life in the developed world itself, is not quite there. It has come home, to some extent I believe, in Europe, though it doesn’t seem to affect all their behaviour. But I think in many other places, this realization has not really sunk in.
There is this new wave of thinking which attributes all migration and conflicts to climate or environmental conditions. Some of it seems to be an effort to awaken the self-interest of developed countries, but from the global security perspective. But war or armed conflicts – which have a lot to do with migration – are very much problems of social and political conditions and are not simply climate-driven. For instance, the North African migration to Europe has a great deal to do with the huge destabilization and overthrow of regimes that provided some basic welfare, so obviously people are fleeing in the tens of thousands. The conflation of this with the impact of climate change is quite unwarranted.
A peaceful and secure world is a precondition for dealing effectively with climate change. But that does not mean peace and security will arise because you take effective climate action.
10 Days to Christmas
9 Biggest Social Justice Issues of 2020
In March 2020, Yeshiva University posted what they saw as the 9 biggest social justice issues of the year. Going into 2021 we are challenged to respond more proactively and compassionately to these same issues.
https://online.yu.edu/wurzweiler/blog/2020-biggest-social-justice-issues
11 Days to Christmas
Green Eco Tips for Sustainable Living
Green tips to help you live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle
Global Stewards
http://www.globalstewards.org/ecotips.htm
12 Days to Christmas
Say No to
“Boys Will Be Boys”
How can we disrupt toxic masculinity in our boys as they come of age? Let’s start by eliminating some phrases from our homes and classrooms.
Colleen Clemens, 2017
“Boys Will Be Boys”
I am on the playground with my young daughter. A boy, a stranger, knocks her over, leaving my child crying in the sand. The mother tells me, “Boys will be boys” and neglects to ask her son to apologize to my child.
We have all heard it: on the playground, in a teacher conference, in the faculty room. In my 20 years as a teacher, I have heard “boys will be boys” more times than I can count, most often during discussions of a boy’s behavior. But when we unpack this comment, we see that it perpetuates negative ideas about what we expect from our boys, particularly when it comes to aggression.
First, the phrase implies that boys are biologically wired to be violent, rough and tumble—and that they should be excused from any consequences for that behavior. When our culture buys into the idea that the “male sex” (not gender) is hardwired for violence, we can excuse behaviors that hurt others physically and emotionally.
Despite what ‘90s self-help books may say, when discussing sex (not gender), men are not from Mars, and women aren’t from Venus. Neuroscientist Lise Eliot has done extensive work to show that the brains of girls and boys are not all that different. Such biological essentialism argues that “boys will be boys” because their biology naturally leans toward violence and aggression. When such a belief is upheld in a classroom, it contributes to a toxic foundation to boys’ senses of self.
Second, this phrase—and the other two I address below—replicates the idea that there is only one way to be a boy. If we shift the discussion from sex (the biological elements) to gender (the psychic elements), we find the freedom to disrupt this one-size-fits-all way to be a boy.
Understanding how people identify allows us to define gender differently. If we think about gender as distinct from sex, as the way someone feels as opposed to something that is biological, we can no longer excuse negative behaviors in or out of the classroom with the line, “Boys will be boys.” As The Good Men Project reminds us, toxic masculinity is “a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression.” Let’s give boys more credit by deleting “boys will be boys” from our conversations.
“He Does That Because He Likes You”
I am on the playground with my young daughter. A boy, a stranger, knocks her over, leaving my child crying in the sand. The mother tells me, “Boys will be boys” and neglects to ask her son to apologize to my child.
We have all heard it: on the playground, in a teacher conference, in the faculty room. In my 20 years as a teacher, I have heard “boys will be boys” more times than I can count, most often during discussions of a boy’s behavior. But when we unpack this comment, we see that it perpetuates negative ideas about what we expect from our boys, particularly when it comes to aggression.
First, the phrase implies that boys are biologically wired to be violent, rough and tumble—and that they should be excused from any consequences for that behavior. When our culture buys into the idea that the “male sex” (not gender) is hardwired for violence, we can excuse behaviors that hurt others physically and emotionally.
Despite what ‘90s self-help books may say, when discussing sex (not gender), men are not from Mars, and women aren’t from Venus. Neuroscientist Lise Eliot has done extensive work to show that the brains of girls and boys are not all that different. Such biological essentialism argues that “boys will be boys” because their biology naturally leans toward violence and aggression. When such a belief is upheld in a classroom, it contributes to a toxic foundation to boys’ senses of self.
Second, this phrase—and the other two I address below—replicates the idea that there is only one way to be a boy. If we shift the discussion from sex (the biological elements) to gender (the psychic elements), we find the freedom to disrupt this one-size-fits-all way to be a boy.
Understanding how people identify allows us to define gender differently. If we think about gender as distinct from sex, as the way someone feels as opposed to something that is biological, we can no longer excuse negative behaviors in or out of the classroom with the line, “Boys will be boys.” As The Good Men Project reminds us, toxic masculinity is “a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression.” Let’s give boys more credit by deleting “boys will be boys” from our conversations.
“He Does That Because He Likes You”
I am in junior high school. A boy snaps my bra in the hallway. When I inform the teacher, she tells me he did it because “he likes me,” and he doesn’t know any other way to tell me.
Toxic masculinity relies on notions that boys are incapable of expressing themselves through means other than violence. When we dismiss boys’ aggression as evidence of affection, as with “boys will be boys,” we sell all children short. To girls, the message is, “That violent act to which you did not consent means that he feels love for you.” And the message to boys is, “When you feel an emotion, you should express it through violence.”
This kind of thinking implies that it’s strange for boys to having feelings of love that are disconnected from feelings of violence. In a time when our country is coming to terms with the pervasiveness of sexual assault and sexual harassment, parents and educators must think carefully about what we tell our children.
When we tell our boys it’s normal to show that they like someone by hurting them, we don’t just excuse toxic masculinity—we encourage it. We are effectively not teaching our children what safe and consensual relationships look like at the moments when they are just starting to come of age sexually.
“Locker Room Talk”
I am an adult on a talk show discussing politics and sexual assault. A man tells me that grabbing women by their genitalia is “locker room talk.” I tell him that I have more faith in men than he must have.
For many secondary students, school is where they find themselves in a locker room for the first time. Because they are separated by sex and/or gender, locker rooms are often regarded as spaces where people can “let loose” and “be themselves.” For students, locker rooms can become places to study what it means to be one’s sex. (I wish I could say “gender,” but locker and bathroom laws still need to be legislated fairly in many states).
Because, as a woman, I am prohibited from the space of a men’s locker room, it becomes mysterious, something men can define. I can’t know what men say in men’s locker rooms. But I can know that when the phrase “locker room talk” is deployed to excuse aggressive sexual acts that do not involve consent, we as a culture are using a more advanced version of “boys will be boys.”
I respect the boys and men in my life too much to have such low expectations for them. Their biology does not demand that they become assaulters. And their biology does not necessitate that they speak about women in vulgar ways. Our constructed beliefs about masculinity teach them that, in order to “man up,” they must perform their masculinity in aggressive ways—or have their masculinity questioned.
The boys in our homes and classrooms deserve better, and we, as the adults in their lives, must work to dismantle the cultural messages and societal structures that promote toxic masculinity. We have a lot of work ahead, but we can begin one phrase at a time.
Clemens is an associate professor of non-Western literature and director of Women’s and Gender Studies at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania.
13 Days to Christmas
7 Reasons Why ‘Colorblindness’ Contributes to Racism Instead of Solves It
February 23, 2015 / Jon Greenberg
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/colorblindness-adds-to-racism/
14 Days to Christmas
How social media
is changing
the way we see conflict
Sharing images through social media has armed a new generation of citizen witnesses to challenge our perception and awareness of human rights crimes.
Traditional media have long held the monopoly over the way war and catastrophe is visually represented. Until recently, what we saw was essentially the preserve of a handful of brave photographers who dipped in and out of warzones, and the iconic image selected by editors most likely to capture the viewer’s attention (and therefore sell more newspapers.)
Today, things look very different: 350 million photographs are uploaded to Facebook every day, 27,800 photographs are shared on Instagram every minute, and 20% of all pictures in the history of the photograph were taken in the last two years. It is safe to say we are living in an electronic age dominated by visual, rather than written, communication.
Granted, much of this means banal snapshots of everyday life. But increasingly, ordinary citizens are using imagery–via their social media accounts–to document and raise awareness of conflicts, atrocities, and the suffering of distant others–and in turn, changing the way we visualise conflict. Smartphone technology has enabled so called ‘citizen camera witnesses’ to use their mobile phones to “produce incontrovertible public testimony to unjust and disastrous developments, in a critical bid to mobilise global solidarity through the affective power of the visual.” And social media has enabled the billion-plus social network users to take on their own editorial role: to ‘share’ witness by sharing, tweeting, and re-posting images that have caught their attention, and interact with these images in new and innovative ways.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been particularly susceptible to this phenomenon. In Gaza, western interests, an engaged global audience, and the active use of photos by Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces to push their respective causes collide to produce a fertile visual ecology of the war.
In August 2014, when violence erupted yet again, more than ever before an all-out online image war broke out. The weapons of this war were the images of dead children like Shamia, a newborn who survived her mother’s death, only to die 4 days later when Israel is said to have cut electricity supplies to Gaza. They were the images of Israeli civilians gathering on hillsides to watch and cheer on the air strikes like a spectator sport, decked out with chairs and beers and snacks for the event. And they were the images of the ‘victory album’ distributed to Israeli soldiers, containing before and after scenes of Gaza City’s ravaged Shujaiyeh neighbourhood (subsequently leaked to the public).
The soldiers of this war were millions of social media users who saw these pictures, sharing them with their friends and followers, and weighing in with their opinions to create a parallel battlefield that gained a life of its own parallel to the more sanitised version of events that tend to be presented by traditional media. It was a war that gained traction when celebrities jumped on board, such as Antony Bourdain, who tweeted a picture of a dead child on a Gazan beach, which was subsequently re-tweeted over 15,000 times.
Whilst Israel might have won against Hamas’s rocket arsenal, if the battle was to visually promote the plight of the Free Palestine movement, it feels like the international army of socially networked citizens has won. As Professor Karma Nabulsi recently said:
On this bloody international battlefield over truth…where with images, eyewitness reports and videos sent direct from the killing fields of Gaza, anyone in the world with a phone, a laptop or even just a neighbourhood cafe with a television can experience the hourly atrocities that a high-tech occupying army is capable of imposing…Israel has lost.
But in the aftermath of this flurry of internet activity, one can’t but help wonder, what do these 21st century cyber victories actually mean?
The notion of bearing witness–usually by photographs–has long been regarded as integral to the representation of violence, conflict and humanitarian disaster. Arguably, documentary imagery of suffering bodies is instrumental not only in revealing truths, but in supporting reform movements shaping our perception of poverty and underpinning the work of NGOs. Such usage of imagery tends to be premised on the assumption that knowledge is power; that if people only knew what humans were capable of doing to each other, they would intervene. The exposure that images get on social networks must therefore offer enormous new opportunities to galvanise the international community’s support to right some wrongs.
Conversely, however, there is persuasive evidence suggesting that the relationship between knowledge and action is not so simple. South African sociologist Stanley Cohen’s seminal studies of the psychological and political mechanisms used to avoid uncomfortable realities found that mediated awareness of the suffering of others engenders not much more than ‘denial’ or desensitisation–whether by blocking out, turning a blind eye, shutting off, not wanting to know, or seeing what we want to see. These sorts of responses make us file our knowledge away, and allow initial awareness (and even distress) concerning an issue to go no further.
Granted, this research was conducted before the advent of social media and camera phone technology. In fact, the emotional response to images people are exposed to online is a largely unstudied field–which is strange given the increasing prevalence of sharing witness.
In the wake of Israel’s military incursion into Gaza in November 2012 when another–albeit smaller– image war took place on social media, I started investigating how people reacted to imagery they were exposed to via social media, as opposed to TV or broadsheet coverage.
Survey data, and analysis of social media comments to a number of images that went viral, and interviews with eminent members of the photojournalism community, led to preliminary findings that, although denial and desensitisation are continuing features of our reaction to distant suffering, people do engage with images of humanitarian issues and conflict differently from seeing images in a broadsheet or on TV.
For example, it was found that social network users will often pay more attention to images on social media than images they might otherwise see on traditional media (“I take notice if an image is sent through via friends and family,”; “I definitely pay more attention to what is on social media than what is on the news,”), triggering awareness of new and different perspectives and further action–even if something as simple as reconsideration, or reading up further on an issue (“they often raise my awareness or draw attention to issues I haven’t previously considered,” “I…hope to raise awareness of protecting human rights and promoting peace through sharing.”)
Furthermore, it appeared that images seen on social media felt more real to viewers (“the images brought it closer and the vary ordinariness of some of the images made it more real”; “they seem to have more honesty about them which means they become less like media wallpaper and somehow more real”), which makes them feel closer to and empathise with distant sufferers (“images help to understand better the scale and seriousness of the issues, make me feel related to the people experiencing it.”) A not insignificant 35% of survey respondents went so far to report that the visualisation of conflict on social media made them feel like they were personally experiencing the conflict. The act of sharing witness was thus found to be a potential source of power not to be underestimated by international organisations and human rights groups alike.
Skip to 2014, however, and despite an unprecedented visualisation of the Gaza conflict online, the social media landscape has changed again. For this year marked the introduction of complex algorithm changes by Facebook and an increasing trend of organisations removing posts unhelpful to their cause–both of which alter social media’s organic reach. As Wired Magazine recently reported, “in 2014 the News Feed is a highly-curated presentation, delivered to you by a complicated formula based on the actions you take on the site, and across the web”, which has the unfortunate implication that “we set up our political and social filter bubbles and they reinforce themselves—the things we read and watch have become hyper-niche and cater to our specific interests.”
At this juncture only time, and further research, will therefore tell if and how the visualisation and personalisation of conflict might at last force the international community to have some sort of a cosmopolitan moment in times of crisis. But at the end of the day, #FreePalestine’s recent social media victory has not led to an ICC investigation into the war crimes it allegedly uncovered. Right now, it feels like it hasn’t led to very much at all.
15 Days to Christmas
Podcasts for
Peacebuilders
20 podcasts to help you find creative ways to build peace and justice in the world
Taylor O’Connor
16 Days to Christmas
How sport for
development and
peace can
transform the
lives of youth
“Thousands of young athletes have been competing at the 2020 Youth Winter Olympic Games in Lausanne, Switzerland, this month. But there are actually millions more young people participating in sports, and not just to bring home medals — but to bring peace.”
17 Days to Christmas
The 10 Steps of Strategic Peacebuilding
Create your strategy to build a more peaceful and just world
written by Taylor O’Connor
Step 1: Identify one problem you wish to change (be specific!)
The first thing you need to do is get laser-focused on the issue you would like to solve. Don’t think about it generally. Don’t go on a tangent thinking about all the many associated issues. Choose one issue you want to change. Now, you want to identify what you consider to be the root cause of that issue. There are likely to be many causes, but choose one.
At this point, it may be helpful to consult others with insider knowledge, invite others to the process, or do a little research on your own. Perhaps there are some articles or reports that analyze the problem in detail. This can be helpful. If you’re working in a group (small or large), you can make this a brain-storming session. Discuss the main causes and effects of the issue at hand.
Then you must choose the one cause of the issue that jumps out to you as the most pressing. This is the issue you want to solve, to address, to change in some way. The more specific you can be, the better. Now write it out. Write it out as clearly and succinctly as you possibly can. Go for one or two sentences.
Step 2: Determine the scope of change you wish to make
Now consider who is affected by this problem. How are they affected? Does it affect one community more than another? How does it affect women? How does it affect men? What about persons in the LGBTQ+ community? How does it affect young children? What about adolescents and youth, or the elderly? How does it affect different ethnic or religious groups, or social classes?
When you consider these questions above, were you implicitly thinking about people in your own community? People in your city? In your state? General region? Nation? Is it a trans-national issue (i.e., crossing borders), or were you perhaps even thinking on a global scale?
Recognizing this will help you to identify the scope of the problem. Are you going to work at a national level, state level, community level, etc.? There is no right or better answer. All levels are connected. And sometimes focusing on your community can make ripples that affect wider change, and vice versa. But you will focus your energy on one level. So choose one and clarify its parameters.
Go for 2–3 sentences this time. Identify the scope of the change you wish to make. By this, I mean which level will be your primary focus. Also, describe which group (or groups) of persons are harmed most by the problem, and how are they harmed. This is sort of like your rationale for choosing this scope. And it will help keep you focused on who you’re trying to help in the first place.
Step 3: Create a vision
Now you will develop a vision of what the situation will look like when the identified problem has been resolved. This is like an imagined future.
Now I know what you’re thinking. I hear it all the time. And I’m gonna let you know right now, we’ll have none of this. People always say things like “yes, I’d like to see xyz happen, but …” or “sure, we’d like for xyz to happen, but that’s just not possible because blah blah blah.” So please, stop that right now. I don’t want to hear any of it.
This is the vision step. We’re not thinking about how we will make this change or about the challenges we’ll face in the process. This all comes later. What we are doing now is we’re dreaming of a better, more peaceful, and just world where this problem you speak of no longer exists. Poof! It’s gone, done, finished! You’ve solved the problem! Congratulations! Now describe to me what it looks like. Think in five to ten years, what would you like to see? What is the best-case scenario, the best possible outcome? Use your imagination.
Again, write it down. Go for 2–3 sentences this time. And don’t forget to consider how it will affect the group (or groups) of people you have identified are harmed the most by this problem. How will their lives be different in this imagined future?
Step 4: Map structural changes (and new structures) needed to achieve your vision
Here we are taking a step back to identify concrete outcomes that will contribute to achieving our vision. Any lasting change needs two things. These go hand in hand. The first is structural change, and the second is cultural change. In this step, we’ll focus on the first.
Structural changes are things like changes in institutions, policies, practices, or any sort of structure.
You’ll need to identify specifically what structures, policies, etc. need to change. When doing this, remember to think within the scope you defined in the last step. For example, if you’re at the national level you may seek to change in national-level legislation, or change of policies or practices within specific government institutions, corporations, or large organizations. And if you’re looking at more localized change, you may be addressing state laws or perhaps policies or practices within local institutions like, for example, your city police department or your university.
Now again, write these out, specifically: what existing structures, institutions, policies, or practices would need to change to contribute to achieving the vision?
When considering the structural element, also consider what new structures, policies, or platforms could be created that would contribute to the vision. These aren’t something you will create directly or immediately, but something that could develop over time with broad participation.
A few sentences on this will do as well, specifically: what new structures, policies, or platforms could be created that don’t currently exist (that would contribute towards achieving the vision)?
To ensure approaches taken here are appropriate and also strategic, in this step (and the following two), you must have an understanding of the concepts of structural and cultural violence. I recommend that you read my blog post, A Typology of Violence. Even if you are familiar with these concepts, this blog post can be a useful tool for you to generate strategic ideas. For this section, scroll to the section on structural violence.
Step 5: Consider behavioral and cultural shifts that will help realize your vision
Moving on. Here we are talking about changes in behaviors and associated cultural shifts needed to achieve your vision. Cultural change at this level might apply to a specific element of culture like the culture of silence about gender-based violence, or ethnic nationalism, or common perceptions that support war, for example, either amongst the general population or amongst a sub-culture or specific group of people.
Again, consider the scope of change you seek to make. You may consider changes like addressing discriminatory practices within your religious community or in the culture of your organization, or perhaps harmful behaviors common amongst certain members of the community, like local businesses, teachers, parents, etc.
A few sentences on this will do as well, specifically: What cultural changes are needed? What common behaviors need to change? Or relationships amongst people? Amongst which groups?
Again, read through my post on A Typology of Violence to not only ensure what you put down here is appropriate, but that it is also strategic. There you will find many details that will help you generate ideas. You can scroll down to the section on cultural violence.
Step 6: Name key persons or groups that can influence change
There is a useful tool developed for this by an organization called CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA). It is called the ‘Key People; More People’ approach. They have quite detailed resources, all publicly available; however, the general idea here is that you’re going to figure out if your strategy for change involves ‘key people,’ ‘more people,’ or both.
Here is a general overview of what I’m talking about here. This will help you determine your approach. Consider who can influence the structural and cultural changes you identified in the previous step; thus, these are the people you need to engage with. They may be friend or foe. If they are friends or allies, you can support them. If they are not friendly or if they are contributing to the problem, then you have other strategies to adopt. For now, just focus on who can influence change, regardless of who is friend or foe.
Key People: These are certain people, or groups of people, who have a particular influence on the structures you wish to change or the elements of culture you wish to influence. These may be political, religious, or community leaders. They may be business leaders, respected persons, or cultural icons. They may be warlords or gang leaders, policymakers or lawmakers, journalists or media personalities, young people at risk of being involved in violence, military leaders, educators, advocacy groups, civil society leaders, youth organizations, women’s organizations, or anything of the sort.
More People: This can be the general population or a particular segment of the population. The idea is that, to make any particular structural or cultural change, large segments of the population need to be involved in pushing for said change. For example, a ‘more people’ approach may be focused on engaging young people, farmers, parents, teachers (i.e., all/more teachers)an entire religious community, college students, or something of the sort. Increasing numbers of people more generally from a specific segment of the population then have a greater influence on the change you seek to make. Thus, if ‘more people’ are involved, the change you seek to make will happen.
So figure out if you will be taking a ‘key people’ approach, a ‘more people’ approach, or both. Then identify who specifically you intend to engage with for each purpose (i.e., changing a specific structure/policy, influencing a specific cultural belief, etc.). If it is ‘key people,’ you can be specific about which type of people you are talking about. If it is ‘more people,’ you can describe the sub-segment of the population you will focus on. Describe in 2–3 sentences.
Step 7: Describe learning or personal changes needed for influencers
So now think about each of the ‘key people’ and/or ‘more people’ categories you have mapped out. Hopefully, there shouldn’t be too many of them. If you have quite a lot, try to focus on three for now. And depending on the complexity of your efforts moving forward, you can expand to more later.
For each of these, you will now identify key changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, perceptions, motivation, or awareness, or more likely, a combination of a few of these. Think specifically about each group you have identified, then consider what they need to be able to make the next level of change you’ve identified. They may have high motivation, for example, but lack particular knowledge and skills. They may be in a particularly influential place and have a high degree of skills, for example, but their attitudes, perceptions, and awareness of something specific may be off. So a change in these will contribute to them taking the action that will influence higher-level change.
Once you map the learning and/or changes needed amongst identified influencers, we talk about more concrete actions and activities that will influence these changes. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and start thinking about what training we’ll do or what advocacy effort we’ll plan. Map out the learning/change first!
Say you have three particular categories of specific ‘key people’ and/or ‘more people.’ For each of these, you can list some of the personal learning and/or changes needed. 1–3 sentences on each will do.
Step 8: Deliberate on tactics
Here is where you map the actions you will take and activities you will conduct to produce the desired learning or changes amongst identified influencers. The possibilities here are endless, and you have likely put together an extensive collection of actions and activities you could potentially engage in.
You may have some ideas already, but try to be creative. Come up with some new ideas. It may help to take a look at my post on 198 Actions for Peace to generate creative ideas. I recommend making a long list of strategies, then narrowing the list down to those activities that you strake a good balance between the most feasible and the highest impact.
Also, don’t consider how you will carry out these activities. Just map the activities you think will have the greatest impact, then figure out how to do it later. If you have a solid strategy, it is often not difficult to find others to support you to carry out whatever you can’t do yourself.
Map it out and write it down. A list will do.
18 Days to Christmas
Towards the abolition of imprisonment: Dismantling jails
http://criticalresistance.org/
