Why Did We Pay Her?


By Martyna Burylo and Stina Wigroth, UWCM
December 14th, 2017


[aesop_content color=”#000000″ background=”#ffffff” component_width=”600px” columns=”1″ position=”none” imgrepeat=”no-repeat” disable_bgshading=”off” floaterposition=”left” floaterdirection=”up” revealfx=”off” overlay_revealfx=”off”]Only when a man entered the stage, the boys listened. This shows how gender issues are ever present, and that there is a demand for conversation regarding feminism. Just not Brie’s talk.
a
Perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Victim blaming. Sexualization of women. These were some of the elements bought for 4000 euros, the price for which we brought Brie Mathers here.
a
One may argue how the age group was just not chosen wisely and how for the younger years the speech was of great value, as they have never had such a one before. For many young girls this was their first introduction to such ever present issues. However, just because it was the first perspective they had ever heard does not make it the best they could get. There were underlying messages behind the joyfully sparkled words of Brie, which were not caught by the younger years, but which the DPs were painfully aware of.
a
Brie wished to convey to all girls that they are perfect as they are. Yet, what young girls brought out of the talk, is that the choices they make might hold them accountable for causing discrepancy in the classroom. She did so by referring to outdated statistics and by treating correlation as causation.
a
Such victim blaming was also seen in how she introduced sexting. First of all such a sensitive video was shown without any background knowledge or understanding of what sexting is. This should have deemed necessary when the youngest participants of the audience were MYP1s, and discussion afterwards showed their discomfort. Second of all, the message conveyed with the segment was “Think before you send”, rather than the obvious “Think before you spread”  This is not woman empowerment. This is not women taking control of their own sexuality. This is conveying a message to young girls that they should always be aware of how they dress, what they send, who they send it to, so that they will not be sexualized. Putting their own sexuality into the hands of others.
a
Tuesday, Lodewijk raised interesting points upon the nature of disagreements. He spoke about how one should listen openly and so forth make judgements. We, the writers, attended both the session for boys and girls. We listened, inquired and came to a conclusion, that may sound rather harsh but is unapologetic. Many thousands of euros were spent on a presentation which did not attempt to solve problems pertaining to gender. It sparked discussion yes, but a discussion which Tom Oden was seen capable of leading and it might have been significantly less harmful as a first impression for many young girls.
a
Hopefully, the next time the leadership team wants to spark discussion upon the issue at hand and not the person invited, they may wish to consult the student body (unless it is that they want another whitewashed, US-centered and Tumblr-feminist perspective).
a
So, why did we pay her again?

[/aesop_content]

433 views